Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-21-2000 Planning Packet
Public Attendance Meeting D ate .lih c'o □C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission □Other_________ 8 INFORMATION |Ito<Pest^our oty records I-’ . (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER •pg->iv;S pi^ . T-\--------------------------- ------------------—— :L T?> t /«■>) <' • /?•■') Si hi/t iL 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. _ WRM ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 21,2000—6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parkway-Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Charles Kelley AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advboiy body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the September 11, 2000, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or betw een scheduled public hearings. 1.#2571 Doug Ault and Jim Ginther, 2^39 Shadpvood Road, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 2. #2593 Ace Properties, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:15 p.m. 3.#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, Proposed Seven Lot Planned Residential Development. (Staff; Paul Weinberger). 8:00 p.m. 4.#2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 WildhurstTrail,ProposedFiveLotSubdivisionwith Development of Garden Lane as a Public Road. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.#2603 James Renckens, 3020 Watertown Road, Conditional Use Permit and Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottcnberg). 6.#2604 James Anderst, 3380 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Site Plan Review. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 7. 8. #2605 #2606 Johii Doleman, 1680 Shadywood Road, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Richard Bloomquist, 3333 Shoreline Drive, Variances and Commercial Site Plan Approval, (Staff: Paul Weinberger). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS N 9. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings July 24,2000 and August 14 2000. 10. Other issues for discussion. 11. Pljuuiing Commission approval of minutes for June 19,2000 and July 17,2000. 12. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on August 28,2000 and September 11,2000. ADJOURNMENT i ^ 1 / TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 17,2000 RE:^2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Ault 2739 Shady wood Road Variance 0-75' Hardcover-Public Hearing Zoning:LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District List of Exhibits: A B C D £ Hardship Statement Letter, City of Orono (8/9/00) Propert>' Survey Hardcover Calculations Staff Report (4/13/00) Application Background: Ginther and Ault had submitted a Conditional Use Permit and variance application to request continued use of a property as a ‘dock lot’ that has been in use for the mooring of two boats, and an after the fact variance to permit expansion of a parking area constimting additional hardcover within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. On August 11 th the City of Orono received a letter from Mr. Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. applicant representative, withdrawing the request for the conditional use permit for a dock use on a lot without a principal residence. They do wish to proceed with the request for the variance for the parking area. The request before the Planning Commission is an after-the-fact variance for the addition of 4' of yravel to the narking area located off Shadvw-ood Road. The applicant ’s hardship statement is attached as Exhibit A. The City of Orono posted the area along Shadywood Road as a “No Parking ’’ area in 1999. As a result the property owners expanded the gravel parking area to accommodate parking for two vehicles on the lot. The dock lots were created as part of Registered Land Surv'ey No. 415 (2/371955) in common with residential properties located within the plat. It was assumed at the time of the plat lots within the neighborhood would have access to dock lots for storing of a boat. Since none of the dock lots were ever legally combined with the residential lots nearby they eventually were sold off separately and are held in private ownership. Several owners of dock lots applied to the City of Orono in 1985 for a conditional use permit to allow legal use of the lots without a principal structure. The Municipal Code has not permitted accessory structures (including docks) to be constructed on lots without a principal building as early as 1968. 1^2571 Jim Guuhir enj Doug Alt 2739ShaJy^fOodRocJ Afttr the Fact Fane:ret August 21. 2000 pagt-l < The City of Orono has received several letters and comments from concerned property owners in the neighborhood questioning the legality of the second dock slip on the property. Staff has no strong evidence to suggest one of the slips had been added after the adoption of the ordinance requiring a principal structure to have a dock as a accessory structure. Although no CUP has been issued by the City of Orono, it is the position of the City the property has been “grandfathered” as a legal non- conforming use for dock use. City* Staff believes that it would be difficult to require these docks, or one dock, to be removed based on there long existence. The City of Orono has no strong evidence that the use of the second dock is illegal. History of Dock Lots The 1985 conditional use permits were apparently only required for dock lots whose owners did not reside in the immediate neighborhood, approved the use of the lots as dock lots for Tracts S/T, R/Q, 0/P and E. Since that time the Hoffman/Messer Tract U has been sold to non-residents Ginther/Ault and they had initially agreed to apply for a conditional use permit. The Orono Zoning Code does not have the provision of a conditional use for dock lots. The CUP was accepted by the non-resident owners in 1985 as a practical way of placing some limits on the dock lot usage. Review of Hardcover The existing hardcover on the property is 792 s.f. The driveway has been determined to be 28' X 17'. Other hardcover located on this property is a small amount of retaining wall and landscaping which encroaches from an adjacent property. The parking area is located immediately next to a fire hydrant. Should the Planning Commission approve the request, it may be appropriate to require the parking area to be moved to allow some separation to the fire hydrant. It has been suggested that a 10' separation would be adequate. Issues for Planning Commission Discussion 1. It is unclear how long Tract U has been used for the mooring of two boats. This makes it difficult to determine if there has been an expansion of the use based on the number of boats using the lot. Previous CUPs for adjacent dock lots only permitted one boat and one parking space per dock lot. Because this lot currently has two boats and two boat slips the applicants have requested an after the fact variance to permit a parking area to accommodate two vehicles. 2.Recently the City of Orono has prohibited parking on Shady wood which has been very controversial. Is there a created need for internal parking for this specific dock lot? Does the parking area have to be gravel? » 3.Is a variance to allow an increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ zone for the parking area justified since on street parking has been eliminated? ^2571 Jim Cinthtr and Doug Alt 2739 Shadyivood Road After the Fact Vanance August 21. 2000 pagt-2 f ---- rt|i The recent flurry of neighborhood concerns regarding the dock lots has raised many issues related to this application. These issues can be summarized as follows: (From 4/13/00 memo) 1.General neighborhood resident concerns about parking on Co. Rd. 19, overnight stays on boats, lighting, security alarms, and a general expansion of a non-conforming situation with the concurrent perception of increased activity. 2.Non-resident dock lot owners concerns about parking needs and the need to provide amenities such as lighting and security alarms to make the dock lots usable. 3.Resident dock lot owners negative response to City’s suggestion that they permanently tie the dock lots to their neighborhood homestead properties. 4.Lack of clarity as to existence and impact of existing easements and covenants dating back to the 1950’s that may impose limits on use or require maintenance of access. Staff expects area residents will be in attendance to voice their specific concerns a out this application. Also see attached letter from neighbors. Mike Gaffron has written a letter to state the City’s position on several of the issues raised by concerned neighbors. It is attached as Exhibit B. Comments from the adjacent property owners and there attorney are attache_dfoUowing the gxhibif? noted on page 1 of this report. Note, most of the comments were received earlier thi$ V^ar and_aie in reference to the conditional use request that has been withdrawn.. Options for Planning Commission Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Table for additional information Recommend approval with condition Recommend denial, stating reasons Other action ti257t Jim Ginther and Doug Alt 2739 Shady\¥Ood Road A/tir the Fact Variance August 2L 2000 pag*-3 ■J FROM FAEGRE it BENSON (TUE) 8.15’00 15:59/ST. 15:59/NO. 4862053749 P 2 A Date: To: August 15,2000 Orono Planning Commission From:Jim Ointher and Doug Ault Subject:.Gravel Parking Variances Shadywood Road (P.I.D. 21 117 23 24 0028) Enclosed: Copy of survey dated 4/26/00 showing gravel parking area off of County Road 19 On March 15,2000 we applied for a variance of an expansion of the gravel parking area that has existed on ttie property for many years. We expanded the parking area sufficient for one car to one sufficient for two cars. The current expansion area (approximately 18 ’ by 27 ’) is two car widths and represents .065% of the total land area of the lot. A two car width parking area is required so as not to have one car blocking the exit of the first if parked end to end and to avoid the need to paric on County Road 19. Hardships 1. j Two boat slips have been maintained for, to the best of our knowledge, approximately 20 years. A hardship exists if both owners caimot park on the lot 2. Since 1999 parking restriction on County Highway 19 have been strictly enforced. Prior to 1999 parking was permitted on Highway 19. A hardship exists if the lot is to be used for its intended purpose without adequate parking on the lot 3. Maintaining the lawn areas adjacent to the parking areas ^thout iqipropriate hard surface parking in a fashion consistent with the quality of the neighborhood creates a hardship. Hard surface parking areas prevent erosion of soil and eventual run off into the lake 4. The lot has been ownedjointly as tenants in common, to the best of our knowledge, for over 30 years. Each owner is entitled to a parking ^ce with appropriate ingress and egress. Not having such a space creates a hardship. MlsiS3347.0t I' f Vi ‘ t s GlTYofORONO Municipal Oflices Street Mdress: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Addreu: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0C5S August 9,2000 Jim Zimmerman 2745 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Narrows Dock Lot Issues Dear Mr. Zimmerman: We are in receipt of your July 20 memo. The City ’s position on the various issues surrounding the Narrows dock lots is as follows: 1.Re: Ownership/rental status of the boat "Chop Chop". It is our understanding that the boat "Chop Chop", docked at Wittman ’s lot, was formerly owned solely by Wittman, but is currently owned by Wittman and Bates jointly. Bates claims that he is the principal ov,ner of the boat and that Wittman ’s share in the ownership is minimal. Our previous discussion with a representative of Bates resulted in a proposal to re-title "Chop Chop" solely in Wittman ’s name to eliminate any question that Wittman is an owner of this boat. If such a re-titling did occur, the City would have no basis to consider this as a rental slip situation. The fact that the primary user of the boat is a co-owner not on the title, or is any person not on the title, is a non-issue from the City ’s perspective, because the code docs not prohibit a person from allowing others to use his boat (this would not be the case in the situation 'vhere a pure rental or charter craft was being operated as a business in a residential zone). The code sections that apply to slip rental read as follows: 5.43 (Marina Business License): Subd. 1 A: (Definition^: "Business Use" means engaging in either a marina business or the business of docking, mooring or storing boats. Subd. 1C fPefinitionV "Business of Docking, Mooring or Storing Boats" means renting or otherwise providing space, including boat buoys, for docking, mooring or storing one or more boats belonging to persons other th^ the owner or occupant of the property, except when licensed as a joint use. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 WMrw.cI.orono.mn.us ] l 3 ‘-•ji rJ ■ Y ■ ■ m 'i > p^' V :e- Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 2 2. Subd.2: License P. equirsd. It is unlawful f any p-.:sons \ mgage or participate in business use without first having obtained un annual licens-. therefor from the City. Subd. 6: Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 . one. >* - bn,ir,c5' use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2, except when a basin . <s is allowed by ordinance in another zoning district, such use conau 'ted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. Per the above, a business use requires a license and a business use license may only be issued for a site in the B-2 zone, hence business use is not allowed in any residential zones. However, the BatesAVittman situation seems to be ever-changing. We were advised last Thursday by a representative of Bates that Bates has no intent to re-titling the boat to Wittman. Bates claims to have been leasing the land (and its attached dock space) from Wittman for a few years. Bates ’ representative claims he has a right to use the dock space because he is renting the land which includes the dock .space, and is technically the ‘occupant ’ of the property. The code allows a boat to be docked when it is owned by the occupant of the property. The City Attorney has reviewed the term ‘occupancy ’ in this context and has concluded that ‘occupancy ’ likely does not require actual living on the property, but merely requires an occupant to have the leased rights to use the land. City staff will be following this up by attempting to obtain a copy of the lease. We are advised by Bates ’ representative that "Chop Chop" will be moved to a different site next year, hence the immediate issue may be resolved in a few months. City staff will be considering possible code revisions prior to the 2001 boating season to close this apparent loophole. Please be aware that until last week the City Attorney has had no direct involvement in this specific matter. We know of no action by the City Attorney to force the removal of "Chop Chop" in 21 days, in 5 days, or in any number of days. Staff has had a number of ongoing discussions with Bates ’ and Wittman ’s representatives over the last month, and the issuance of deadlines for action is a fluid process as information is gained.'" Ginther/Ault Docks. A. Potential CUP Withdrawal Ginther and Ault have not yet withdrawn their CUP application. We are not convinced that they will withdraw it. They have the right to withdraw it if they so • • Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Pages choose. If they withdraw it, the City will have to decide what actions to take. The decision on what action the City might take is affected by a number of factors, including: • The CUP application w.is not forced upon Ginther and Ault. They chose to apply for a CUP at the request of City staff, based on the same method of regulation that the City ch^se to pursue in 1985 for Narrows docks that were owned by persons who did not live in the immediate area. As you know, the Ginther/Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident as of 1985, hence no CUP was required at that time for this site. • In 1985 the City apparently concluded that the narrows docks were legally non-conforming by virtue of being in place and generally continually in use since prior to 1-1-68 when the "no accessory use without a principal use" code was first adopted. The City therefore chose not to pursue removal of the docks. . The City apparently concluded that those docks owned by persons in the immediate neighborhood could be considered as accessory to the nearby principal residence, which met the intent of the ordinance (security, primarily) if not the letter of the ordinance. • The City in 1985 chose to further regulate the docks owned by persons who did not own a principal residence in the immediate neighborhood. Absent clear direction in the code, the City chose the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as an effective way of establishing suitable controls on the non resident docks. The CUP established minimal standards for parking and dock length, but not much more. The CUP apparently was voluntarily accepted by the non-resident owiuers of dock lots as a reasonable method to establish their continued rights to use the docks. • Because the Ginther and Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident in 1985, it was not subject to a CUP. If Ginther and Ault choose not to accept the CUP method of establishing their rights, the City has limited recourse via the CUP process, because the zoning code technically does not require a CUP for a dock. . City staff agrees that expansion from one slip to ri\'o slips is an expansion of a non-conforming use. However, removing the second Ault/Ginther dock slip based on it being added after 1 -1 -68 is not necessarily as simple as providing an airphoto showing only one dock at some given date in 1971. ■Tim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 4 The findings made by the City Council in the 1985 CUP’s support continued use of the existing docks subject to a small number of conditions. At this time the City does not intend to pursue removal of the docks from anv of the dock lots . City staff believes that it will be virtually impossible to legislate these docks out of existence, given their long history of continued use. The issue of whether the second dock on Ginther and Ault’s lot is legally nonconforming is extremely murky in our opinion. The factthat the City has allowed this property to exist unhindered with two slips for nearly 30 years makes it difficult for the City to make the case that tliis use shouldn’t be allowed to continue as it has in the past. Had the second dock appeared very recently, the City would be in a much better position to pursue its removal. It is my understanding that the Mayor has had numerous discussions with you and with various dock lot owners in an attempt to gain for you and your neighbors a first right of refusal’ for purchase of the non-resident dock lots as they come up for sale. City staff fully supports the concept that dock lots should be owned by property owners in the immediate neighborhood. City staff will support your efforts to establish covenants which will disallow the separate sale of dock lots from the neighborhood principal residence property to which they are accessory. Such a covenant would provide you with more neighborhood control of the situation than currently exists. B. General expansion of use at the docks: 1.We do not consider the flagpole as an intensification or extension of the nonconforming use or a violation of any past CUP conditions, and we will take no action regarding the flagpole. 2.We do not consider the provision of electricity at t^e docks as an extension or intensification of a nonconforming use, even though electricity allows the docks to have certain amenities which may be offensive to the neighborhood such as lighting, etc. J.We do not consider the addition of canopies over the individual docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. 4.We do not consider overnight occupancy of boats stored at the docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. The City has not adopted any ordinances prohibiting overnight occupancy of boats. i______ . • Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 5 D. 5.Based on staff measurements this year, none of the docks subject to an existing CUP have been extended past the lengths allowed by the CUP. Docking of boats that are longer than the docks is not specifically regulated in the City code nor in the existing CUP’s. C. Issues City Will Address. 1.We believe that the City can address lighting issues through the Zoning Code. The City can require the shielding of the source of lighting (the bulbs) so that it is not visible from adjoining properties. This is normally enforced by the Zoning Department. You or the neighborhood will have to advise us of any specific lighting issues before we will take action. Generally, City staff supports the idea of security lighting for these docks as a deterrent to theft and vandalism, which can spill over into the neighborhood. 2.Noise issues with the use of security alarms, loud music, etc. can be dealt w ith via the noise ordinance which is enforced by the Police Department. False alarms would be dealt with in the normal manner by the Police Department. City staff supports the use of securit>* systems and alarms as a deterrent to crime. 3.Theissue of the driveway hardcover within 75' of the lake is a zoning matter which the Zoning Department is pursuing. While the placement of gravel does not require a building permit, the location in which it was placed is not legal given that it is considered as hardcover when used as a parking area. The City has asked Ginther and Ault to remove the hardcover parking area. Their response is that they will request a variance for the parking area hardcover because the City has eliminated their street parking. 4.The Police Department has advised that parking on private property is only required to be 3' from a fire hydrant; the normal 10’ parking separation is not enforceable on private property. Other Issues. 1.I am advised by the LMCD that there may be issues with certain Narrows dock? in relation to the dock use areas defined by extended lot lines. This is a separate matter that would have to be addressed through the LMCD. mfr Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 6 2.The City intends no additional action in relation to the dock lot parking along County Road 19. The parking ban remains in effect. I hope that this letter provides you with a clear picture of the City’s position on this matter. Please contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have any questions. Senior Planning Coordinator cc:Richard Gay Dick Ogle Ron Moorse Greg G mpa / Paul Weinberger-' Gary Cheswick Thomas Barrett City Council • I FROM FAEGREi BENSONhf rvfuc ruu.. A HiOfUHT MN UGHTrOfT OUAADFOST ucmcicDi ‘=fc! (TUE) 6.15'00 16:00/ST. 15;59/NO. 4862058749 P SURVEY rat JIM -QINTHER iU6IL DESCXtPUM tpnd Survey N g. 41^ Pin ofRogMrar of TlUnii Hwiofln Coun^ Mrainoio. mvncAimi I Korny ontify W« mop ««i priporid by mo or ormr my dboct tuptrMileii end S3-a ~ "»------• ^ WWM•( Morrti. I MlRwIm« thte 29th Ay •! ^ 2000 H/WDCOVER flRAvCL ofine « 4U la rr. DOCKS ON LAND - S9 Sa FT. ooNCRnc «MJL « 11 sa rr. TOTAL HAmOOVOI ■ STS $a FT. TOTAL land ARCA •> 7229 ta FT. TOTM.PfllCfNT or MARoeoto - • x U Ue«M Ita. 302S1 NOTEk 1. Vm ortantoUM of thlo booHhp mlim It bond on tho nortboott Qno of Tfo«t U bhfcH li ooMiod to bon o booing of tooth It dogrboi 01 ifibuilii U oocontt Coot im Ibo ofio of tho propifty ihevn horocn lo 10.SM oguoro fool or 0i2442 ocroo. & No ttfo ooA woo teTMiod for tio popporotlon of thlo oumy to ovffy ffio logoi toiortptofi Of tit oidottnoo of tny idoomonl or onoumbrowcoo. 3c 4 tlHP-15-IOOtD 03:53 EGrtI, FIELD C lO-W 6125433337 P.02 02 if if' HARDCOVER CAECUL.\TION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 F.YiSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________X Length D. Gaiise ^ Driveway D. Sidewalk £. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Oihcf X X X X X X X X X X X X 7S-250' Width n '/■ 250-500'500-1000 ’ 2= rr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AFJCA IN ZONE 70o B /d X 100 = 320 S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. .S.F. S.F. 7^6 S.F. /C.-^SO S.F. 7. Vf _ A 1) 0 * r»pr)yf>fiF.ii iTAnnfrovr.n in ronf. A. House ___________ X Length •B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewallc E. Patle/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By PiMilc C. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X Width TOTAL HARDCOYEa IN ^ONU TOTAL PROPCaTY AREA IN ZONE A __ _ _ B _ _ *• rr 3 X 100 S.F. SJ. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^SJ. SJ. S.F. S.F. A B •i TOThL P.02 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 13,2000 #2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Ault 2739 Shadywood Road Condition^ Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance Zoning: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Application: Conditional Use Permit and variance to permit a ‘dock lot’ for two dock slips within Tract U, and an after the fact variance to permit expansion of a parking area constituting additional hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G Application Existing Survey Dock Lot Ownership Plat Map Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 Resolution No. 1847 Approving Dock lot for Tract E (Sample) Letter from Zimmerman, Gay and Ogle History of Dock Lots: The dock lots are shown on a plat map attached as Exhibit C. They were created as part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 (2/3/1955) in common with residential properties located within the subdivision. It v.'as assumed at the time the subdivision occurred each lot within the subdivision would have a dock lot for storing of a boat. Since none of the dock lots were ever legally combined with the residential lots nearby they eventually were sold off separately ^d are held in private ownership. Several owners of dock lots applied to the City of Orono in 1985 for a conditional use permit to allow legal use of the lots without a principal structure. The Municipal Code has not permitted accessory structures (including docks) to be constructed on lots without a principal building as early as 1968. #2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Alt 2739 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance March 20, 2000 pagt-l 1 The 1985 conditional use permits were apparently only required for dock lots whose owners did not reside in the immediate neighborhood, approved the use of the lots as dock lots for Tracts S/T, R/Q, 0/P and E. Since that time the Hoffman/Messer Tract U has been sold to non-residents Ginther/Ault and they have agreed to apply for a conditional use permit. The Orono Zoning Code does not have the provision of a conditional use for dock lots. The CUP was accepted by the non-resident owners in 1985 as a way of placing some limits on the dock lot usage. Issues for Planning Commission Discussion 1.Does the pre-existing use of the dock lots prior to 1968 and presumably continuous since then given new property owTiers perceived “grandfathered ” rights, and therefore the same conditional use permit rights given to other dock lot owners in 1985? 2.Some lots have had electricity and lighting added since the CUPs were approved. This lot has also. Would the addition of electricitv/lightine. etc, constitute the expansion of a non- conforming use? 3.It is unclear how long Tract U has been used for the mooring of two boats. This makes it difficult to determine if there has been an expansion of the use based on the number of boats using the lot. Previous CUPs for adjacent dock lots only permitted one boat and one parking space per dock lot. Because this lot currently has two boats and “^vo boat slips the applicants have requested an after the fact variance to permit a parking area to accommodate two vehicles and the CUP to reflect the lot is to be used for storage of two boats. 4. 5. Can the property, based on the size, be put to any other reasonable use. The existing docks are approximately 65' long. If approved now at this length, any extension of the docks would require an amendment to the CUP. 6.Recently the City of Orono has prohibited parking on Shadywood which has been very controversial. Is there a created need for internal parking for this specific dock lot? Does the parking area have to be gravel? If you approve of a conditional use permit and variance for the this application recognizing the riparian use of these tracts as a legal non-conforming use and approving the necessary variances to allow an accessory structure without a principal structure and setback variances - consider whether the following findings are appropriate: 1. The use of this lot as proposed will not create a hazard to the public, health, safety or welfare. The present use as a riparian dock lot had been established on this property prior to official municipal zoning and controls. ^2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Alt 2739 Shadywood Road Condition^ Use Permit and Variance ARer the Fact Variance March 20, 2000 pagf-2 1 3.The property as subdivided in the mid 50s wthout under apparently minimal local controls, is a unique situation requiring use but for limited dock use. 4. The property because of its physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited dock use. 5.A variance to allow an increase in hardcover in the 0-75‘ zone for parking area is justified since on street parking has been eliminated, (or should on street parking be allowed for this lot?) The recent flurry of neighborhood concerns regarding the dock lots has raised many issues related to this application. These issues can be summarized as follows: 1.General neighborhood resident concerns about parking on Co. Rd. 19, overnight stays on boats, lighting, security alarms, and a general expansion of a non-conforming situation with the concurrent perception of increased activity. 2.Non-resident dock lot owners concerns about parking needs and the need to provide amenities such as lighting and security alarms to make the dock lots usable. 3.Resident dock lot owners negative response to City’s suggestion that they permanently tie the dock lots to their neighborhood homestead properties. 4. Lack of clarity as to existence and impact of Existing casements and covenants dating back to the 1950's that may impose limits on use or require maintenance of access. Staff expects area residents will be in attendance to voice their specific concerns about this application. Also see attached letter from neighbors. Options for Planning Commission Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Table for additional information Recommend approval with condition Recommend denial, stating reasons Other action 12571 Jim Gimher and Doug Alt 2739 Shadywood Road Condiuonal Use Pennit and Variance After the Fact Variance March 20.2000 post-3 Application # Date Recehed zllffloo Amount Paid ^ T,SO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION 7 3 1 Site Address /^O (/ ng Type of Application to be Filed C (7/Vj>t//g P/=iZ/n/Y Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) //7 J APPLICANT“ »-•—•-‘J- Nam e -X4>'^/gJ O JaHHA O' tuPhone (homelCO^^ Phone (work) f Address.?/.?/ rSi4'^/w Cim^ City JrXCAr/^yT/ IP< Zip OWNER (if different tha^ppl ica^^^^^ (home) (^>5^-^^72^ Address t/ O' Cl**'5w c>rc^City >>i? g Date Property Acquired I (do) (So n^) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Zip __(month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERNHTS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application tx*^ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use ___$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ___$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ___$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore C;-.. i* * V r.:.‘ .•.! PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee ./ X / * y c»-: OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule f'.T) siv*; •.ii- ■'{ : ECiMt I. F 1 EL D i r :P.OX .I’i. LEQEND; •CA)CH BASIN 0 pn^ff POLC o HYDRANT SON V UCIIT POST •GUARD POSY ■CLCCTRlC MmR &CALC 'EET suFvir KOW. JIM QiNTHgR ixoAL ocarmo-noM; '1? Tr«ot U. ^cg)»lcr«<j Land Stirv«y No. Alb. Fic» ®fPa^lMirnr w? Tlu««, Hannepln County. M'-)n»«eto. CCOTIFICATION; L-y?®' «*rt.»y thol tnia mop woa propo^a^ by ma or un.i. my Sl®U V^f Sii..T>rr unoar tnt lo«a ©f Ihi22n<i doy Ftbruory; ^OOO •avtaa© tn:a ath ooy of March. ?OCO direct ouo«rvlsJori and tbj8.^lo!e of Minnacoto. H-^,ROCO*.C?» DRl\^«vAr « A72 sduera LANDSr.APC m 320 CdWOfO ft At TOTai. m 790 tquQrt ftt* F’ftypcftrf — ir..A5o •••t tui.%l PCftccNT • ...I NC^iaS? *fJfnn»r*ioXQ Uet^co No. 20201 2. T>9 ofAo of l^a P^ootrty ohoivn fior*t«o is 10.950 oquere ftat or 0 24^2 ocrtq. 3. No Ut:t worn woo fomltbAd fo# Ui« prApqrot'0») o* thb auivivy to wqrtfy tn« Icqqt or tPiq oxiaten&o of nny tottmooi or cncumbron«.ar«. EQAN FIELD A NOWAK SURVEYORS INC 741.*: a-.v^VA*to • M:NWt4POua W.SSTSOTA TUI; (i12> 94f 983? TOTA.- =.0- pil3 (61) (L\) (ifl) 0^^ I I S (^ , o , /M I K. . V j i l^lTfTA/^ • 0v^9^ ! «A»rV • __ T»«’ce>irno»^ I * fT*f Ttt*r \A . t(u^'<'i ^ ^*r 2la\^ S»f^Yyi>oot> .0 '? V / ---------------------------/ / f/-' 68^ SuM-wi/J t»A j Cou/.i^e/^ rr^/W^T^ 5^^^2.^ \• /if/^66L . Tmv- 0< p wiTTfv^Art s:s^?)I • Tilwl n4M 0uSoK>rlf\W5WV^^^tf-^»*«=Vi^^ Ch\lppevi/A 10:t\\ , • flW ^ toOK OaVI'l (AO u).iiit.n»i5 M, lOAVSfcrA . Ulter t> / \ il / V / / 09»>ocpi 5KCTC// 75 / & S’w.lO' .1 • ; ■ ill iiiB ■laMiTtii I I §10.03 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open ^pace, required yard, setback or sanitarv* or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any pro\isio^ of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common oNmership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source: Citv' Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet ail required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new' principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on fUiV lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessorv*. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building e.xceed 30 feet in height. Source: Ordinance 72,2nd Scries Adopted: 8-14-89 ORONO CC 254 (4-1-84) V U / t City of OROIVO • • •*V . i > • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __________ -6Tv^ji\'0 •' A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE 1.03, SUBDi^y: FILE #946 J WHEREAS, David C. Cook (hereinafter "the applicant") is an owner of one of the properties located at 2739 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally des cribed as Tracts E, Registered Land Survey No. 411 (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 A through J to permit the continued use of the property as a legal non—conforming use and, specifically, per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) seeks a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 4 (A) to allow an accessory structure (dock) on a property that is unable to sustain a principal structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #946. 2. The property is located in the LR—IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. On August 19, 1985 the Orono Planning Commission re viewed this application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: - A) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J): "Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and generally look with favor on granting of a variance • • • The substandard tracts were created prior tc^ formal municipal zoning and controls in February of 1955. B) The Orono Council minutes of 1958 and a newspaper article published in the Minnetonka Harold in that same year confirm that the City was aware of the existence and use of accessory docks by non-adjacent owners. Page 1 of 4 / \ •' • • . 1\ ■• »i■-••■ V/!‘‘ v*‘V-^ j V > f)!; ■« • j. —•>^>r-rsr/r> « u------*- m %m% W S City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUiyCIL ^ C) The property# as subdivided in the mid 50's without the benefit of local controls, is a unique situation requiring special consideration. D) The limited use of these tracts as proposed by the City will not create hazards to the public safety. E) The property, because of physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited dock use. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow continued use of the property as a riparian lot with an accessory dock not to be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will 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 conditional use perit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit the continued use of an accessory dock on a property that cannot sustain a principal structure hereby establish a legal non-conforming use of the property, subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicant is limited tc the mooring of one boat at zero lot line dock. 2. Applicant is advised to arrange for appropriate off- (treet parking for the parking of one car. 3. The existing dock at Tract E measures 50 feet in length and 3 feet in width. The applicant must file a conditional use permit with the City if an increase in the length of the dock is considered at some future date. Page 2 of 4 • y 7 'City of OROIVO Vapc'* • '^z . I I p*.'.-. or ■-■• - . • ; j • • • • r • • • . A • • mm mJ • ^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ' * C-S5^ C' • • • J% ft ir NO.1847 V 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and here by agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Sep' Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of imber, 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk Marry 'C. Butler, Mayor Tom Frahm, Acting Mayor (1) Property Owner Page 3 of 4 I 1 r ,* »• * i % . ** * J • f ‘ • r • * . * • C=in:,,v City of OROIVO ^ c. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ')i-: t ., ^ ' ••NO. 1847 ^ ,r^ >» . • -•« ^ STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of ^S>CTO6eyC.1985 before me a Notary Public w^hin and for said county, personally appeared _ _ _!T>Ax>>»tb .CH-, C^oicl_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. SijJppiX-/: NOTARY PUBLIC ,• ) 0.»J^ ^ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 1985, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. v NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 Prepared For: Sheryl Sc Larry ^alm Denotes found iron rnommirnt vo^/V #• Total Hatdeayor Total Aroa Pmcmt of Coymrago 978 SO. rr. 70U? HQ. n. 48M 8-21-1 To:Chair Hawn & Orono Commission Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner From;Bradley & Lori Bakke (Neighbor sharing the East Lot Line at 3345 Crystal Bay Road) Subject:#2593 Ace Properties 3349 Crystal Bay Road Variances —Public Hearing Back in 9-28-94 The City Orono approved the attached variance to add a new deck & railing on top of the garage at 3349 Crystal Bay Road. (Resolution # 3472, file #1961.) The Orono Planning Commission recommended approval based upon; 3. C. Deck & rails doea not c fwffltilwinfl PrvBf ilffi: la'.-.a new view encroac lUiliil :for If you allow variance applicants to build up above the area above the deck or even to do the same with new construction, you would not be sticking to one Of the conditions the Planning Commission required in order to recommend approval for Resolution # 3472. If you can ’t get what you want the first time around why would it be OK to get 2^ variance upon the 1** variance in such a piece-meal feshion? If you are will to set such a precedent why not just open the flood gates and Change the 75 ’ setback ordinance to a 70 ’ or 65’ setback. The City Council found that by granting the 1994 Variance It would not advefeelv affect the light nor air of the rwiohboflng propeitv. If you allow them to build 2 Vi stories within 75 ’ of the lake it will adversely affect the sunlight, daylight & NW breeze orflo my property. Where I now have a view of the lake I will be looking at a 2 V^ story sidewall. Besides the 75 ’ setback, there are two other major concerns that could adversely impact me. Not allowing an increase in the land elevation along the new structure. By doing so, it could add to a watershed problem that first started when a variance was granted for an addition back in 1983. The previous owner of my property said as a result of that 1983 addition to the SE comer of 3349 it has caused the basement block wall to shift inward as a result of melting & freezing. The area of driveway to be eliminated next to my existing driveway be planted with growing lawn or landscape that can’t fudged and used as additional driveway hardcover. 1 « m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 72 ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, SECTION 10.56, SU'BDFVISION 16 (C) AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE /j'1961 WHEREAS, Warren Paschke (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3349 Crystal Bay Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 10, Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the propeny"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1,_Section 10.55, Subbdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow replacement of a deck and railing located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and less than 75’ from the shoreline; and a vari^ce to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow such deck and railing to be replaced at a location 7.3 from the side lot line where a 10’ side setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1961. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC. Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 5 r • 1 , \7- m r •• ' -■**= • V Mf- CITY of ORONO i?' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a 4 7 2 _____ 3. 4, 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 19, 1994, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. A deck and railing have existed at this location for more than four decades. B.The deck and railing to be replaced are located 7.3’ from the side lot line where a 10 ’ side setback is required, and 65’ from the shoreline where a 75’ setback is normally required, and located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback as defined by neighboring residence structures. C.Replacement of the deck does not constitute a new encroachment into the side or lakeshore setbacks nor does it create a new view encroachment for neighboring properties. D.The proposed replacement does not constitute new or additional hardcover on the property, although the existmg hardcover is in excess of the zoning district limits in each zone. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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, Ugh^ai^nw pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; wouldinfirely serve as a convenience to the_.appHc^^» necessary to alleviate a ‘demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 <1 I CITY of ORONO DF TEIE CT3 4 72RESOLUTION OF TECE CITY COUNCIL NO. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby g^^ts variances XX • • 1 7nnino Code Sections 10.22 Subdivision 1; Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, Section 10 Sd'^Subdivision 16 (C) to allow replacement of a deck and railing located lakeward of the iverage^ftoshore setback line and less than 75' from the shoreline; and a variance » ^tion 10 15* Subdivision 6 (B) to allow such deck and railing to be replaced at a location 7.3 fro the^si’de lot line where a 10 ’ side setback is normally required, subject to the followtng conditions: 1 “ s'” AuthoriUes granted by this variance run with the property not with the but ate pemissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 26, 1995). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and resolution shall constitute'a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically teiminate any authority granted herein, and stiaU be punishable as a misdemean . The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees •» the terro ^ thifresltion and on behalf of himself, his heirs, f tereby agrees to the recording of this resolution m the cham of ttUe of the property. Page 3 of 5 1 % CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 8 4 7 2_____ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of September. 1994, ATTEST: lorothy M. KaUin, City Clerk Edward J Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument -was acknowledged before me on this ^th day of September, 1994, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk ^ e Oty of Orono, a Minr. ta municipal corporation and said instroment was executed on behalf of the City. |>M>TAR^PUBU^* MWNiSOTA COUNTY My ownmiMion Mptf#* MZ-QS y. i/^-'At' Notary Public Page 4 of 5 C % • • If* . s ‘ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 3 4 72 < STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) n,.Ki. day Of l«fo« me a Noury Publicwidunandforsaidcounty. Kn lo S act and deed. „S22«"£ilS^(2(1A notary public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this . ^ ^ 4~ L 199^^ before me a Notaryday of ... . / ity. personally Reared __Xf ,p |U P’ ■ act and deed. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOTMtf MKJO-tnWtSOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY notary pubu O Page 5 of 5 n. Application Date: 5/17/00 60 Day Deadline: 9/15/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 16,2000 SUBJECT:#2593 Ace Properties 3349 Crystal Bay Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) 5,767 s.f. 866 s.f. of the lot area is the traveled portion of Crystal Bay Road and would be deducted from the lot area of the lot. The actual lot area for zoning purposes is 4,901 s.f. (.11 acre) Application Summary: Originally this application was submitted for the June Planning Commission Meeting. Upon Staff review of the original submittal the applicants were advised by Staff the proposed house would not likely be approved. The applicants were willing to meet with Staff and further discuss the proposal. The application was delayed and not forwarded to the Planning Commission to allow' the applicants an opportunity to revise the plans and reduce the amount of structure and hardcover proposed on the property. The applicants have submitted a new plan set that has incorporated staff comments and is more consistent with the surrounding development. The existing house and garage total 1,080.4 s.f of structure and are located 1' off the east property line. Proposed is a new structure 1,082 s.f. The new structure would be located in the center of the property meeting the 10' side yard setback requirements. This application requires the following variances* 1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 836 s.f. (29%) hardcover in the 0-75' setback where 768.4 (27%) exists and none is allowed, and 972 s.f. (47%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 994 (48%) exists and 25% is allowed. 2.Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 permit the proposed residence 70' from the 929.4' lakeshore where 75' is proposed, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) to permit the structure to encroach 3 ’ into the average lakeshore setback. 3. 4. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) tc permit an 8' rear yard setback where 30 ’ is required. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the non-conforming lot. Lot area is required to be 'A acre and lot width is 100’. List of Exhibits A Application Plat Map Proposed Site Plan Existing Site Plan Lakeside Elevation Property Owners Notification List B C D E F Issues 1. Conformity to Zonin2 Code and Comprehensive Plan The property has been developed for many years. The property owners have stated the existing residence is in need of major repairs and would prefer to construct a new house rather than remodel and add to the existing house. The variances are required due to the small size of the lot. The lot size is .11 acre in a Vi acre (.5) zoning district. It would not be possible to redevelop this site or improve the existing house without the need for variances. Staff is supportive of the revised plan. The proposed house would not increase structural coverage on the lot from what is there today. However the proposed building would be moved away from the property lin'> to ;he east to meet the 10' setback requirements. It is not possible to meet a rear setback of 30' and maintain an adequate setback to the lake or Crystal Bay Road. Propos^Citi* an 8* setback to the rear property line. The City would prefer to have at least 10’ for a rear yard setVj^i to allow property owners additional space to maintain their properties. Many lots along Crystb' t>ay Road have extended landscaped back yards into the railroad right-of- way, II. Hardship To approve variances a hardship must be inherent in the land to allow granting of a variance. Staff would suggest the following h^dships in determining variance approval: 1.The lot has existed as a developed parcel for many years. The proposed development would be consistent with other new construction in the area. 2.The lot is only 4,901 s.f which was plaP?d and developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. It would not be possible to purchase additional land from the adjacent residential properties as they are similar in size to the subject lot. 3.To establish an adequate setback to the lakeshore and Crystal Bay Road, an 8' setback to the rear property line is appropriate. Note the property to the rear is a 100’ railroad right-of-way, not residential property. 4.The size of the proposed house is consistent with the size of the existing house. The applicants have made every effort to reduce the size of the residence to meet the objectives as established in the Comprehensive Plan for protection of Lake Minnetonka. Overall structure and hardcover would not be significantly increased. Some structure and hardcover is located on the railroad property that would be removed that had not been calculated into existing structure or hardcover. All structure and hardcover located on the railroad property would be removed prior to construction of a new residence. ^ ' ir 5.Hardcover within the 0-75' setback is required for driveway access to the property as Crystal Bay Road is located within 75' of the lakeshore. No other access is available. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval based on the hardships noted above. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other action. 1 1. ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; Hardcover Calculations ; LR-IB Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. Yz acre Actual 4,901 s.f. .11 acre Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 4,901 s.f.Allowed: 1,500 s.f. Existing: 1,080.4 s.f. Proposed: 1,082 s.f. Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover 0-75*2,849 s.f.0 s.f. (0%)768.4 s.f.836 s.f. (27%)(29 %) 75-250'2.052 s.f.513 s.f.994 s.f.972 s.f. (25%)(48%)(47%) J A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ^ ^ Date Receive^ S‘/ni^ o' Amount Paid^ JZ. SO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3349 Crystal Bay Road_______________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 17-117-23 41 0023 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, 06/07/99 ______________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: __resident!^ ___other (specify). Zoning District: Zone 2RIC_______________________ APPLICANT Name_ACE pr^rerties. llc Phone (home). . __ Phone (work) 612-694-8800 Address: 5500 Anderson Estates Rd Citv.Maple Plain Zip:—55359. I /\ -r. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ *** Address:City:.Zip:. V. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: 10 Estimated Construction Cost $ 25Q«QQQ.QQ X 43' addition per the attached survey. *p • \ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width o-isjiS'ZSO X Hardcover I Lot Coverage Setback:Front X Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Lot width of 49.88 —restricts 1 Yi house addition. There is no other “Area or Side” to place it on due to hardcover limitations. (attach additional sheets if necessary) I I n'H>a5- VILLAGb U^ miNNE A XX \_^pn\ MISC, P S^-'^ *' <^^7\C7)\ «,<X''XT'15\(1^ !' ■'®\(18>^ ^A MQ\V 'Oi 1 2 / r 4 <yXy> (110)^; OtA'^^ 40y (83) 48 fjb\^(108) ►O' 3? 39 >0* />io\/ /% /:-.• . « • n' B < Prepared For: £> ^ /OO*V<v^® K. Sii eryl Larry Palm /j^ -ioJ — '''' / X::./f Denotes found iron monument 'I'.i AX'ii, ?V% /" <» X' 1 !‘-..: fy jl$ >s \ rf» I s?'^‘I IV! f ■ I♦ ^ .1i i 1 i I 1 V.1 I P a ii .ii i •■ t 1. ♦«> • * ^ -fii 1 \ -1' . ^ t'■ »•■ -i if' l!'l M i *;' M'*’ 'I 4Ii ) j-l s•♦-►...'• i- .-I ^ : >..i- J NOTES -Legal description as provided by client —litis survey is subject to any facts that may be disclosed by a full and accurate title search. (ie. easement for road or encroachments, etc.) /f y -Lot Area: 5767 Square Feet LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 10, ‘*WJdlACE*S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH / / />/ y y y aj / / / / / EXtSmC H>U?PCQVrR 0-75*rxiSUNG HARDCOVfR 75* At Offtater Buidh§e 102.4 so. FT.BuMnge A Docke 97B SO.Ft Oltuminoue Otiee 64A SO FT Oiluminoua Drive 0 50.FT. WtumMou* Hooilwity BBC SO. Ft.Wolkg IB sa n Nbotf Dock ia SO. FT.Total Hardcover 979 so.FT. Told Hardcover 16J4.4 SO. rr.Total Area 20H2 so.FT PROPOSED HARDCOVFR 0-75' DuHdinge 166 SO.FT. IlituminouB Drive 569 SO FT. illtumlnouB Roadway 906 SO.rr. WatkB 84 so.FT. Wood Dock 18 so.FT. PROPOSED OuUdfngs Jr Oockt llitumtnous Drive Walk% Jl 75' Kjoalsi 9t6 so. Hi0 so. rr. 56 sa fL Total Hofdcosfor Tolai Area 972 SO Ft 20S7 SO. rr. tgal d 10, ‘ BuBOn^ BtiumkH BlturUnt mood 0c Total Ik Total At Percent Prepared For: Sheryl Sc Larry Palm Denotes found iron monument NOTES igal description as provided by client Is survey is subject to any facts that may be fselosed by a full and accurate title search, easement for road or encroachments, etc.) -Lot Area: 5767 Square Feet LEGAL DESCRIPTION iO, "WALLACE*S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH imsNO HAsocoem o-7s’rxtSTINO HA 75* k aroafor 102.4 SQ. FT.BuMdingn At Docks 978 sa FT. anumtotMt Dthm $4B Sa FT.BHumhous Drive 0 SO.FT. fUtumkimM Soothny M6 SO. FI mks 16 sa FT. NM Oaek fB SO. Ft Total Hardcover 978 so.FT. ImldE Hanicovm I0J4.4 SO. n.total Afon 90S?so FI Atmo J/t5 sa ft.Pot coni of Coverage 4HX Pmwmi of C0VOF090 44 X .xnMiXO MM MTE IS/ll/M HENNEPIN COUNTY PMIPERTY XNFOMUTXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LXST REPORT NO. PACE PX4354R1 XS •ATCN 5RS PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 17-117-2S SO 00S2 OOOSO AOORESS PENDXNO HCLEOO CNTY REO RR AUTHORXTY DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NORTH NUL ST FERCUS FALLS HN 54BS7 SO 17-117-2S 41 0021 0SSS9 CRYSTAL BAY RD J D 0 T J HOFER JONATHAN 0 THERESA HOFER SSS9 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA NN S5SY1 SB 17-117-2S 01 0022 OSSOB CRYSTAL BAY Rl B C B L A BAKKE BRADLEY C BAKKE 7020 WEXFORD RO EDINA NN BBOSO PROP Al OWNER NANE TAXPAYER. NAHE/ADOR SO 17-117-2S 01 002S OSSOO CRYSTAL BAY R) ACE PROPERTIES LLC ACE PROPERTIES LLC BOOB STATE HWY NO 100 PLYHOUTH HN BB002 SB 17-117-2S 01 0020 OSSBB CRYSTAL BAY RD ELLEN DEHAVEN PETERSON ELLEN DEHAVEN PETERSON 900 SHADY LA E WAYZATA HN BSS91 SB 17-117-2S 01 002B 0SSB9 CRYSTAL BAY RD NOBILE CELLULAR UNLTD INC NOBILE CELLULAR UNLTD INC 7SOO FRANCE AVE S EDINA NN BSOSB PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SO 17-117-2S 01 OOSO OSSSB CRYSTAL BAY RO LXANE PEPEK LXANE PEPEK SSSS CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA HN BBS91 SB 17-117-2S 00 0010 OSSOB CRYSTAL BAY RO J R LOFRANO ETAL J R LO FRANO SSOB CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA NN BBS91 SO 17-117-2S 00 0017 0SS09 CRYSTAL BAY RD PAUL C HACEN PAUL C HACEN SS09 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA HN BBS91 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB 17-117-2S 00 0100 OStOO NAVARRE LA CLAIR T B LYNN D ROOD CLAIR B LYNN ROOD 221B KENWOOD NAY WAYZATA HN BBS91 SB 17-117-2S 00 0109 0S2B0 NAVARRE LA CRACK HARXE DAHL CRACK HARXE DAHL S2B0 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA HN BBS91 TOTAL BATCH SOS 00011 ‘O I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORNATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDOE AND BELIEF n... 3 doo .. * V • -V•s .*• ■f OV l"n 3 To:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From;Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date:August 14,2000 Re:#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District:RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Comprehensive Plan:Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Site Area:20 acres (14.1 acres dry buildable) Proposal:Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H 1 J K L M N Site Plan Grading Plan Sewer Plan Site Survey Planning Commission Minutes (11/15/99) Planning Commission Minutes (1/19/00) City Council Minutes (2/14/00) Engineer Comments (8/14/00) Wetland Determination Comments From City of Long Lake (8/9/00) DNR Comments (11/10/99) DNR Comments (12/6/99) Photo of Apple Glen Road Property Owners Notification List i^2530 Charles Pan Eeckhout 120 Bro\rn Road South Subdivision 8/21/00 pagt~! Application Background: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review two primary issues. L To complete additional soil borings to determine total drv buildable area of the property. The wetland delineation report indicated only 13.7 acres of dry buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit permitted density in the RR-IB district. Wetl'inds have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. It has been determined two wetland «reas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. 2.To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The only access to the parcel is via a “driveway easement” across an adjacent property. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a “roadway easement” to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Outlot A would provide driveway access to at least one property. The RR-IB zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The dry buildable areas of lots 1,2,3 and 7 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site f^2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 BroM n Road South Subdivision 8 21/00 page-: rtTiWti Mira f-.i nuimTI rmirivnira rivnira Mrri ruv^riTiT^i iiKiIi •TIili ofliira [IW \ W« tllUl^ WJ ; tllU •lull M fit) vj ^0 ir«x44« ra r« I ti*i Ml¥i •imra •iiiitit •14' [•T:ri»5V*iiira It) 01 •I«KlH»iuTu« ^*iin I [• I •T4« [•) K-i* i ■ y RTTmirraw]tlWiliW:! ¥:«i}5Ti K •JCtltJ rt¥:ra MlirtVtriTiT^nnil tiiim MW«(OiMiira \9)M9]tltV'.l rtTivt effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Section 10.32, Subdivision I. Conservation easements would protect all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek and all the property south of the creek. Open space would be preserved south of the creek. The DNR had concerns with the development of the land south of the cree: A permaiient crossing of the creek would have been required. The developer has agreed to place the conservation and open space easement to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and developed land north of the creek. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the preliminary survey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the final plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer will require Best Management Practices in all areas where stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. (City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit H) Sanitary Sewer The City of Long Lake must approve sewer connection to the property. Due to the existing water table and the location of the DNR waterway. Long Lake Creek, this site is environmentally sensitive area. Without sewer it would be difficult to develop this site. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided 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 west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-IB. To the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. Easements 1. 2. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements 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. 1^2350 Charles fan Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8/2100 page--4 - MUV* 3. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3,4, 5 and 6. 4. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. 5. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Shoreland Overlay 1. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. 2. The portions of the lots within 300' of the high water mark 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 c'>r'ditions: 1.Prior to City Council approving the Preliminary Plat the applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion. 2. Road shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property vines will be required for the final plat. 4. Granting of Conservation and Flowage easements 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. M25SO Charles Ian Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision S/2t 00 pag»-5 naiiiiirti ^TiTtlWC nrn iTiT.ra^iiiTajmrasi^l■(lX40M THfiiFnErm Frnn7i»wr#:Ti fiT‘j • BCt r«riiT*x^ii f:W4:U^«lMFs iJidCC •II ni*r«tnn •Tililtl F:TiTiRlf«l •liTlTtl FTriTiRTTiW:! RTiTiX:! WHroil FHIW iX R Vifi K iTn I ■•14*^ •] •) ■•] niixi •■(• ^T«n I ■ • M ■ [ii nwiPD ri ri#] ^WiX.liT* KTilfmiTt 111 W UJ ' I 4C.m m ^ O •D > -HmoFm o'^l o ^ ^ ^ (/)C Z rn i°5ZqOa^5g>o C/) rn -H m > i®0 H3^? s-^5;o ^ C O zj T3 » O CO. ROAD NO. 146 YBROWN~ROADSO.y ■^\ o) N) ro b OD P•vj -» 00 -» 'sj > > > o o o > ® ® ® on m m ^ (/) c/) (/> m U} ! \\ V S tenms u \ j'r - - - - ~ \ U- _______X > ll / / /!/ /X \y-A-^v^, \ -X V ^ -'■' "Ni ’ "'/'N ^ J /- » ! ) ^ JP//-V h[ I III I I \n^ ■ n^nijif/''.'^ . V^'/z/ff//A <■■ ■;' '' J * /\\I \ E*ST»(c \ i'/«;ii'l'iffY//'</" s//f ■A Va \r - ^ \vm BUHiMNO /’ / Xj t------- 4^7 _ J _^ -----------1 mn%/ /V • rn n\ w r CO. ROAD NO. 146 TSROWfTffOAD^my \ 8 ' \ * \ \ im m > tj -H ^ r m to (/) -< 1^- \ \ USTMO TENNIS COURT •> } - - ii \ \^ NN^ ._ ^--------- \ .. < pN mJp P P- 'J w!"i •' tl' I 'iV I/;///.'-Pif', / / I I////" 7 > /////^ p ^ c.}\ ^mjl, / ' Z--'"' JZ-'Z-'zZ, \ ■:i- -----------------\\\\ \ ^ J "^-^NWWW CMSTM6 BULOINg ■s.\ \ m \ I \ \ M II / /\ T'-f j xr:;.. / r / i.P y \ kj/'/ \;>,ii''i .''1 hi /V /// ^ 4^ — N \^\ \i iX""V«^ p •>. \ \ V ^ / / N P'7 s _____ . '.'-: xN “» _ :.c- - ^-' \ N\s>\ \\\^ \\ .>V N \ CXSTMO eULOMO V-y%P■/^»'V-, \ / 1^ V./ / \ /I \ /I'A \ \ V >■ I \\\\m( \I \Hi\tr I \ ( \\ \ K. i y\ I. ; I if El U J» > > m TD ?? Cl) »;o z ^ ?9 mO j* i* * < rn iM o ? 6 < rn X o < .no '* S > m S •' o?* O nu» o ' >^D _ // / / I / , .. ,Mi f / ' I |l l'\s'< .' / / I l^P- /y \ / \ ) / / /■'' liYt^ ) /\ ^ ^ ^J / V---"------- / { __----------------------- / W- -’-------------^----------^ ( I ililiiifir/ n'Miilfli 1 'I'fI il U'O- / /'V J •TCtIt [t»t rtTCilil* FTiTinamnn! riTCtifii rtiiK* ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER IS, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City’s Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G. which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide s^ace for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the uiban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, v/ith a minimum park dedication fee per lot of S2.900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, v/hich includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to pUt approval; B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater wilt flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka; D. City Staff, the applicant, and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout staled he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition, Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one. since the access Page 17 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking Is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior to approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how ro proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented In her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRD. noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line In this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that Issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildabie land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he Is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that somt* of the lots are too small in his opinion. Va:» Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Comrjiciion has not a^,>proved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing sc in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots, Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRD to be approved, the benefits to the City must be shown, and that clustering Is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlets for this development. Stoddard stated he would be in favor of a PRD if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlets. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good oirection to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEOBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. • 10:40 p m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (HI2400 Mark and Arlene Ploen, Continued) Weinberger stated the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the County could elect to condemn the property. Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with the 140 foot width front yard setback. Stoddard Inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. Hawn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4345/4365 North Shore Drive, I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12,2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine. (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 7:32 pjn. • 0:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension "'ross Long Lake Creek, a protected wateoMay. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south of ine creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested lh6 developer dedicate a conservation easement alon j the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to hav Page 8 f ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending In a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum SO foot width to meet City roadway stondards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G. which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated A Is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is owned by N!'. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes with the Intern Vr.zl aome day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns re<]arding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated ‘his proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a final plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, inch ding detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site 4. A drainage area map. storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 5. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 6. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 7. Final plans for the constniction of the roads shall be submitted for r ;view. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildabie acreage and wetland acreage) predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildabie is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this aoplication be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co>applicant and agree to allow the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10 percent slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat alt runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRO. Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact would be If the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Page 10 .. r '! " \Mu nnr I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2550 Charies Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard piat or PRD must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificiaily lowered a number of years ago. which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be dehned as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the tot size as much as possible. Ktuth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast comer. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski. South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Page ll ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2550 Charies Van Eeckhout. Continued) Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road Is constructed v«thin a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated tiie developer Is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the Information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and If not met. the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Weinberger stated City Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship teing necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees In this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergemcy vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. Stcddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent In the past on what they approve in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even If six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots In this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road If only six lots were created. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Page 12 ^ tkj Ml - IT>rt ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred sbt lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots with a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550,120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY. 3850 SHOREUNE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES. 8:25 p.m. • 9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Guy Nowian and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Onve. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property is presently used for salt/sand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 1 G ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14,2000 (#254<l Bradley Hoyt, continued) Barrett statedXpublic hearing had been scheduled with the Planning Commission on Janua^ 19,2000. NeitheS^. Hoyt nor representatives on his behalf appeared at the January 19* public hearing. Mr. Sheridan stated Mr. HoyH^orepared to submit a complete application to present at the February 28,2000 meeting of thccouncil. Mayor Jabbour stated a new public hearingV^th the Planning Commission ma> be required. Barrett stated a public hearing would be required toYaj^w the variance request. Kelley stated the earliest this item could potentially return to^hqCity Council w-^uld be the last meeting in March. Mr. Sheridan stated he would be willing to draft a letter to extend the dei proceed with the variance request. to permit time to Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to continue this item to 5A. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South - Subdivision for PUnned Residential Development Mr. Van Eeckhout was present with representative John Bergh of Loucks and Associates. Weinberger explained the issue facing this application was that the dry buildable acreage available totaled 13.7 acres where 14 acres are required for 7 lots. As plaimed, the subdivision did not meet city requirements of 2 acres per lot. The Planning Commission recommended denying the application based on the total drj* buildable not meeting the minimum requirement of 2 acres dry buildable per lot in the RRIB zoning district. Kellogg stated that no trail or sidewalk was planned with the recommended 50 foot road width. Sansevere asked if the applicant had considered a reduction to 6 lots. Vari Eeckhout responded that he would prefer 7 lots and felt that would be attainable once soil borings were done in the spring. ' 1 uuiifiaaii ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14,2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, contipued) Mayor Jabbour commented that the city would not allow sewer availability to increase lot density. All Council members agreed. The applicant mustdemonstrateahardship to allowmorc than the permitted density on the site. Mr. McCusky, the adjoining property owner, was present with legal representation arguing that the applicant had not made arrangements for proper legal access to the subdivision. He was concerned that approving the subdivision may imply some legal rights to access. Barrett confirmed the easement to the property was for driveway purposes and may not be adequate to serve as access to the subdivision. Barrett stated the application deadlme is March 2,2000. The applicant must present a letter to the City of Orono to extend the deadline. Mayor Jabbour stated the applicant should provide a letter requesting the application be tabled, giving the applicant time to resolve the issues of dry buildable acreage and access to the property through a designated outlot. KeUey moved and Peterson seconded to table the application until the applicant requests further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #2540 Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue - After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit Mr. Sheridan provided a letter requesting the application be tabled until the end of March. The letter also stSeithat the property owner, Mr. Hoyt, has granted the cit>- an extension of the time limits for approvaD Kelley moved, and Petersob^econded, to table the application until the end of March. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL,T399 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4421 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt ReS<4j^on No. 442L a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Sitb4i^ision 1 (B).and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C)(6). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. I jL J/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^ B Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderfik end Associates. Inc. is an Afrirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned v\ principals; Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Marvin L Sorvaia. PE. • Glenn R Cook. P.E • Robert G Scnunicm. P£ • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE Senior Consultants: Robert W Rosene. PE • Josech C Anderiik. PE. • Richard E Turner. PE • Susan M. Eberlin. C.PA. August 14. 2000 Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. P.E. • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R. Pfeffcrie. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C. Russek. A.I A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T. Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • David A. Bonestroo. MSA* Sidney P Williamson. PE.. LS • Agnes M Ring. MBA* Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Willmar. MN * Milwaukee. Wl \MEbsite: www bonestroo com Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Ofrice Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 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 located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Acccss/Strects: 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 approximately 1600 feet where City code allows a ma.ximum cul-de-sac length of 1000 feet. 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 width with no shoulders. We recommend that the street section be revised to include 3-foot gravel shoulders as required by City standards. The street section should provide for a minimum of 8-inches of Class 5 aggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary. We recommend I inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of Type 31 bituminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the street design. 2. Grading: The grading and erosion control plan should include erosion control measures to protect the existing wetland. The erosion control plan may need 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 be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive 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 DNR 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 (NWL) and high water levels (HWL). The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench lO-feet wide at the pond NWL. The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides 1-foot of skimming 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 routed 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 sewer system. A written sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono will be required. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary 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 lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wedand, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636*4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 J •;V t-W’ k®' 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questin^i r pc'H'ng this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSCX:iATES, INC. PrktnTom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Otono r fcra f^a t • I i T SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Consultingn April 4.2000 Mr. Paul E. Weinberger Zoning Adminlslrator/PIanner III City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55223 * • ' j; 1 . . RE: SER Project Name: SER Project No.: Van Eeckhout • Orono Parcel Delineation 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 its status, this parcel wa$ visited by Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) on October 14,1998. At this time, two areas were determined to be jurisdictional wetland 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 132 GPS equipped with a Juniper Systems field data collector. Positions were differentially corrected in real-time using signals transmitted by the Coast Guard station in Alma, Wisconsin. This system is capable of sub-meter accuracy when using real-time differential correction in the field. ., * rt. 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 nodhem boundary was redrawn and reduced (Figure 1). 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 addition, the boundary of the nodh western finger of this basin was redrawn and reduced (Figure I). This reed canary grass dominated area .recently has become drier due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Thus, the extent of the wetland boundary as was detennined in 1998 was decided to over-exaggerate the scope of the northwestern wetland edge. Please note that the modified boundaries on Figure 1 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, CWB, PWS President cc: Chuck Van Eeckhout, Van Eeckhout Engineering Services 2477 Shadywood Road • Excelsior. MN 55331 (612) 471-1100 (Office) • (612) 471 0007 (Fax) loAifeaaaAi. ils mm »N 0^ ■IT ‘ '^ *'' /jbrV' ' •‘^■^: viiLn® V iii^ r >•' V ^i» > r ^ V < I > A I I'* •T *J> V '^< ' > ./a^ V'.y.1 9 '* ^ Vl . V .<•'>'-X^ >9 .V" f ?* V'V,/!i?" ti‘-.--:Vv • r I • ’ A • ^ -4ijir >c ■ • ^ Kr ,*• V* jiP;m-'-z.' -,*♦ ■ ■‘ ..-< // ii :ir -d !?^-;.'U 20C 200 Sii 4C0 600 Fe«!S .!» )1S ■I 'Ati;rl Aerial Photo of Site Approximate Basin Edges Ai ‘0 I. ■ Svoboda Ecological Resources Van Hcckhout Parcc' figure 1 ■m • # CITY OF LONG LAKE August 9,2000 Paul Weinberger City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RE: Preliminary Plan Review for 120- South Brown Road Charles Van Eeckhout - Orono Zoning Application #2550 Dear Mr. Weinberger; In response to your letter dated August 1,2000 requesting that the Long Lake City Council forward any concerns regarding Mr. Van Eeckhout’s request prior to your August 21,2000 planning commission meeting 1 would offer the following. Long Lake city staff has previously met with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss his proposal. Staff directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek 6nal plan approval from the City of Orono prior to submitting a request to the City of Long Lake for road and/or sewer access. I have discussed this course of action with both the Long Lake Planning Commission and the Long Lake City Council and they have agreed that they prefer to review the request once the plan has received final approval by the City of Orono. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any additional assistance regarding this matter. Sincerely, ion Swc^iKy City Administhnor SJS/ss cc; Matt Goldstein, Planner Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator 1964 Pirk Avenue • Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 • 612-473*6961 612476*9622 (fax) • hup7/www.ci.long*Iakc.mn.us T K Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. ............ .. !'f)V U'599 November 10,1999 cvrY v . City of Orono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal 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 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 number 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 & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line State Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the state trail or adjoining state property. 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 running 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 Orchard 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 property boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6(X)0 • TTY; 612-296-5484. 1-800.657-3929 An Equal Oppofiuniiy Employer Who Valuev Diverviiv 0% Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of UK# Povi Con'umer Wa%te 4 .1 ^ . 1.1 k • be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation adjacent to the trail 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 establish a conservation easement of 10 to 50 feet along the entire southern border with the Luce Line State Trail. This would benefit both the landowner and the trail users by 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 property 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 work 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, Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger L Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. December 6,1999 City of Orono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This is the second letter from the DNR, Trails & Waterways Unit in regards to the 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 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 & Waterways Unit manages the multiple-use recreational Luce Line State Trail. There is a sewer line extension proposed in the development 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 Brown Rd. S. Trails & 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-w. / and concentrate utility crossings at road intersections. We also support the City of Orono ’s position that Lot # 7 be set aside as a conservation 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 & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger DNR Information; 6I2-296-6I37. I.800-766 WHK) • TTV; 612-2>^f)-54S4. I.h(K)-637..lV2s> An E^uJt Op|H>rtunilv Emp owf Who Vjluc% Di'tfrvii\ 0% Printed on Rcw>wlcd Pjper C«»ntjinin^ j Minimum oi III'* Pt»-»i'Cone*amcf Wu^ic V an Eeckhout Engineering Services Site Des'.gn • Sfructurc]/ Design • Utilities Design 1935 West IVayzafo Blvd., Long Lake. 55356. 612*473*1578 A PI 6-€Rc<'v A RUN DATE RT/tS/TT •ATCN 5*7 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORtMTION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35AR1 PAGE 2f PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP Al OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 03-117-23 11 0001 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CAROILL NAC NILLAN JR ETAL LONORIOGE ASSOCIATES P 0 OOX 9300 DEPT 20 HPLS NN 55040 30 03-117-23 12 0003 00030 ADDRESS UNASS16NED STATE OF NINN STATE OF NINN IDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAILI SO 03-117-23 12 0000 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIOIED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F 0UM4 20 S DROWN RD P 0 ROX 77 LONG LAKE NN 55350 30 03-117-23 12 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSlGfKD JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S DROWN RD PO DOX 77 LONG LAKE NN 55350 30 03-117-23 IS 0001 00350 DROWN RD S W F FARLEY 0X0 FARLEY WILLIAN 0 KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 DROWN RD S LONG LAKE NN 55350 30 03-117-23 IS 0007 01095 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON 0 N DAYTON TODIN J 0 NAE DAYTON 1095 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE NN 55350 SO 03-117-23 11 0002 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF NINNESOTA STATE OF NINN IDNRI (LUCE LINE TRAIL) SO 03-117-23 12 0002 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CAROILL NAC NILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDOE ASSOCIATES P 0 OOX 9300 DEPT 20 NPLS NN 55440 30 03-117-23 12 0004 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S DROWN RD P 0 DOX 77 LONG LAKE NN 55350 30 03-117-23 12 0005 00120 DROWN RD S CHARLES E VAN EECKHOUT ETAL CHARLES E VANEECXHOUT 120 DROWN RD S LONG LAKE NN 55356 .0 03-117-23 12 0007 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S DROWN RD P 0 DOX 77 LONG LAKE NN 55356 30 03-117-23 12 OOOO 00020 DROWN RD S JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S DROWN RD P 0 DOX 77 LONG LAKE NN 55356 30 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 DROWN RD S HALTER RICHARD NCCARTHY JR HALTER RICHARD NCCARTHY JR C/0 FCI 332 NINNESOTA ST 02100 ST PAUL NN 55101 30 03-117-23 12 0011 00140 DROWN RD S D I L COLENAN JR DOUGLAS R COLENAN JR 140 DROWN RD S LONG LAKE NN 55356 30 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD ROD HACK RAYNOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 30 03-117-23 IS 0006 01945 FOX RIDGE RD D E KIRKNAN t J N KIRKNAN DAVID E 0 JDANNE N KIRKNAN 1945 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 30 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 DROWN RD S S DITTNAN 0 L DITTNAN SCOTT 0 LISA DITTNAN 25 DROWN RD S LONG LAKE NN 55356 30 03-117-23 21 000? 00145 DROWN RD S JOHN N HINTON JOHN N HINTON 1314 NAR9UETTE AVE R903 HPLS HN 55403 \1 C/ lL •*4 RUN DATE 0«/tfi/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATIOM SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASBAtl PAGE 30 HATCH 507 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 30 03-117-23 21 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF NINN STATE OF. NINN IDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL! SO 03-117-23 21 0019 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT XII 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 30 03-117-23 21 0019 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN P EARLXN6 JOHN P EARLXN6 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 30 39-110-23 99 0003 00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDNUNO W F RYDELL EONUNO RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RO LONG LAKE NN 55356 PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 39-110-23 93 0020 00032 APPLE OLEN RO K V 0I6EL0W A J T BIGELOW KENNETH A JUOY BIGELOW 32 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 72 39-11B-23 93 0021 00026 APPLE GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 26 APPLE GLEN RO LONG LAKE NN 55356 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 39-110-23 93 0060 00096 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER A A L PASTER JANES T PASTER 96 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE NN 55356 72 39-110-23 93 0061 00052 CREEKSIDE DR J L OHHAN A R A OHNAN JOHN L (HRIAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 39-110-23 93 0063 00069 CREEKSIDE DR NARY ANN HANSEN NARY ANN HANSEN 69 CREEKSIDE DR LONB LAKE NN 55356 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 72 39-110-23 93 0072 00091 APPLE GLEN RD D J OUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUOINSKY 91 APPLE OLEN RO LONG LAKE NN 55356 72 39-110-23 93 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RO N E I H J STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE GLEN RD S LONB LAKE NN 55356 30 03-117-23 21 0010 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYD S KELLEY LESTER S KELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 72 39-110-23 93 0019 00030 APPLE GLEN RD N E A H B GUTHRIE HARY I NXTCNELL GUTHRIE 30 APPLE GLEN RD L(MG LAKE NN 55356 .'V 72 39-110-23 93 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN I H R WZLLIN THONAS I NELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 * .... - '*C'\y. ' .» •• 72 39-110-23 93 0062 00050 CREEKSIDE DR H B J BERNS NICHAEL E I JOLYNN N BERNS 50 CREEKSIDE OR LONB LAKE NN 55356 L • * .*>iy 72 39-110-23 93 0069 72 54-11S-23 D AS ••?• ^ A •• % * 00093 CREEKSIDE OR ••025 APPLE GLEN RD R G ROACH 1 K A ROACH S C FEDXE A 19 L FEDIE ROBERT G A KINBERLY A ROACH STEVEN C I WENDY L FEDIE ^ .* *. * H ^93 CREEKSIDE DR 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 LONG LAKE NN 55S55 72 39-110-23 93 0079 01900 KENNEDY LA L R DANIELSON/N H DANIELSON LEE R I NANCY N DANIELSON 1900 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 , 1 RUN DATE tT/ii/Tf BATCH BB7 PROP AODR ONNER NANC TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR i*’ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 72 SA-I1S-2S AS §675 •1905 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 19B5 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 (72 SA-118-2S AS 006S •••It BROWN RD S D P I L A ERICKSON DAVID P I LISA ANN ERICKSON It BROWN RO S LONO LAKE MN 55S56 REPORT NO. PIAS5AB1 PAGE SI 72 SA-I1B-2S AS OOBl •••55 VALLEY VIEW RD 0 W ANDERSON I S J ANDERSON GREGORY W t SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD LONO LAKE MN 55S56 72 3A-118-23 AS •0B2 •••ID BROWN RD S JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT IB BROWN RD S LONO LAKE MN 55S56 TOTAL BATCH 507 tOPAO I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDOE AND BELIEF. DATE • l:. . 7 V. '-V ; • ^ ' * .1 ( > ■) • V. _-j a' 1 tmy ih^ •t ■ r Arlo H. Vande Vegte Pamela S. Vande Vegte 50 Valley View Road Long Lake, MN 55356 August 21,2000 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO the City of Long Lake & the City of Orono Our homesteid Apple den Road in Long Lake. We see no benefit and only burden to the dtizeas of Long Lake and ^ property o^ers along Apple den Road to the extendon of the road into any part of Orono. ande Vegte r ajmJa. Pimda S. Vindc Vegte z 'd eozo'OH nSO 5i» JI9 3153A 30NVA HdJ0:£ 0003 ■13'>»V L IIP .-I Auguie 19, aOOO 1:32 PM TottocityplusviofOrono ALoiigLiki. Mr. Pwl Wsinberger & Mitt Goldittrin. i The Belipgen Rimoa Sl Oenldine «• opposed to the extesiton of Apple Olea fiir the puipose of MR Beeteouts building projeet. J Q *d 8010'ON t£90 5/t Z19 3193A 3QNVA hdeO:E 0002 ‘U'^V August 21.2000 • f' • I City of Orono City Planner Paul Weinberger 2750 Kelly Parkway Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, We ere writing to express our opinion on the proposed Cfeekside Forest development by Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout We are tg§ln§t the use of Apple Glen Road. In the City of Long Lake, fbr access to the development for the following reasons: • in 1997 Apple Glen Road was reconstructed at a width of 26 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft. width that was 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 dearly 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. • Wo have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a smell amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Road. It appears he may have offored such a low price because he didn't want the street to go by/i/s 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 It These fomiiies 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 1997 the City of Long Lake approached the City of Orono about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the border for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City of Orono ^dals 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 foel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Allowing the use of Apple Glen for this development would gn§tty increase the anti-Orono sentiment (over) t ‘d 80[0 ‘ON tE90 sa 219 3193A 3QNVA MWi 0002-12'«»*V r Page 2 It Is dear that the best way to allow fbr the development of the Creekside Forest for all involved Is for Mr. Van Eeckhout to pursue acquiring property from his neighbor to the north so that access to the proposed properties can be via South Brown Road. * It is our understanding that the property owner is witling to entertain legitimate offers from Mr. Van Eeckhout to obtain a portion of the property. This scenario affects by for the least amount of property owners (2 versus 14). Thank you for reading our ooncemsi Sincerely,If • Charles & Andrea Miner 99 Apple Qlen Road, Long Lake (952)473-6049 I. 1, oe; Matt OoldtMn, Long Late Clly Planiwr Fax; (952)476-9622 \ •• % . '.* • • # • • ••• •« • * t- •: «• • I a • , : -.1 • a •• ^ • /(.I m 9 • t • 6 \ • • « 6 t ‘i 80i0'«H H90 Sit 119 3153A 30NVA Bd£0;t 0002 V Application Date: 6/21/00 Deadline: 10/19/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 17,2000 SUBJECT:#2596 Brenshell Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Class III Preliminary Subdivision - 6 lots Public Hearing Zoning:LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre Minimum lot size Application: Five lot subdivision of a 7 acre site Construction of Garden Lane and New Road List of Exhibits: A B C D Revised Site Plan City Engineer Comments June 19,2000 Planning Commission Minutes Staff Report (6/15/00) Application Review: Several major concerns were addressed by Staff, Planning Conunission and Public at the Public Hearing on June 19,2000. The following concerns were addressed by the applicant. Drainage The primary concerns were about protection of the ravines and controlled water runoff to properties east of Wildhurst Trail. The applicants have revised the grading plan and addressed the issues by directing drainage to two stormwater management ponds. Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, has reviewed the grading and drainage plan and has determined the drainage has been preliminarily approved. L Street The street alignment has been revised to make the 90 degree intersection with Garden Lane. Conservation The northerly ravine would be protected by a conservation easement. A lot Easement has been removed that would have required access around the ravine. Let area One lot has been removed based on the Planning Commission Variances recommendation that density variances would not be approved. The total lots proposed would be 5 lots. Each meeting or exceeding the 1 acre minimum lot size. J 5.Erosion Control The City is strongly recommending the developer not disturb the trees and grades east of the cul-de-sac along Wildhurst Trail. The portions of the sewer that would be installed between Lots 2 and 3 and along Wildhurst shall be directionally bored to prevent any disturbance to the steep slopes. Boring under Wildhurst would eliminate the need to close access to properties north of the proposed improvements. Wildhurst is the only access to the northerly lots. 6.Lot Width Variances Proposed Lots 2 and 3 would require lot width variances. The LR-1B zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 140'. Both lots have approximately 120' of width at the required structure setback. The City of Orono has approved lot width variances for lots which front on a cul-de-sac that demonstrate suitable building sites and meet the minimum lot size requirement. Public vs. Private Road The Comprehensive Plan suggests properties within urban density and urban services to be served by a public road. Staff recommends the new roads should be public. The cul-de-sac would provide an emergency turn around. Also snow plows could use the turn around after plowing Garden Lane. Staff Recommendation The proposed plat meets the requirements as set by the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat conditioned upon: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Lot Width variances be approved for Lots 2 and 3. Drainage and utility easements be dedicated on the final plat 1 O' along exterior property lines and 5' along interior property lines, stormwater detention ponds located on lots 1 and 5. Drainage easements shall be dedicated for the lower ravine located on Lot 2. A conservation easement be placed over Outlot A to protect the ravine from any land alteration and vegetation removal. Utility installation shall require directional bored lines under Wildhurst Trail and between Lots 2 and 3. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 15, 2000 by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer. Options for Action; 1. Recommend approval. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4. Table for additional information. 5. OUier action. EL^ i/ i Bonestroo Rosene ^ S Anderlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects August 15.2000 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Attociatei. Inc. Is an Affirmative Actlon/Cqual Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • RoDert G. Schumcht. PE. • Jerry A Bour Jon. PE Senior Consultants: Robert W Rosene. P.£ • Joseph C Anderlik. PE. • Richard E. Turner. PE • Susan M Ebcriin. C PA Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE. • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE • David O. Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Ro:fs. PE. • David A. Bonestroo. MBA.* Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • Agnes M Ring. MBA. • Allan Rick Schrr o:. PE Offices: St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester and Wiilmar. MN • Milwaukee. Wi MAibsite: WWW bonestroo com Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Brenshell Homes 6-Lot Subdivision @ Garden Lane BRA File No. 139-2596 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed six-lot subdivision for Brenshell Homes. The site is located east of Garden Lane and west of Wildhurst Trail in the west half of Section 7. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Utilities: The proposed sanitary sewer installation raises some concerns. Sewer is proposed to be installed in an existing steep slope between Lots 2 and 3 and also down the center of Wildhurst Trail. Disturbance of the steep slope is a serious erosion concern. Installation of the sewer in Wildhurst Trail will require the removal of the entire driving surface making through traffic difficult if not impossible. We strongly recommend that the portions of the sewer between Lots 2 and 3 and the segment along Wildhurst Trail be directionally bored to prevent disturbance to the steep slopes and allow for through traffic during construction. Final plans should include plan and profile views of the sanitary sewer. Record plans should be provided to the City upon project completion. City standard details should be included in the plan set. 2. Streets: Plans should include a typical street section. A geotechnical analysis, R-value recommendation and pavement design calculations should be submitted for review. It appears that the street will be an urban section with curb and gutter. All curb and gutter shall be concrete, no bituminous curb is allowed. The fire chief should review and comment on the proposed hammer handle tum-around on Garden Lane. The chief should also look at the proposed driveway alignment to serve Lot 5. Recent discussions with local firefighters indicate that long curving driveways can be an obstacle for fire trucks. The City should review and determine whether Garden Lane should be constructed further to the north to provide^access the Saga Hill Park. 3. Grading and Drainage: The proposed grading plan reduces the existing contributing drainage area to the southerly ravine by about 2.5 acres. Storm sewer will redirect this drainage area to the northerly ravine where the gradient is half as steep as the south ravine. This is consistent with our previous comments. The developer’s drainage calculations appear acceptable. Both ponds reduce the off-site flows compared to predevelopment conditions. Both ponds should have outlet structures constructed to City standards that provide skimming to the 100-year storm event. Storm sewer design and calculations should be provided for review. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnesota DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. 4. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5-feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10-feet wide along roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651*636*4600 • Fax: 651*636*1311 ii SBit I4 i k > V. A •f • ■. across all drainage ways and ponding areas. It appears that the purpose of Outlot A is to protect the ravine. The southeasterly boundary of Outlot A does not include the southerly end of the ravine. The southeasterly boundary of Outlot A should be moved southerly to tie into the 1020 contour along the west lot line of Lot 5 so that all of the ravine is included within Outlot A. 5, Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono r 1 •i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (»25>UAMES JOHNSON, CONTINUED) an casemenhwer tht wetlands, which was thought to be the shortest, most logical way to accns the parcel. Gallon commented the rules and regulations concerning wetlands at the present time are much stricter^Suth the Applicants needing to get their approval prior to final plat approval. Gaffion stated the City^hpuld perhaps have held off granting the driveway permit until the other approvals were obtained. Bottenberg noted for the record tNl^a letter has been received from the Swiontkowskis indicating they ouTi the property to the north aJh^they would like to see as many trees saved as possible with this development. Johnson commented he has a problem with condition number four contained in the Plarmer’s Report, noting the agencies arc unidentified anolh^ the time period of open-ended. Lindquist stated if the Planning Commission approves^lqs application, it will be subject to the conditions contained in the Planner’s Report. Lindquist sOK^ City Staff will be able to provide the Applicant with a list of the appropriate agencies to contact. Dqidquist not^ the Applicant will need to obtain those approvals prior to this application being approved^ the City Council. Johnson indicated the rest of the conditions are acceptable. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Applicatib^W594, James R. Johnson, 2240 Fox Street, Class II Subdivision, subject to Conditl^s 1-7 contained in the Planner’s Report dated June 19,2000, with the approvals refh^ng to the wetlands being obtained prior to City Council approval of this application. VOTE; Ayes 4, Nays 0. _________ • ---------taken from y;uD p.m. - 9;10 p.nl, (H6) «596 BRENSHELL HOMES, 1181WILDHURST TRAIL - PROPOSED SIX LOT ^ SUBDIVISION WITH DEVELOPMENT OF GARDEN LANE AS A PUBLIC ROAD, 9:10 p.m.- 10:02 p.m. Steve Bchnke, Brenshell Homes, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted a preliminary plat application for a six lot subdivision of approximately seven acres of land located at 1181 Wildhurst Trail. The lots would have access from Garden Lane, which is a platted but undeveloped street. Garden Lane would connect Tonkaview Lane to Outlot A. The road is proposed as a public road cul-de-sac. The proposed access from Tonkaview eliminates a number of problems with me proposal with the sketch plan review. The Garden Lane access will eliminate drivewa>s to Wildhurst, thus protecting the trees along Wildhurst Trail and controlling stormwater runoff on site. PAGE 19 C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2596 BRENSHELL HOMES, CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the six proposed lots would average approximately one acre in site, with all lots being connected to sewer and served with private wells. Sewer is currently available in Wildhurst Trail and would need to be extended between Lots 2 and 3 to the new road. Weinberger indicated Lots 2 and 3, located at the end of the cul-de*sac, do not have the required lot width for new lots in this zoning district and would require variances for lot width. Lot 5 does not have the required frontage along the proposed road and would require a variance as the width of the lot is narrower adjacent to Outlot A than Garden Lane. Garden Lane w ould only be developed to the intersection with Outlot A and would become a public road. Weinberger stated Lot 1 is proposed at 1.03 acres, but does not account for land area dedicated for the NURP pond, with the City not crediting buildable area for land that will be used as a drainageway or for storage of stormwater. Weinberger noted a variance would be required for lot area. Weinberger stated Lots 2 and 3 would require lot width variances since they are less than the 140 feet required width at the rear of the front yard setback. Both lots are considered to be through lots since they would have access to the new* road and are adjacent to Wildhurt Trail. Weinberger stated Lot 4 would be a conforming lot and does have a buildable area that would be suitable for residential construction. Lot S would have approximately 90 feet of frontage along the front property line, with no direct access being available from Garden Lane. Weinberger stated Lot 6 contains a major ravine, which is shown on the preliminuiy drawings as a drainage easement. City Code requires properties served by municipal sa;iitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not w ithin the protected area is included in one contiguous parce and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area.. According to the proposed plan, the driveway access would impact the southern edge of the ravine. Weinberger noted the City Engineer is reviewing this driveway location for Lot 6, with on-site grading and drainage plans needing to be submitted to the MCWD for review. Weinberger stated access to Lot 6 is not possible without impacting the ravine. Weinberger stated athe road and most of the lots will drain towards the NURP pond depicted on Lot 1, with the pond draining to the ravine along the south lot line of Lot 2. Staff has a concern about the drainage being diverted into one location before it drains to the east Side of Wildhurst Trail, with the City Engineer recommending that all drainage be diverted to the north from the pond and into the ravine located in Lot 6, with some form of water retention downstream before it enters Lake Minnetonka. Weinberger stated additional information regarding the drainage will need to be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval. Weinberger stated the Park Commission w ill need to review this application as it relates to the issue of park dedication. This propertv' is located across an undeveloped road from the Saga Hill Park and provides the City of Orono w ith an opportunity to determine if a land dedication would be appropriate to protect the ravine. PAGE 20 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2596 BRENSHELL HOMES, CONTINUED) City Staff is recommending this application be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting in order to give the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Steve Behnke stated he has a number of questions relating to the issues raised in the Planner’s report. Behnke stated currently in his view Garden Lane as being required because of Lot 64, which is the lot to the north being a potential public access to a private lot. Behnke stated in his opinion Lot 1 does show over one-half acre dry buildable outside of the NURP pond, with the engineer for this development calculating two-thirds dry buildable on this lot. Lots 2 and 3, ^ lot width variances would not be necessarv' since at Wildhurst Trail the lots are 224’ and 153 ’, and if measured along the setback, there is the potential that they are less than 140’, but are obviously greater in width across the northern section. Behnke pointed out both lots will be located on a cul-de-sac. Behnke stated it was on the recommendation of Cit>* Staff that this plan took the approach from Garden Lane. Lot 4 also contains enough frontage along Garden Lane and would not need a vanance. Behnke acknowledged that there are issues relating to grading and drainage concerning this property, which will need to be addressed further. Behnke stated it is his opinion that Lot 6 and the ravine have been addressed. Behnke noted they have adopted the DNR s definition of a bluff as the method of determining the top of the ravine. The top of the ravine d<KS not e.\tend to Garden Lane and ends prior to it, and because of that, the acreage on both sides is being incorporated into the dry buildable acres. Behnke stated the driveway does not impact the ravine proper as defined by the bluff definition. Behnke stated Lot 6 consists of approximately 1.25 acres in size, and they w'ould be able to manipulate the lot line if necessary. Behnke commented the current division of water between the north and south is essentially equivalent to what it was prior to this plan being created, with this development not increasing the water runoff. Behnke stated the intention of the NURP pond is to hold the water to allow it to drain to the ravine at the same rate that it is currently. Behnke stated the water that drains to this property offsite is also included in the NURP pond proposed for Lot 1. Behnke stated the comment by the City Engineer that all drainage be directed to the north is opposite the natural direction of the water. Behnke stated in his view there are some inaccuracies in the statements by the City Engineer. Behnke stated in his opinion he should not be responsible to extend Garden Lane to the north as part of this project since they arc offsite. Behnke indicated they are in agreem^t with the standard easements and that Outlot A should be a public right-of-way, w ith the road being a public road due to the number of houses that w ill be serv iced by it. Behnke stated they w ill continue to work with City Staff on these issues. Behnke noted the proposed drainage for this development is designed to keep the water runoff at the same rate as what currently exists in the ravine. Weinberger stated regardless of the one-half acre dry contiguous, these lots are located within the one acre zoning district and still require the one acre dry buildable regardless of being separated by a drainage area. Weinberger stated Lot 6 does meet this requirement, with Lot 1 being less than one PAGE 21 -J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2596 BRENSHELL HOMES, CONTINUED) acre in size due to the location of a NURP pond on that lot. Weinberger stated Lots 2 and 3 do front on a cul-de-sac, \%ith Staff measuring the lot width from the setback from the cul-de-sac. The frontage along Wildhurst would technically require a variance. Weinberger stated as it relates to the drainage, the comment from the City Engineer were based on the information provided by the Applicant. The City Engineer has not commented on the new information submitted. Weinberger stated the concern initially was that all of this drainage was going to one location. Gary Welsh, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, stated he lives east of the proposed development. Welsh stated the ravine that runs on the south side is actually the ravine that runs through their property, noting he is well aware of the drainage that runs through the ravine. Welsh inquired whether this was a situation where the rules will be bent by granting the variances to allow the e.xtra density and have an adverse impact on the area due to the added hardcover and increased runoff. Welsh commented that perhaps more water needs to be held on the property in order to address the drainage issues. Mike Hollenhorst, 1200 Wildhurst, stated in his opinion due to the number of variances required on this development, the application should be denied. Hollenhorst indicated they live dowmhill from Lots 2 and 3, with the construction as a result of this development causing the entire roadway and driveway to be blocked while the sewer line is being e.\tended. Hollenhorst requested that the Planning Commission require a substantial bond on this project to enable the City to restore the land back to its original state should the developer go bankrupt on this project. Sandy Robinson, Wildhurst Trail, expressed concerns relating to the proposed density and drainage. Robinson stated in her view the City should not permit a developer to push the amount of lots that can be developed in this area. Robinson stated in her opinion three lots would be acceptable in this area. Robinson commented the depth of the ravine in the area should give a clear indication to the Planning Commission of the power of the runoff in that area, and that ample steps need to be taken in order to guarantee proper drainage from this development. Michael Wear, 1184 Wildhurst, commented in his view the developer has a right to develop this property if he so chooses, with the City having the right and the obligation to place sufficient conditions upon the developer to insure proper compliance w ith City' Codes and adequate drainage. Wear stated in his view this area needs to be developed with the issues in mind, especially in light of the drainage that flows through this area. Wear stated the current condition of the ravine is not very attractive due to the number of dow ned trees and debris within the ravine. Wear suggested the developer revise his plans to w ork w ith the runoff and the other issues and reappear before the Planning Commission. Robert Birkeland, 1298 Wildhurst Trail, stated when this area e.xpcrienced a 12 inch rain, the ravine looked like the Missippissi River under the existing conditions. Birkeland stated in his opinion the City needs to get some kind of balance betw een what currently exists and what the developer is attempting to do. The President of Brenshcll Homes stated they would be willing to table this application in PACE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2596 BRENSHELL HOMES. CONTINUED) order to address these concerns and arrive at a better medium ground. Haun stated she appreciates the offer to table this application, noting that this is a difficult piece of property to develop with a number of complicated issues, which is not the fault of the developer. Hawn noted the developer has indicated he is willing to work with City Staff and the neighbors on these issues. Hawn encouraged the neighbors to work together with the developer on this proposal. Hawn indicated in her opinion she feels the number of lots being proposed for this area is ambitious and should be reduced by one or two lots, with particular attention being given to the drainage issues in this area. Smith commented the number of variances being requested generally serves as a flag to the Plarming Commission that perhaps what is being proposed for the area is a little too intense or not appropriate for the area. Smith commended the developer for suggesting that this item be tabled in order to allow these issues to be addressed. Lindquist stated he concurs with tabling this application, noting he would like to see the developer and the neighbors get together to discuss these issues. Nygard indicated he was in agreement. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2596, Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail, to give the Applicant time to submit revised plans at their request. TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner June 15,2000 #2596 Brenshell Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Class III Preliminary Subdivision - 6 lots Public Hearing 2^DiDg: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre Minimum lot size Application: Proposed subdivision of one acre parcel of land into 6 one acre lots. Lbt of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Preliminary Plat Layout Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan Parkland and City Owned Property around Saga Hill Park Area Sewer Ms^ Sewer Extension Map Property Owners Notification List Sketch Plan Staff Report (April 13,2000) Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) - Lot Standards for LR>1B zoning district Section 11.03, Subdivision 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the mini mum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below die ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flo^ plain area. 12596 Brenshell Homes list WUdhutsiTnil Clus III PKlimlnary Subdivision Jtmtl9.2000 pait-l D Application Review Brensheli Homes has submitted a preliminaiy plat application for a 6 lot subdivision of approximately 7 acres of land located at 1181 Wildhurst Trail. The lots would have access from Garden Lane, which is a platted but undeveloped street. Garden Lane would connect Tonkaview Lane to Outlot A. The road is proposed as a public road to the cul-de-sac. All lots would be connected to sewer and be served with private wells. Sewer is available in Wildhurst Trail and would need to be extended between Lots 2 and 3 to the new road. The 6 proposed lots would average approximately one acre in size. Lots 2 and 3, located at the end of the cul-^e-sac, do not have the required lot width for new lots in the zoning district. They would require variances for lot width. Lot 5 would only have 56’ of frontage along the proposed road. Technically, this would require a variance as the width of the lot is narrower adjacent to Outlot A than Garden Lane. Garden Lane will only be developed to the intersectio»i v..th Outlot A. The proposed access from Tonkaview eliminates a number of problems with the proposal with the sketch plan review. The Garden Lane access will eliminate driveways to Wildhurst, thus protecting the trees along Wildhurst Trail (Lots 2 and 3) and controlling stormwater runoff on site. This application has requires the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Approval of a six lot preliminary plat Construction of a road within the Garden Lane platted right of way Construction of a continued road into Outlot A Acceptance of the road as a public road Lot Width Variances for lots 2, j md 5 Sanitary Sewer extension to serve the six lots from Wildhurst Trail Construction of a stormwater management pond (NUPJ*) Approval of a private driveway to serve Lot 6 thru Garden Lane Lot Standards Lot 1 is proposed at 1.03 acres, but does not account for land area dedicated for the NURP pond. The City does not credit buildable area for land that will used as a drainageway or for storage of stormwater. A variance would be required for lot area. Lots 2 and 3 require lot width variances because they are less than the 140' required width at the rear of the front yard setback. Lot 2 is slightly under the required setback. Lot 3 is approximately 100' in width at the setback. Both lots are through lots because they would have access to the new road and are adjacent to Wildhurst Trail. Mature stands of trees are located between the building sites on Lots 2 and 3 and Wildhurst. Soils types in the area make it difficult for vegetation to restore itself. TliC trees should be protected if the lots are developed. *2S96 Brensheli Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Class III Prelimirury Subdivision Jum 19.2000 pagt~2 t,ot4 would be a conforming lot and does have a buildable area that would be suitable for residential construction. Lot 5 would have would have approximately 90' of frontage along the front property line. Garden Lane is not proposed to be constructed north of the Outlot A connection. No direct access would be available from Garden Lane. Lot 6 contains a major ravine, shown on the preliminary drawings as a drainage easement. Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) (2), "For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area." According to the plan the driveway access would disturb the southern edge of the ravine. The City Engineer is reviewing the impacts of the driveway location on Lot 6. On-site grading and drainage plans must be submitted to the MCWD for review. MCWD permits will be required. Garden Lane adjacent to Lot 6 would not be developed. The land across Garden Lane is part of the Saga H'M Park. The ravine is a natural feature to the area and should be protected. Review Exhibit E half-section map indicating alt land dedicated as part of the park and Garden Lane. Gradiog/Stormwater Management/Road Details (City Engineer Comments) Grading/Stormwater Management The road and most of the lots will drain towards the NURP pond shown on Lot 1 . The pond outlets to the drainage ravine along the south lot line of Lot 2. There is concern about the drstinage being diverted into one location before it drains to the east side of Wildhurst Trail. It is recommended by the City Engineer that all drainage be diverted to the north from the pond and drain into the ravine located in proposed Lot 6 with some form of water retention downstream before it enters Lake Minnetonka. The stormwater calculations indicate the runoff from the site would not increase, post development. However, the stormwater currently drains off the property in several locations. The grading plan indicates the drainage will now all be concentrated to the south ravine and out Lot 2. The subdivider should provide a map indicating the runoff pre and post development prior to Preliminary Pbt approval. It does not appear access is possible to Lot 6 without impacting the ravine. The preliminary drawings show the drainage easement turning to the south to accommodate a driveway. This would require land alteration and filling of a portion of the ravine to provide access. #2596 Breiuhell Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Class III Preliminary Subdivision Jum 19. 2000 poft-i 1 • • r Alignment Although curve data has not been submitted to indicate the design speed of the intersection, it ppears the road would not meet the standards for speed. It would be more appropriate to have a Ta intersection and cul-de-sac Garden Lane rather than have one continuous road ending in a cul-de-sac, Access to lots north of the Development The road is proposed to end at the intersection of Outlot A. There is one lot north of the development that is one acre in size that could be developed sometime in the future. The only access is via Garden Lane. A road ending at Outlot A will not allow ideal access for this property, but would be better than a private drive the entire length of Garden Lane to Tonkaview Lane. Eascmcnts/Covenants 1. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated 5' in width along interior lot lines. 10' perimeter drainage and utility easements were dedicated for the entire property when the underlying Heathercroft Addition was recorded. 2. An easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded for the NURP pond. 3. 4. Drainage easements shall protect all drainageways, including the ravine areas. A preservation easement should be granted over the east portion of Lots 2 and 3 to protect the trees. The trees are located on the side and top o ' a IlH Sivtng the trees would protect the hillside from erosion and preserve the natural feaUu tsi as a ^^iffer between the new lots and Wildhurst. 5.If Outlot A should be a private road, an easement for egress should be granted in favor of the City of Orono. Park Dedication The PI .nning Commission should discuss the issue of Park Dedication. Section 11.62 of the Subdivision Ordinance states “The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.” Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The property is located across an undeveloped road from the Saga Hill Park. This provides the City of Orono the opportunity to determine if a land dedication would be appropriate. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this subdivision could be reasonably adaptable for the public purpose of Saga Hill. The Code describes factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed d^icated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. I25M Btenshell Homes lilt WildhuntTrail Class III Preliminary Subdivision Jwm 19. 2000 pag$~4 The Council has the option of a cash contribution in lieu of land dedication. In those inst^ces where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. These funds arc to be used only for the acquisition, development and improvement of public pvks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open spaces, and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public pur^ses. The cash contribution is 8% of the fair market value of the properties. A minimum contribution of $2,900 per lot or a maximum $4,900 per lot would be required if the City requires a cash contribution rather than a land dedication. This item will be forwarded to the Park Commission for review at their next meeting. Given the location of the park area, it is possible the Park Commission will request a land dedication rather than collecting a park dedication fee. Land around the northerly ravine is most likely a candidate for dedication. Issues for Discussion 1. Should lot width variances be approved for lots not meeting the minimum width requirement on the cul-de-sac? 2.The pond on Lot 1 requires credit for the drainage area to be buildable. Should credit be granted for the lot. Typically, credit has only been given for stormwater ponding areas as part of a Plaimed Residential Development. 3.Should the Outlot be a public road? The Comprehensive Plan suggests urban residential and urban service areas should be served with public roads. 4.Is the proposed road layout acceptable? Should two roads be provided (Garden Lane/Outlot A) or would it be acceptable to combine into one road? Should Garden Lane be extended further to the north to provide future access to other properties? 5.Would a Park Dedication be appropriate for any portion of the development due to the proximity of the Saga Hill Park? If so what areas may be appropriate for dedication? 6.The road and most of the lots will drain towards the NURP pond shown on Lot 1. The pond outlets to the drainage ravine along the south lot line of Lot 2. There is concern about the drainage being diverted into one location before it drains to the east side of Wildhurst Trail. •2S96 Brenshcll Homes nil WildhuistTnil Clus Hi Piciiminaty Subdiviskui Junt 19.2000 pagt-S iuar i Planning Commission Options for Action:i 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval of the preliminaiy plat and forward to the Council, with conditions. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table, if road or any lots are to be redesigned or realigned. • Would require amending the grading and drainage plan. • Additional ei^ineering information as may be requested by the City Engineer. • Direction given to the applicant listed under Issues for Discussion. Other Action. i* S’ e: bu .'is 12396 Brenshell Homes nil WUdhuntTrail Clan III Preliminary Svbdiviskw Jmt 19. 2000 pagt-6 • 1 C>%II7-J>S B •V ; w. I^ %J 1 i * B preliminary plat PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR BRENSHELL HOMES OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. HEATKRCROFT HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA I • •• • ••••••••• f c PRELIVftNARY GRADING. DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN PROPOSED SUBOiVtSION FOR BRENSHELL HOMES OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. HEATHERCROFT hennepw county . MUNESOTA *••••• •••••••••* a • ••. ••• ft if■ -»n% • • « M.r^r- '/i • • i» iDM ton _..|_^.^fcES I f"-'# 3bp.4^kJIIr..... r^Tt • w t?*" tr ^»• • • % ir ^mirmm (Ml iikt*. 1N> t f>t» *• *n^§ ••••.»• •ct 1 ••.s }\>' '. — '.'A. • •• » 'V. m ;■ V 0 Ct>m/fh4 l-^hCf^^\)' '.*(:f“]{ • • m:RCR0?T ii-I >?Z/: 21 _ *.•»*•• •*v***i JUS^V ••••••#• •%« !,••••• • • • • < : : : : >«.•/.,** <•• •! .I _, t *V**# • ft* f*ft**»f*f*««* • *.• / \ • i: v:**i*v ■% • i, L i. it — * F mm DATE «S/17/0t HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LXST DATCH SRI REPORT NO. PXAS5401 PAGE 1 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 07-117-25 25 0019 00058 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED CITY or ORONO CITY OP ORONO P 0 BOX 08 CRYSTAL HN S5525 58 07-117-25 25 0020 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CXTY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY NN SS323 58 07-117-25 25 0021 00058 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED CXTY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY NN 5S323 ■ PROP ADDR OWNER NAME taxpa V er NANE/ADDR .58 07-117-25 25 0022 00058 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OP ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY HN SS525 SB 07-117-25 25 0025 01181 HXLOHURST TR ARNOLD H SOSKXN. ARNOLD N SOSKXN 802 EDOEHOOR OR HOPKINS HN 55305 58 07-117-25 25 0029 00058 ADDRESS PENDING HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PKWY P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAi PAV m 55525 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANR/AOOR 38 07-117-25 25 0050 09720 TONKAVIEW LA STEVEN P 8 JOAN VALEK STEVEN P 8 JOAN VALEK 9720 TONKAVIEW U HOUND HN BSS09 SB 07-117-25 29 0007 01180 WXLDHURST TR B D RASNUSSEN/S J RASMUSSEN BRIAN D 8 SANDRA J RASMUSSEN 1180 WILDHURST TR nOUIO HN 55509 58* 07-117-25*29 0025 09975 FOREST LAKE LANDING RAY D HURLEY RAY DONALD HURLEY 9975 FOREST LAKE LANOXNO HOUND HN 55509 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 58 07-117-25 29 0029 09975 FOREST LAKE LANDING RAY D HURLEY RAY D HURLEY 9975 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55509 58 07-117-25 29 0027 01190 WILDHURST TR LYLE E RAHN ETAL LYLE E RAHN 1190 WILDHURST TRAIL HOUND HN 55509 58 07-117-25 29 0029 01085 WILDHURST TR H A SCHULTZ ETAL HARVEY A SCHULTZ 1085 WILDHURST TR HOUND HN 55509 1 PROP AOOR OWNER'NAHE TAXPAVER NANE/ADOR 58 07-117-25 29 0059 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 58 07-117-25 29 0055 00058 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED plTV OF ORONO cm OF ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 58 07-117-25 29 0050 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R 8 D HENNESSY RICHARD L HENNESSY 7520 BLOONINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD NN 55925 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAVER NANE/ADOR 58 07-117-25 29 0057 09955 FOREST LAKE LANDING B W 8 N J ERIKSON SANFORD 8 MARGARET ERIKSON 9955 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55509 58 07-117-25 29 0038 09905 FOREST LAKE LANDING JON D BLACKSTONE ET AL JON D BLACKSTONE 9905 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55509 58 07-117-25 29 0095 01151 WILDHURST TR JSC CULLITON JOHN H 8 CINDY L CULLITON 1151 WILDHURST TR HOUND NN 55509 'O o I hllilraTl mill nil---- ^15 J - mr^lHilWBilUli II IN I a ON BlNi !!■ II M|8III J ^liilENi IN ■■ I RUN DATE OB/17/01 BATCH S«1 HENNERXN COUNTY fRORERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEM raOPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SS4A1 PACE 2 PROP'ADOR OMMSS NAME TAXPAYER HAHE/ADOR SO tt7-117-25 2A OOM •USA NXLDNURST TR MICHAEL S NEAR A BRIT S MICHAEL S NEAR USA NILDHURST TR MOUND MN SBSAA NEAR SO 07-117*2S SI 0015 01270 NILDHURST TR JAR STASIK JAMES STASIK 1270 NILDHURST TRAIL HOUND HN B5SOA SS 07-117>2S SI 0020 OOOSA ADDRESS UNASSIQNED TODD C DIRKELAND SUBJ/LE ROBERT A HARXT DIRKELAND 1290 NILDHURST TR MOUND MN BBSCA PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYERMahe/ador SB 07-117-2S SI 0030 0121A NILDHURST TR GARY N NELSH ETAL OARY N'NELSH 121A NILDHURST TRL HOUND MN SBSOA SB 07-117*23 31 0037 01200 NILDHURST TR SANDRA J HOLLENHORST ET SANDRA J HOLLENHORST A MICHAEL J HOLLENHORST 1200 NILDHURST TR HOUND HN. SBSOA SS 07-117-23 31 OOSB 01201 NILDHURST TR SCOTT MICHAEL HENNESSY SCOTT M HENNESSY 1201 NILDHURST TR HOUND MN SBSOA PROP ADDR ONNER NANS TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SB 07-117-23 31 OOAO 01297 NILDHURST TR DEAN T LUNDBLAD ET AC . DEAN T LUNDBLAD A SHERRI J STELON-LUNDBLAD 1297 NILDHURST TR HOUND HN SBSOA SB 07-117-2S S2 0027 OAOSS TONKAVIEN LA H BOON ANN BOON HENK BOON A HARK H BOON AOSB TONKAVIEN LA HOUND MN SBSOA SS 07-117-2S S2 0020 OAOSS TONKAVIEN LA DENNIS A MEYER DENNIS.A NEVER AOSB NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN SBSOA Prop addr ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 07-117-2S S2 0029 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIONED DENNIS A MEYER DENNIS A NEVER AOSB NORTH SHORE DR MOUND HN ' SSSOA SB 07-117-23 32 BOAS BAOAO TONKAVIEN LA KENNETH J HICKEY KENNETH J HICKEY AOAO TONKAVIEN LA HOUND MN SSSOA SB 07-117-23 32 BOAS OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIQNED J D DOLEZAL B J A ROSTAO J D DOLEZAL S J A ROSTAD BOAO BARTLETT BLVD HOUND MN SSSOA PROP ADDR ONNER'NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SS 07-117-2S S2 OOAO OAOSO ‘ TONKAVIEN LA JEFFREY S NORDSTROM' ET AL JEFFREY S B LISA K NORDSTROM AOSB TONKAVIEN LA HBUND'HN SSSOA SS 07-117-23 32 00A7 0AO90 TONKAVIEN LA N B S BULL NILLIAN A BULL A090 TONKAVIEN LA HOUND HN SSSOA ■ SS 07-117-23 S2 OOOS OA020 -TONKAVIEN LA TODD R COURNEYA TODD R COURNEYA A020 TONKAVIEN LA ORONO HN SBSOA PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR TOTAL BATCH SOI oooss A •. * mtasAata mm TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 13,2000 #2576 Brenshell Homes 1181 Wilclmrst Trail Sketch Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivision Zoning: LR-IB, One Family Residential (non-lakesliore), 1 Acre Minimum lot size List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Zoning Map E Topo Map F Proposed Plat G Previous Plan (Zoning Application #2239) Application Summary: Brenshell Homes has filed a sketch plan for a four lot subdivision of a 6.87 acre parcel located wthin the LR-IB zoning district. The purposed of the review is to consider the four lot piai; (hat includes three lots requesting variances for lot width. The three lots also request direct a":ess to Wildhurst Trail. A fourth lot with access to a driveway located in the platted, but undeveloped, Garden Lane is also proposed. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6,7 and 8 - Purpose of sketch plan review. 2. Section 10.24 - LR-1B zoning district standards. 3. Section 10.56 (Shoreland Regulations) Subdivision 16 Application Summary: The proposal incorporates the 6.86 acre Soskin property east of Garden Lane. Access to the subdivision is proposed via direct access for Lots 1,2 and 3 to Wildhurst Trail and an ac'.e=s to Lot 4 via a private driveway located within the Garden Lane right of way. Garden Lane wr^ dedicated in 1921 at a 60' width. All lots meet the minimum 1 acre requirement as shown, although this does not account for any stormwater or other casements which might be needed. Vcrloiices would be W257& SttnshcH Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Sketch Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivision April 17, 2000 page-l required for the three lots that front on Wildhurst as they do not meet the minimum 140' 1^ vddth all new lots in the LR-IB zoning district require. It would be contrary to the City of Orono s Comprehensive Plan and practice to grant variances to create lots that do not meet the mimmum requirements in the Code. Review Comments t Drainaee/Gradine Plan. There are two major drainageways within the property. There is a major ravine that intersects the north end of the property, in the proposed Natural Area and (Please refer to the Site Plan attached as Exhibit C). The City will require a drainage easement over this ravine. A major portion of this property drains to the south and east to a less dramatic ravine area that drains under Wildhurst Trail and eventually to the lake. There is concern about erosion on the east side of Wildhurst Trail due to stormwater flows, and the neighboring property owner west of Wildhurst has, constructed a minimal ponding area to reduce the flow rates which were threatening the driveway access. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure additional hardcover in the development will not further increase flow rates. Additionally, private driveway accesses are proposed on Wildhurst 1 rml. There is no indication how the stormwater will be directed and treated prior to crossing Wildhurst. There is a high potential for erosion. City Staff is concerned about any new access to Wildhurst Trail. It is the reconunendation of Staff all access for the development is via a new road constructed by the developer through Garden Lane with a cul-de-sac serving any lots within direct access. The topography favors access from Tonkaview. On-site grading and drainage plans must be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review at the time the preliminary plan is submitted to the City. The MCWD will review the plans only after receiving preliminary approval from the City. Grading pl^ submitted with the formal application must include existing and proposed 2' contours. The plans must also include erosion control, building pad locations and elevation and temporary erosion control during construction. 2. Staff Recommendation Reg.ii diittr Property Access. Earlier proposals on this site indicated access to the property via Garden Lane. Staff does not support direct access for the lots to Wildhurst. There are concerns with additional driveways being located on the road when alternative access is available through Garden Lane. Locating the driveways directly onto Wildhurst Trail would not allow storm^ter to be treated. The City of Orono will require stormwater ponding that can be treated with aNURP pond being constructed to treat additional run off from the street and within the devclopmetit Attached to this report is a proposed lot layout from a preliminary plat application for this property in 1997. The lots were proposed to all have access from a road built in Garden Lane IV2S76 Brcnshell Homes USI Wildhunt Trait Sketeh Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivbion Aprli 1 7. 2000 pagt~2 a •roit liroii nioMtii tatiifiiii itKtit ifTOVi [• Ri I ImTt p.liti •inri f.Tiriiuroiiw •!«:¥• Ri atTl¥0 €• I rt¥wtviiti P.TiTiV'.Vt r«Tilft :W:UHU ^•p.UWi¥t tlt»:lli ^.I¥ip.¥t r«mvrt rtin rt viit 1 •] I tv/llil I F:i iTSril *!■ K. ■ il»1« iltUitlti ^ fT»TTiC fuTa .TfWI UI riW^ I «JUw 1 Ifl I Tnn:m9AiLLWiA II I/.' ♦M t OiiMil :TO’/i > f Pm^l:f^^^77T♦^74M « 111 • IM [MMlN •TTl: • r4i *1 Natural Area 1.70 Acres 0c (0 c 0 5 ■0 0o Wlldhurst by Brensl>el Homes 3/22/00 ^ ^ ■< ’ / y U«*t^an«ia.ujdS , • )■ ittuiflttia I. imc AmSCHOCLL k IIAOSOH. CK«KI«« • tBt. nv^ • OMMCM VMt km CTO*^ «■ IIJ0I (•tl) r*i »*•••••« 0«»HC»/OCVtlO^I« LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. APRIL 1997 PAO/ccr naaic/shco fiac GARDEN LANE SITE ORONO. MN CONCEPT SKETCH A LOT AREAS AREA-SA. 59.000 H.OOO 45.000 43.M0 43,400 93.000 45.000 AVERAGE 94.000 i /ERAGE lot AREAS AREA^-S^ 59.000 19.000 49.000 41.000 41.000 93.000 49.000 94.000 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Admimstrator/Planner D ATE: August 21,2000 SUBJECT: #2603 James Renckens 3020 Watertown Road Variance/CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 515,088 s.f. (11.825 acres) Ltot of Exhibits A Application B Site Plan/ Survey C Plat Map D MCWD Permit E City Engineer Letter F Half Section Map of City Protected Wetland G Sample Flowage and Conservation Easement H Location Map I Property Owner’s List J Permit List Pertinent Code Sections wSScT.iSJfJA.T1. cSd«. ».«».. .an. without first seeking variance approval. 2. Section 10.03. Subdivision 19-21: Conditional use permit required for excavation or dredging within designated wetland. water and a nesti^ island in the middle. The fill viill be used to form bems on the left and right sides of the driveway along Watertown Road and a berm south of e pon In 1974 Drier to the Wetlands Conservation Act, this wetland was classified as a Type 3, Glenc^ wetod Ta r«enU^Ution. staff found reed and canary grasses and no standmg «. The excavation of the wetland will make it a Type 4 wetland. In this tjumd proposed land alterations will result in a positive improvement and provide a high.r quality weUand for wildlife and stormwater management functions. U2603 James Renckens 3020 Watertown Road Variance/CUP-p. I IT / f F The proposal has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and was granted approval with conditions, including a requirement for security to ensure completion of requirements. The conditions have been met and the permit has been issued. (Exhibit D). The City engineer has also reviewed the proposal and has recommended approval. (Exhibit F). Conditional Use Permit Guidelines: The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the following findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The Conditional Use is for land alteration of greater than 500 cubic yards. The land alteration is to occur in a wetland that is an Orono protected wetland, therefore a variance is required. 2.That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. No fill has been placed within the wetland to change its capacity and normal water level. The excavated material will be used on the site. The pond would be a maximum depth of 5 feet and have a 1 foot perimeter bench. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Because the pond is located in a protected wetland, a variance is required. A conditional use permit is required only because land alteration greater than 500 cubic yards will occur as part of this project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance and conditional use permit subject to the following conditions; 1 . A conservation and flowage easement be granted to the City over the wetland. 2. Eroiion control measures be in place prior to excavation or construction activities. 3. Tne financial security required by MCWD is sufficient to cover any City concerns re: completion of the project. ^260i James Renckens 3020 Watertown Road Variance/C UP-p. 2 JELE_09:50.FAX 932 448 7788 KLEIN FINANCIAL INC .JUN.27.2000 8;41flM STEINER KOPPELMRN A, NO.422 P.2/4 @002 Pi ApplitttioD# 2{p03 Date Received 7-5-0 0 Amount Paid SSoq CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , / ^ 0 , Site Addresf 3 0^0 Type of Applicadon to be Filed Piopetty Idendfieation Number (P.I.D.) 33^' oec/ APPUC a NT y f Nam e Address M3 Afa City Phone Chomelfi^^g -FPSy Phone fworlO ^**3~S*4^ W A, ■Zip.i OWNER (if difftnot thin Jippliewit) Name JSrn Address" Phone flxomel ’SSf - ^ 3^<g _____ Phone (workl _____ City Zip J:rv ^ Date Propody AcqidredDate Propody i I (do)((^ c t • (• I Mi i/yev) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • X $ EROO For each variance request with CUP application $f75.00 Residential Accessory Use 5250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5225.00 Quest House/Oucst Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industiial Use _S250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ^ Grading and filling • SOI eu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 7S* of lakeshore PRD/PID • tee Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After>the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee -f.. .* • V4.......-5 OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____ $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____ $350.00 Reaoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____ $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule 06£2»_£M XLE_Q9:50 FAX 952 448 7788 KLEIN FINANCIAL INC JUN.27.2000 0:42PM STEIN2R KOPPELMPN NO.422 P.3/4 t I @003 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. ____ Completed Application Fonn. _____ Describe request in detail. ____ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain t^ list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center. 348-3271). ____ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required sxirvey. _____ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). _____List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) If not current owner(s). ____ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ______ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property O^vner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: ______Date________________ _ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. i; -f ITJ 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 unusiutl expenses incuned in review of this application, and certifies tiiat the information supplied is true and correct to, the best of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER'S signature The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and flnther authorized reasonable cniry onto tlie property by City staff, consul'.ant3, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ) •Ar. Owner's signature /?.Due l/co ApriM4r? rr. 45! h»ve all submittals Into the City cfficss 25 days before the Planning Commiision Meeting. Plinr.ici Cemmission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present it all scheduled review meetings of the Plen.ning Cctnmtssion and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled tneering, please make arrangements to have er. outhorized agent attend in your place add advise the Buildinf Jk Zoning OfTiee of this change prior to the meetlne, ; i *" *‘ •' '■ “A n V ■j ;&:;Tf«^ --|-;4S^^AvJ piM^ ^IT-^U J.V/\ND . . / - ., .. -li/^ ^ .‘bfepjOQTBfij ^ i \-:vI*m • ' ±L' I ‘:m- '’•■'se •>=)'.If, I f II. i /f •pOP-tNl>P/^ ^^•1 M ^ ^ y.^ 'v-:?«£AT^ ___lAWN-^ ^\ &Aj c V-i A <*/ lv\ <KKL^caiA^ m ------«'VN-^'~» ->H£lC’t«>'>^?-^ /, '> V v\ •JtiSfyi r )i •• i / / ^ DF^'JBJ a ^a V 6i^ND( iippea* IMUi W'-.-ft: tcK^ 1^*0 / /I /I . I \v ‘ •' ^ /j VTIO /.ry *1 Jl &/ / [:b ^ - H // 1/^ ' . \ / V^^j7±rt,::.-^ r .•v bsrwciK. yU.^=^Vr.. ^ y!' ^ ■ -^ ^' •7 ••• . o> !»• • • # { ^ ^ "77*^ ,!7^ u-"*^ ~i '*• ''‘^• ' ^'- ^1 N. »* / y-.. V- 7 “^' '\if-* /’• t f> fi./'L^7 iTl M^Avi PIM^ •=1-?£0K’A?Lfe i(b' IMl bg^ o-tC^>1C^p|Vl& llW«7HDLAWt4 ‘ !2CO-FSCE<vjN)|Al4, —•llUU^i=qai) LAk'tJ m^^^-itfr pine 12)-l€Af^i P^Wz?D • 3<iBSD CUA/SfT i 1^ L.P: l»£ f * I flUG-16-2000 10:04 MINNEHPlHfl CREEK UlflTERSHED 6124710682 P.02/02 Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life .0, Gray Frashwater Canter Hwys. IS & 19, Navarra Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN £5331-3576 Phonr (952) 471-0590 Fax (852) 471-0682 Eimit adminOinlnnahahaereek.org Web She: vmwjninnahahacreelcorg Board of Managers PamsIaG.Bnxt .M-mesCaNns Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroadar Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application, correspondence, plans, maps, and all other supporting data submitted by the applicant, all of which are made a part hereof by reference, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below for use and development of land in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Issued to: James Renckens Permit No: 00-139 Location: 3020 Watertown Road. Qrono Purpose: Rule B. Erosion Control and RuleD^Wetland Protection Date of Issuance: 6/22/00 Date of Expiration: 5/12/2001 By Order of the Board of Managers Barbara J.'Moeller District Technician This permit is not transferable, and is valid to the date of expiration. No activity is authorized beyond the expiration dale. If the pem^ittee requires more time to complete the project, an application fo> renewal of the permit is required. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all District Rules and for the action of their representatives contractors, and employees. Conditions:Project to be completed as described in plans submitted to the MCWD office on April 24. 00 and according to the provisions of this permit. • Properly maintain all required MCWD Rule B. erosion control measures until the disturbed areas are restabilized • When the site is restablilized and the MCWD staff has performed a final inspection, all silt fences must be removed • Silt fences must be orange in color (Statement concerning fees for inspections, violations, etc... on reverse) TOTAL P.02 flUG-16-21 10:06 MINNEHAHA CREEK UATERSHED L •n 6124710682 P.02/02 ’ % Pennit Application No.: 00»139__________ Applicant; James Rencke^Q____________ Project: Wetland excavation for wildlife Rule: B. D enhancement Location: 3020 Watertown Road. Orono Received: 4/24/00 Complete: 4/25/00 Recommendation: ~ ^ ---------------- Approval. Permit should not be issued until the following conditions are met; 1. Sureties of $3,900 for erosion control and $5,550 for wetland alteration must be received. 2. A declaration for preservation of the wetland buffer must be executed and recorded. 3. Rule J fees must be paid. Background: The project plans for excavation of the wetland on the property to provide for wildlife enhancements. Rules B and D apply. Rule B The erosion control plan meets Rule B requirements and includes silt fence around the excavated wetland. An erosion control surety of S3,900 is required as per the surety schedule approved by the Board of Managers. Rule D Excavation in the wetland follows DNR guidelines for wildlife enhancement, therefore, no mitigation is required. The revegetaiion plan will restore native plants and decrease the number of invasive species. The wetland buffer will be decompacted and revegetated where it is damaged to access the wetland for excavation. The buffer must be recorded before a pennit is issued. A wetland alteration surety of $5,550 is require^. Attachments; 1. Application received 4/24/00. 2. Site location map. j.Site Landscape Plan dated 3/7/00 revised 4/21/00. Lisa A. Tilman Date T:\0l85\01\l5l\app00 139.doc 04 28/00 TATAI P.0P 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & \ Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associates. Inc. Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G B^ncslroo. PE • W^rvin L Sofvjfa. PE • Glenn R. Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht, PE. • Jerry A Bourdon. PE Senior Consultants: Robert W Rosene. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Susan M Ebcrlm. C PA e August 15,2000 Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE. • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE. • Robert C Russek, A.I A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Xenneth P. Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • David A Bonestroo. MB A • Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • Agnes M. Rmg. MBA* Allan Rick Schmdt PE Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Wiiimar. MN • Milwaukee. Wl \Mebjite: WWW bonestroo com Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Po't Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Re:Renckens Land Alteration BRA File No. 139-2603 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the grading plan and accompanying letter for the proposed land alteration on the Renckens property. The site is located at 3020 Watertown Road. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. The proposed grading plan appears acceptable. Based on the June 23, 2000 letter from Steiner and Koppelman, all excavated material will be used on site. This will minimize concerns of truck traffic and tracking soil on Watertown Road. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. All appropriate permits should be acquired prior to excavation or construction activities. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading activities and should remain in place until vegetation has been established. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom KelloggInaa Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 4 1A u S. /B SEC. 33. TH8. R.23 III! N, /... ; ■ t i •»>«•••• •* % \ •••• iiM .nr A.G . . i . l| .'i 0 -«kM — I m. mm» % •«• 1'»• ^ >«/ awmawai "A]i' ■ ■ ?3-V/'/ t aii X-i-' 3 1 \ ««Ml \ , • . m 1 lai M aai« Vj •m t m ----- I ^^V^£• f o • . • 1 • t I • j -"S’A • ft ^ imi la ritfMti JVTkU U>»?T i|t^- - //t.T- CrC G FLOW AGE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF DAMAGES THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this and between day of ,by , and its heirs, assigns, and successors [hereinafter collectively referred to as the Grantor(sjj and the Cit_ or 0»ono, its successors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the . uie of ; (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee.) WITNESSETH, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to grantee the right to restrict and grantor(s) agree to limit and preclude the use, improvement and development, under the conditions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: as follows: 1. Grantor(s) hereby covenant(s) and agree(s): No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land including without limitation, fences, fireplaces, steps, docks, piers, hardcover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or improvement inconsistent with the natural state of the land. B No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the Land except as authorized by written consent of Grantee. C.No earth, loam, peat, gravel, soil or any other natural material or substance shall be moved or removed from the Land and there shall be no dredging or excavation of any nature whatsoever or any change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. D.No soil, sand, gravel or other substance or material as landfill shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land and no waste, trash or garbage shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land. Page 1 of 3 1 E. F. No use shall be made of the Land except uses, if any, which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land, and no use which would tend to change the drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, fish and wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of the Land or the water situated thereon. Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection «nd enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land wi.iiout any liab’lity any structures, uses, materials, substances, or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land. 2.Grantor(s) hereby grant, gift, quit claim and convey to Grantee, a peipetual flowage easement and right and privilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Land. 3. Grantor(s) herein do hereby remiss, release, acquit and forever discharge, forever, the Grantee and any and all of its officers and employees of and from any and all claims, demand or causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever which may arise or accrue by virtue of any flowage or trespass with water within terms of these agreements. In addition to any other remedy the grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: All provisions hereof shall run with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assigns of the respective parties hereto. „ j Page 2 of 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________,19 ___,by __________________ day of NOTARY PUBLIC STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: This instrument is drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Page 3 of 3 v'.v OEEANIURO • • • VSi- -PA E .... .% —*-« —. 1,.^ ; 'w b * .V- a -< / 12C0 BO *.•: i$ I ■!4 i 3 4—V 2500 1200 : •*'.- :::• 4£' •TH AVI N { v'C etc ism' yyr: iLakiii V,*;: WAHATA BLVO S . COUBTR T Cl^'^ OICXIT ONO / ________ M CO^PPIU. WIAB cm « VK* ON 0 S 12 WATEHTOWB m RO 0 TH0H0U6HI 5 o "Y. g . NAMMlfii^§ iI5 u MAP LE L a tU SAANO A«t ■ UL^ IREO 1 I- ' '■ —■*** coux^-----OEVIX LA ^ OR LONGVIEW cm / . mJ bat : be rs rdiTE \ 400 _______________ ^ ABIKGOONWAT | ORONO \ !f no HI H RUN DATE AA/Ze/OO BATCH SAZ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OHHERS LIST PROP AMm OMI«R NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB AA-117-ZS 21 OOAl A2AB5 WATERTOWN RO TOIL BAURLE THONAS D A LOUANN BAURLE 2AB5 WATERTOWN RD LONG LAKE NN 553S6 PROP AOOR OWNER NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 0A-117-2S 21 OOIA AAA3B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD ASSOC ROBERT HARE lAAA LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO HN 5535A PROP AOOR OWIKR KANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB B4-X17-2S 22 002B BSBAS WATERTOWN RO BRUCE C R KATHRYN S HALL BRUCE C R KATHRYN S HALL 3BA5 WATERTOWN RO ORONO HN 5555B PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB BA>117>2S 22 0034 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED S J ULSETH BOD ULSETH STEVEN J ULSETH SOBS WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE HN 55350 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ATOR SB SS-UB-2S 32 0003 BB1B5 CRYSTAL CREEK RO KENDRICK B HELROSE KENDRICK B HELROSE C/0 TORO COHPANY Bill LVNDALE AVE S BLOOniNGTON HH 55420 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB SS-llB-23 S3 0001 03020 WATERTOWN RO J R RENCKCNS BOA RENCKENS DEBRA B JANES RENCKENS 45R0 FORESTVIEW LA N PLYNOUTN HN 55442 SB 04-117-23 21 OOOB OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED EST OF ROTH F WEAR CITY OF ORONO PO BOX '• CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 SB 04-117-23 22 0015 00050 CYGNET PL 0 B n CURRIER JR DONALD B HAR6ARET CURRIER JR 50 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE HN 55355 SB 04-117-23 22 0030 03015 WATERTOWN RD CEORGAYN C KRAHER 6E0RGAYN C KRAHER 2000 SOHERSET LA LONG LAKE HN 55355 SB 33-11B-23 31 0007 00225 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD N S K GOLOSHITH B L 0 SCHWIE S K GOLOSHITH B L 0 SCHWIE 255 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 3B 33-I1B-23 32 0004 00105 CRYSTAL CREEK RD PILLAR HONES INC PILLAR HONES INC 420 UPLAND LA N PLVHOUTH HH 55447 3B S3-11B-25 S3 0005 00175 CRYSTAL CREEK RO JYLAND DEVELOPHENT INC JYLANO DEVELOPHENT INC 150 BROADWAY AVE S WAYZATA HN 55301 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 12 3B 04-117-23 21 0010 02005 WATERTOWN RD CEORGAYN C KRAHER GEORGAYN C KRAHER 2000 SOHERSET LA long lake HN 55355 SB 04-117-23 22 0024 00020 CYGNET PL H J B H H PANUSKA HAROLD J/HARGARET H PANUSKA 20 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE HN 55356 V <ilf 30 04-117-23 22 0032 030B5 WATERTOWN RD S J ULSETH ADD ULSETH STEVEN J ULSETH 30B5 WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE HN 55355 SB 33-11B-23 31 0011 00255 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N S K GOLOSHITH OLD SCHWIE SCOTT K GOLOSHITH 255 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD H long lake HN 55355 3B 33-11B-23 32 0005 0003B ADDRESS PENDING KINGSBRIOCE PROPERTIES INC KIN6SBRIDCE PROPERTIES INC 3125 FOX ST LONG LAKE HN 55355 30 33-11B-23 33 0007 00020 CRYSTAL CREEK RD CHARLES CUOO LLC CHARLES CUDD CO 275 HARKET ST 0445 NPLS HN 55405 • H RUN DATE 06/25/00 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35601 PAGE IS PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SB 33-118-23 33 0005 00060 CRYSTAL CREEK RD TNONAS W i LYNDA ISAACS TNONAS W C LYNDA ISAACS 60 CRYSTAL CREEK RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 35 33-115-23 33 0009 00100 CRYSTAL CREEK RD HARK A 0 JULIE J WENIN6ER MARK A 0 JULIE J WENINCER 100 CRYSTAL CREEK RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 35 33-115-23 33 0010 00190 CRYSTAL CREEK RD D E BRODEN 5 L N BRODEN DAVID E I LAYLON N BRODEN 190 CRYSTAL CREEK RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 35 33-115-23 33 0011 00170 CRYSTAL CREEK DANIEL I LAURA FRATE DANIEL i LAURA FRATE 170 CRYSTAL CREEK RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 35 33-115-23 33 0012 00035 ADDRESS PENDING CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS 1502 WOODDALE DR WOODBURY MN 55125 35 33-115-23 39 0001 00155 OLD CRYSTAL DAY L S STUBBS ETAL LYDON SHERWOOD STUBBS 155 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 RD N 35 33-115-23 39 0005 00055 WEAR LA N N P I G N SIEVERT NICHAEL P t GAYLE N SIEVERT 55 WEAR LA N LONG LAKE NN 55356 35 33-115-23 39 0006 00055 WEAR LA N DIANA J GROSS DIANA J CROSS 55 WEAR LA N LONG LAKE MN 55356 35 33-115-23 39 0013 00155 WEAR LA N J B WINSTON ICR WERSAL J B WINSTON ICR WERSAL 155 WEAR LA N LONG LAKE MN 55356 .o TOTAL BATCH 502 00027 • i 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE A o y o J PERMIT RECORD Permit No. 1^(o Date 3~i / - ^.S" Type of Permit _ l^Q ^/rUTtrt. >^*/4 <j'7-l{ e>in\ /2C'fi //-K- 9f 'A 2 7C /j3-/y- V y ^ ^/Ja^.CP, O ----- - - ____Ti^joc/j 110o■Po Ji/‘/^3 0.00 _________________ J>a 3-/7_ 60 ■Po /-/z -ao /0^JOr>^ Jo ^7 3^- ^7^ Jo \ 4 Application Date: Deadline: 7/18/00 9/17/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator < \ FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 16,2000 SUBJECT:#2604 Narrows Saloon - James Anderst 3380 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 5391 Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Live Entertainment Zoning:B-1, Limited Business District List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G Application Location Map Property Survey Building Plan Standards for B-I Retail Sales Business District City Council Minutes (7/19/00) Council Memo'^'10/00) Background: Mr. Anderst had appeared before the City Council on July 24, 2000 to request approval to proceed with the interior remodel ing and restroom addition, which had been started. The restrooms are being expanded for handicapped accessibility. The Narrows Saloon is required to obtain a condition^ use permit. The conditional use permit would permit live entertainment and expansion of the floor area. The Council did vote to allow the remodeling to continue even though a conditional use permit should have been required before the building expansion began. The City of Orono had issued a building permit to allow additional remodeling of the Narrows Saloon which includes expanding the bar into the former Minnetonka Photo space, now vacated. The property is located in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District in which a Class II Restaurant is defined as a restaurant which serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertainment. Expansion of the building requires the owner to obtain a conditional use permit since Class II Restaurants are allowed by CUP. City files indicate no CUP has ever been issued for a restaurant on this property. The use has required a CUP in the B-1 zone since, at least 1967. Expansion of the facility into the former Minnetonka Photo space and a 4’ addition to the bathrooms now requires a conditional use permit. Also, the B-1 district requires a commercial site plan review before a building permit can be issued. f^2604 Sorrows Saloon - James Anderst 3380 Shoreline Drive Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit August 21. 2000 pagt-l Normally a commercial site plan review has not been required for minor interior space remodeling, but this application involves expansion of the building envelope. i Nte Mtkrst has requested approval to proceed with the interior remodeling and restroom addition, whi<mlrad been started. The restrooms are being expanded for handicapped accessibility. The conditional use permit would permit live entertainment and expansion of the floor area. Review of Conditional Use Permit The Code requires approval of a conditional use permit for the expansion of the facility and live entertainment within the building. 1. II. Site Plan Review The interior site plan has been provided and is attached as Exhibit C. The tavern use would be expanded into the former Photo Shop increasing the floor area by approximately 1,000 square feet. The restroom are being located on the main level and are being expanded to provide handicapped accessability. The site plan al '' tdicates a stage that would be located in the southeast side of the building for live bands. Ali use of the building would be within the structure. An outdoor seating area has been shown on the plans, but is not proposed to be built for some time. The property owner has requested to discuss this as a future option with the Planning Commission and Council. Parking Recently the Council approved plans to install new lights in the Navarre parking lot. Most of the parking for the Narrow ’s Saloon would use the Municipal lot located behind the building. The commercial area around the parking lot is zoned commercial. It is estimated a total of 23,000 s.f. of retail is located within the commercial buildings adjacent to the lot. The City Code requirement for retail and service is one space for 150 s.f. of floor area. The total parking spaces that would be required is 1 54. The parking area contains approximately 90 spaces. The Public Services Director has recently reviewed the parking in the Navarre Lot and stated the parking lot appears to be functioning adequately. It wou'd not be possible to create new parking areas on the private property'. Some limited parking is available along Shoreline Drive. The additional seating may cause added demand for parking around the site. The busiest hours for The Narrow ’s would be evenings on weekends when there would be little demand for parking spaces in the lot. The applicant should comment on parking demand during the lunch hour Monday thru Friday. i^2604 Sorrows Saloon • James AnJerst 33SO Shoreline Drt\e Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Augiisi 21. 2000 pazt~2 The new Snyder’s store, under construction, located across Shadywood has provided adequate parking for that use. Some overflow traffic during lunch hour at the Culver’s restaurant may use the Snyder’s site. There would be little use of the Municipal lot by customers from Culver’s and Snyder’s. III. Lighting No changes to lighting have been proposed to the exterior of the building. IV.Sign Space In the B-1 district one s.f of sign space is permitted for each front foot of building frontage. The space being leased for the Narrow’s would allow this space to use 60 s.f. of signage. No single sign shall be greater than 50 s.f Mr. Anderst has stated they are in the process of designing a sign plan. The signage shall conform to Code requirements. Signage would likely be placed above the main entrance along Shoreline and a second sign would be located above the rear entrance towards the parking lot. V. Noise The City of Orono has adopted a noise ordinance. The primary concern with live entertainment is the noise generated by a live band. This property is not adjacent to residential property. Should live entertainment be approved for the site, loading and unloading of band equipment should occur at the rear entrance of the building to avoid blocking of any traffic areas. VI. Hours of Operation The applicant has not provided hours of operation for the live entertainment. The normal hours for the tavern use are until 1:00 a.m. Applicant should provide hours the kitchen is open. Staff Recommendation The Code does not list specific performance standards for live entertainment in the B-1 district. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and site plan approval for the Narrow Saloon based on the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. All improvements are subject to fire code standards. Use of the building shall be limited to the hours as established by the Planning Commission and Council. Noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. Any other conditions the Planning Commission requires of the live entertainment use of the property. 1^2604 Sarro\¥S Saloon - James Amierst 3380 Shoreline Dnvt Site Plan Revievi and Conditional Use Permit August 21. 2000 page-3 1 UiHtli % Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat and forward to the Council, with conditions, 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. 4. Other Action. H2604 Sorrows Saloon - James Anderst 3380 Shoreline Drive Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit August 21. 2000 page-4 / Application Date Receh ed_ Amount Paid OIL- CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address T>pe of Application to be Filed ON I J- ^ \3n€y/e^/> __________________ r,LlP - Rts^iroew A<l^*4iews Property Identification Number (P.I.D^I 17* il7* ^-S W OH^D. APPLICANT Name J tn Address <,^0 ff,>C. o' /c iC City Phone (home') ^7/ “'JO O ^ Phone (wo^) <V^7/ ' J rc Zip v<S^ ?9/ OWNER (if different than aoplicant) / Name tn )7)c-. P.u./ i/c If Address City Phone (home)_ Phone (workV g g » cl Zip. Date Proper^ Acquired yVo // /9^9— ---------------------- I (do) (do^n^?also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERiVHTS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg yC $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' ot lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS y $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule (month/year) •0 I ■ .1 /» • < . II* « m «o s"\ V *• V I »«>’ 'i *' V i.:_* 3 ■^“•ct-C- ^ * -‘ A. 7i •i. I. « I ?* VO 0^- Vf .■<?•.;' • . ’ .vie' « ■'•• ■■■ %* •! I* • |ikl •;: “ u! ' • * T ' • lu I •v - •.•’• • ’’• <1. mm x\ S^p,“.-f- ''' •’’v'Sb' * rk/r.“.*4.-*T ”l.;.ll'J V fV rtiu>------no. n ST [r •txynak«i -•>-• m *■ ’b Jf«*; ^«r 1^ ti - !•• • ^1 *•• •> i; lo ^ ^' r-w-Tv - *• ^ X* \ -s —Ur . 'S.1I.__-.X_. i A. !*.'-» ^1* i * tV 9 \y. •It IV:' _* ’I*. •X l« •<*• ^ I • XT’ • P ■~*i a I-* \».»- _ «t • :1.N ^ * "‘ \-,rr- ■rK ^ ^ 4l \ ' V Ov "jV ' A' A /“ ' 'W ‘Jt I o r-^-^-nrT-r-7-1 r-8' s;cK£ \ ■)«'’•' I o' »ct«« OV •....a ..... RUDU- '6»-RICIC i»w£. Ci» ^:il»C»t* U/^//<9fO I •!\I * V ^ J M .4- ■j '/^ f r U/t'</■?; •-'A7 -— :/xJ/?9£D TO c»TY or ofloKjo rjn ■■.'{'APT f:nnJP.wAY uxOCY'y.Cjjr RCCC'^OSIP ^ 'l,C2’i-Wl cro'tc^jo A/(k rrou^ f*. ]■■I ^0 Sl»OHEL/we PRWC \ •• • —■ •«%*» § \ \ Iw con>liuitiurt 01 n*nv and tool ol iwM Uwm. kiUinHcnrK. bit. wjH \bo%vn h.i^bcd. |.<*<* \IIIH luttjl i - >p«>ciiicattont tu« on\tfuct»oa ul _*.v wall and oW at loitd ---------A' “a*-4 rr — I'tfilioit t>l t*« if*' hllid in weOrtKluijI \|KH'UlCJlW>ni. ______l\i^lioU wjIU JM* %Im»w« *bjdt*d PR.o90SEt> Outdoor C ov E^EO SEATIMG • “T' .rj.'.i;, villi';-! \ -------- /, ■’ hvl7~ ■' ■••■:’" • ■ ' ' ■ iV .’ Cwmewdnor jopiHtin*, in>tall iiniH. cidOf «v ironK* i- »< K> ■o Q ‘{nM ifw loilm ^ iiniul ^ shown I suyi Zs ‘IJ'J”''* I « J RflncaieH’Hifiral N f•^MlV(* vm! I* A.M|I -ix ' Al / I Men P 1‘ T I I ’ • ^7C^*.»VsC,U-■4.A« •- \I \iOinn •I'i*'* • r - ^ • I — fl ' I. - I ' 1 . h. - n«^.\ «*»l..*irt Lll .llKIM J - r:^ ll ’ * •'1 iVII 1 fS%'»•1 M !! 1 • • - :• < i \i i----^|ttaa-rrtg=S=J -------r----------------:”'U fl ^ ? i » .*' w.iii r 11 ? . I..IW. »l» N j ll.l> l.fl*' _ ^ ............n*.* 1 :ii| I F jol Tables If layinK vliowM sbailcMr ; »•* !•: '.« ( IMIstriM I — • .ohI * lalniM' t Insfl I I V ; z ** • |)(‘litii<l wjlf *•' .•, '*•!* 1 ri'tiiMii.tl liv ^ ^ j IIUIHI. ' - ; I i»uii • • C.isl ' * iMit* luiwlise I ' ^ t. > * * I ,ViprO%l«nata^ Uitaiturt CM lu toMcf V In UMiJiifani aHiobe dwood. t\p. v*«* oriM liti«il ^ I ^|tl«| ltl« 4tH»»W ^ • l«N ft-nun^l i«* ‘ %% .ill Ih*i*%•*•<* I n<*»% 4‘mI , I'xiOina >|i.u I* . WjIHoIh- * If nt«n«^l 1* I I I %hus%n da*t»»nl a ' Nru 4J"hiR‘i niil.willi • lyw plasiiclanrcponiwhip Vdbs/ icr / I nnnnotoiOQ V U.lll • .iImW^^ ^ VV.lilM'NS Sl«il(iin w » pi s IlM'ita.l* Kiu lit*n |1»y OlluMM \ i:* s.i. \ltlls »% Ila*!* • It HI •* Hlll‘^% %».»lM4l. _ I $ \\__I. • « I J s; • \ s«v OUH liiiJ ,• i'.fr • s|nfiiM d»‘%i»;ii H V;-.4 V o 1.- Vi^ frr-...........• H.u/Roslauranl J.370O. v.l' «ifliinMi* iM ic|»I.« *• tmkngf^aXI nurenimom aces —\ lo de%lRn ft and wninii* C jlicici «M bat iln. ?S! 4 q !qhq ■ ^1^0 o o o on -H' r.S i„ iji-*SU\\r •• •• • «•- ••• U-. i;* :mm o O O G O ( I I ^ ^) •—' 11 \ V li*-.'*n --------------■ r-i--:- / ' wf \ \ Pokiae K. |V\,NMer«NK« THOTO spftce ti V\f1.U ca »\i««l ll•iHHn^•. l.ihh- K pORMEI^ • , - s,. o.if. xn^*fH^nt*xn um J fi»HHW'*'»irHl ' •**« iw ilii»*i:nM»i»Mn% iiM ^viRii «a ^ . _i-------1.. 0HMj4 I M «*• SWoKELlMfi IlM -------------------- OmiAl SPAspace §10.40 SEC. 10.40. B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-1 ” Retail Sales Business (District) is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The district may adjoin residential districts or other birsiness districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-l" Retail Sales Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following w.ts or uses deemed similar b}- the Council: A. Retail and Service Businesses. The following neighborhood letail sales and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood: 1. Arts and school supplies store. 2. Banks and insurance companies. 3. Barber and beauty shops. 4. Bicycle sales and repair. 5. Books, magazines, record shop. 6. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other u5ual drug store merchandise. repair. 7. Dry cleaning and laundr>- pick-up stations including incidental pressing and 8. Garden supplies, florist shop. 9. Gift or antique shops. 10. Hardware store, paint store. 11 . Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply stores. 12. Jewelry shops and repair. 13. Laundromats. 14. Locksmith. 15. Music, radio, TV, appliance sales and repair stores. 16. Newsstands. 17. Office supply store, office machine store. 18. Pet shop. 19. Pipe and tobacco shops. 20. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares, furniture, carpet store. 21 . Postal substation. 22. Real estate sales. ORONO CC ^ O (4-1-84) § 10.40 23. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies. 24. Sewing center and yardgoods. 25. Sporting goods store. 26. Tailor shops. 27. Temporary sales such as Christmas tree lots. 28. Travel bureau. 29. Variety store. 30. Wearing apparel store, shoe store. 31. Off-sale Liquor Store Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 32. Home and garden equipment rental. Source: Ordinance 152,2nd Series Adopted: 10-28-96 B. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-1" Retail Sales Business District no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit. A. Garages. For the servicing and repair of automobiles provided repair functions are totally enclosed in a building. B. Motor Fuel Stations. Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 18. C. Restaurants (Class I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table. Cafeteria - Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Restaurants (Class I.) Source: Ordinance 67,2nd Senes Adopted: 5-8-89 D. Restaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-in, and Liquor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are serv ed their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed! or a dn%e-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. ORONO CC 333 (4-1-84) §10.40 E. Off-Street Parking. Off-street Parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is (in) another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61. Subdivision 4 and such other conditions as found necessary by the Council. • F. Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Source: Ordinance No. 183,2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-99 G. Nurseries. Day nurseries provided not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. H. Offices. Professional office and offices of a general nature. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 I. Antenna Structure: One independent antenna stnieturc, with antenna or combination of antetwa attached thereto, subordinate to oHd seni'ieing the principal use er streeture en the same let and custemorily incidental thereto that is not attached to another stnieturc provided the height of the antenna stnieture dees not exceed 65 feet and the antenna stnieture is set back from any lot Imc a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna stfueture: Source! Ordinance No. 177 Effeett^‘e-Date! 6-5’?5 (Subd. 41 deleted per Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series, adopted 5-27-97) Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-l" Retail Sales Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. ORONO CC 334 (4-1-84) §10.40 D. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 H. Communication Reception/Transmission Devices. 1. Accessory Antennas. Accessory antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVRO's, and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory antennas that are accessory to the principal use of the property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: a. Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. b. Yards. Accessory' antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. c. Roofs. Ifvegetation or obstructions interfere v«th satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. d. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the ma.ximum height of the antenna. e. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. ORONO CC c (4-1-84) § 10.40 f. Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. g. Electrical Code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. h. Color/Content. Accessoiy antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. 2. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas, may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: a. Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet. b. Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. c. Setbacks. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. Source: Ordinance No. 183,2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-99 Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements, A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R” District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than .35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 335-1 (4-1-84) § 10.40 F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-1" Retail Sales Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the follow-ing standards: 1. All exterior w’all finishes on any building shall be; (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or, (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shallbe designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. Height. No strucuire or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height e.xcept as provided in Section 10.75. ORONO CC 335-2 (4-1-84) t F minutes of the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 24,2000 t2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) Pctcrsofh«iatcd a hardship in her view is inherent to the land and not the need for additional storage spacer Mayor Jabbour comm! possible. led he would like to see the properties in Orono be as uncluttered as Sansevere moved, Jabbour secondt<^to approve the variance to permit construction 2,160 square foot pole barn and a varW to the street lot line for the property located at 740 Orchard Park Road, with the stipulation bfeiqs that if the Applicant wishes to exercise his right as presently exists in the Ordinance t^eqnstruct an additional shed, that building must comply to City standards, and with the under^bqiding the Applicant will store his vehicle and trailer inside the newly constructed structurb^^ furthc- with the understanding that the existing two-stall garage will be relocated as far baoNtj^ possible. Jabbour commented in his view the hardship is based on the land and thc'Applicant relinquishing his right to construct four structures on his property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays I, Peterson Opposed. Peterson stated in her view there is no hardship inherent with the land a.nd that the Applicant shot {HI) JAMES ANDERST- NARROWS SALOON, 3380 SHORELINE DRIVE - PERMIT REVIEW James Anderst, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Citv of Orono has issued a building permit to the .Applicant to allow the additional remodeling of the Narrows Saloon which includes expanding the bar into the former Minnetonka Photo space, which is now vacant. Tliis property is located in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District in which a Class 11 Restaurant is defined as a rcstaura.nt which serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertainment. Weinberger stated the expansion of the building r..^r in nKt-im n rruiHliinn.'il usc Dcrmit sincc Class II Restaurants arc allowed byrequires the ow ner to obtain a conditional usc permit since a conditional usc permit. The applicant has made a formal application for a conditional usc permit, but would technically be considered to be an after-the-fact application since the owner was permitted to proceed forward with the remodeling and c.xpansion of the restrooms, Weinberger stated the proposed expansion meets all setback requirements for the B-1 District, with no change to the footprint of the building except for the small expansion to the restroom area. Weinberger stated the expansion to the restroom is needed in order to make the restrooms handicap accessible. Subsequent to issuance of a building permit. Staff dctcmiined that a conditional use permit is Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 24,2000 (JAMES ANDERST, Continued) needed for the expansion project. The Planning Commission will review this conditional use permit application at their nc.xt meeting. The Applicant has requested that he be allowed to proceed with the remodeling and expansion. City Start" would request a letter in writing from the Applicant indicating that all work is done at the owner's risk at this point since a conditional use permit is required. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting the City Council approve the continued remodeling of the Narrows Saloon prior to the August 21'* conditional use permit rcN'iew and prior to the issuance of the conditional use permit. Anderst stated he obtained a demolition permit from the City to tear a concrete wall out and erect a beam. Anderst stated he submitted architectural drawings to the City and obtained a building permit. Anderst stated he proceeded with the remodeling and requested a footings inspection and was told at that time that he needed to appear before the City Council. Anderst stated he was informed by the building inspector that he did not notice the new footings at the time he reviewed the plans. Mayor Jabbour stated it was his recollection that at the time the Applicant approached the City for a liquor license, he had indicated he wanted to remodel the structure. Jabbour stated the issue relating to live music w ill be part of the conditional use permit, but the restaurant and bar license has been approved. Weinberger stated the Applicant is expanding into the vacant Minnetonka Photo space, and technically a conditional use permit is required Weinberger stated any building permits to expand the size of this building, requires City Council appro%aI as part of a commercial site plan review, which is part of the conditional use permit process. Mayor Jabbour inquired why the owner is proceeding at his own risk since the City has previously granted a liquor license based on the existing plan and also a building permit. Weinberger stated the issue relates to the live entertainment Kelley stated in his view the City has errored by not realizing the Applicant would be expanding the use of his business, which requires a conditional use permit, w ithout having a commercial site plan done first. Kelley stated City Staff should ha\e realized at the time of the request for a demolition permit that the business was being expanded and that a site plan review was required as well as a conditional use permit to do that. Mayor Jabbour pointed out the Applicant is attempting to work with the City on this matter and that hopcftilly a mutual agreement can be reached. Kelley indicated as part of a commercial site plan other factors come into play, such as lighting, signage, and parking, which the Applicant should be aware of Kelley stated he has concerns that the City Council gives the okay to proceed forward with the remodeling without these other issues being addressed Kelley commented in his \ icw it is not proper for the City Council to proceed forward with this application without a site plan review and conditional use permit review. Page 7 uxjM !■ I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000 (JAMES ANDERST, Continued) Anderst stated the building is not changing except for the four foot expansion to the restroom area. Anderst commented he is merely expanding into existing space. Mayor Jabbour stated in his view the Applicant is entitled to proceed forward with his remodeling project. Anderst stated the improvements have enhanced the neighborhood Mayor Jabbour stated the Applicant will be required to meet certain conditions at the time the site plan and conditional use permit process arc reviewed. Weinberger stated the City Council will need to approve the Applicant proceeding forward with the remodeling project, noting the building currently is open and construction is underway. Flint commented since the Applicant is in the midst of the remodeling at the present time, it is difficult for the City Council to tell the Applicant not to proceed forward since City Staff failed to inform the Applicant of the proper procedure that needs to be follow ed. Flint reiterated the applicant will be required to meet certain conditions that are normally required as part of the conditional use permit. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the continued remodeling of the Narrows Saloon located at 3380 Shoreline Drive prior to the August 21, 2000 Conditional Use Permit review and prior to the Conditional Use Permit being issued by the City of Orono, with the understanding the Applicant will be required to meet certain required conditions ns part of the Conditional Use Permit process. Anderst inquired what typically is required with a conditional use permit. Mayor Jabbour stated the requirements \arx from property to property and arc undetermined at this time. Mayor Jabbour stated there still is an issue with the live entertainment that will need to be further addressed. Kelley stated the kitchen may need to be brought up to code and other items such as lighting, signage, parking, and hours of operation will need to be review ed Kelley expressed concern that he is being requested to approve this application without those questions being answered. Flint commented that the City Council is not approving the conditional use permit at tliis time but is merely allowing the Applicant to proceed fonvard with the remodeling. Mayor Jabbour stated the City Council in his view will not be able to deny the Applicant the right to continue to operate as he was in the past, but that any expansion of use w ill need to be reviewed. Jabbour stated the issuance of a building permit has triggered a number of requirements which w ill need to be addressed. Kelley stated the amount of parking required for this business differs from the photo business that used to exist at this location. Pace 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 24,2000 (JAMES ANDERST, Continued) Andcrst commented he experiences a number of people parking in the public parking lot that frequent Lord Fletchers. Sansevere inquired what increase in capacity the Applicant is expecting with this additional space. Andcrst stated he is not sure at this time. Andcrst stated the total square footage of the building is 3,000 square feet. Sansevere inquired what the current capacity of the building is. Andcrst stated Code allows 15 square feet per person at the present time. Andcrst stated he is not aware of w hat that number is offhand. Kelley stated he is not trying to be opposed to this project, but that the Cit}' needs to be careful about informing the Applicant that he will be required to meet certain conditions as part of this project. Kelley inquired w hether the City Council would be in favor of closing this business down should the Applicant not be able to meet the required conditions. Mayor Jabbour sL.icd in his view the City Council should not take that position since the City did issue a building permit to the Applicant and did not inform the Applicant that he needed to obtain a conditional use permit. Flint commented in his opinion it has been made clear to the Applicant that he will be required to comply with certain conditions as part of this project. Andcrst requested he be allowed to keep the live entertainment Mavor Jabbour commented that will need to be discussed fiirthcr. Jabbour noted he has received calls in support of the improvements from the residents in the area. VOTE ON ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORJCOUNCIL REPORT Mavor JabbourTrolcd he will be meeting with the County Commissioners regarding the Dakota Rail to Trail project this \\e^ Mavor Jabbour stated the issues relatmgHCLNarrows Dock have not been resolved. Jabbour indicated he has discussed this matter with a fcxwof^^c residents of this area who have expressed dissatisfaction with the parking. Jabbour stated a constnsuswas reached w ith the neighbors that this was primarily a personal matter and that the City shoulopTobqbly not be involved. Jabbour stated he suggested a meeting be held w ith all the ow ners of the doclcSTOstQ^o obtain first rights of refusal for the purchase of the dock lots by the owners of adjacent propertu Mayor Jabbour stated the issue relating to the additional water patrol was not meeting with Page 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 19,2000 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:Narrows Saloon - James Anderst 3380 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 5391 Building Permit Review Zoning:B-l, Limited Business District List of Exhibits: A. B. C. D. Location Map Property Survey Building Plan Standards for B-l Retail Sales Business District Background: The City of Orono has issued a building to allow additional remodeling of the Narrows Saloon which includes expanding the bar into the former Minnetonka Photo space, now vacated. The propeiiy is located in the B-l Retail Sales Business District in which a Class II Restaurant is defined as a restaurant which serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertainment. Expansion of the building requires the owner to obtain a conditional use permit since Class II Restaurants are allowed by CUP. Mr. Anderst has met with Staff and has made a formal application for a Conditional Use Permit to ht reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 21,2000. However, he would like to continue me remodeling under the existing building permit that has been issued even though a conditional use permit should have been required before the building expansion began. City files indicate no CUP has ever been issued for a restaurant on this property. The use has required a CUP in the B-l zone since, at least 1967. Expansion of the facility into the former Minnetonka Photo space and a 4' addition to the bathrooms now requires a conditional use permit. Also, the B-1 district requires a commercial site plan review before a building permit can be issued. Normally a commercial site plan review has not been required for minor interior space remodeling, but this application involves expansion of the building envolope. Mr. Anderst has requested approval to proceed with the interior remodeling and restroom addition, which have been started. The restrooms are being expanded for handicapped accessibility. The Narrows Saloon would be required to obtain a conditional use permit which has been applied for, but will not be reviewed by the Planning Commission until August 21, 2000. The conditional use permit would permit live entertainment and expansion of the floor area. G Request for Council Action continued Page 2 July 19,2000 Narrows Saloon________________ If the Council permits the Narrows Saloon to proceed with the remodeling and expansion the ovyner shall provide a letter to the City of Orono stating the continued remodeling is at the owners risk since a conditional use permit is required for the building expansion and live entertainment. 7 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner August 21, 2000 SUBJECT:#2605 John Doleman 1680 Shadywood Road Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-iC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: 13,883 s.f. (.316 acre) List of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet Application Site Plan/ Survey Floor Plan Hardcover Calculations Photo of Property Location Map Plat Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record B C D E F G H I J Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250': Within 75- 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 3,707.77 s.f. (39.5%) hardcover where 43,865.04 s.f.(41.22%) exists and 2,343.9 s.f. (25%) is allowed. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): Lot Coverage: In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 2,272.79 s.f. (16.3%) of lot coverage. Application Summary: The applicant has applied for variances to remove an existing street side stoop and steps and replace it with a porch/entry way to the residence. The new entry way/porch (approximately 256 s.f.) combined will extend the entire back of the residence. They will provide better access to the house and flow better with the existing floor plan. The porch is outdoor space not additional living space. Average lakeshore setback is not a concern because the addition is on the street side of the residence. The entry way and addition meet all the setback requirements for the LR-IC zoning district. I he entry way and porch will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2.272.79 s.f. (16.3%) where 2,016.89 s.f (14.69%) exists and 2,082.47 s.f. (15%) is allowed. • The entry way and porch will result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area to 3,707.77 s.f. (39.5%) where 3,865.04 s.f. (41.22%) e.xists and 2,343.9 s.f. (25%) is allowed. n?6C5 John Doleman 1680 Shadywood Road Variances-p. / The hardcover coverage results in a reduction because the applicant has proposed to remove landscape plastic and part of a sidewalk. 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 . Structural coverage is increasing above the 15% allowed amount, however, the porch is outdoor living space. Is a variance from structural lot coverage requirements supported by applicant’s stated hardships and the nature of the site? 2. Massing is not an issue in this proposal in staffs opinion. The entry way and porch addition are on the rear of the residence and the two adjacent properties will not be adversely affected by the addition. 3. The lot is undersized for the LR-IC zoning district. 4. The residence was built well before current zoning standards were adopted. 5. The applicant is proposing to remove 600 s.f. of landscape plastic and a portion of the sidewalk reducing the hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. 6. The only variance requested and granted for this property was in 1973 for an addition to the existing garage. 7. Does the Planning Commission have additional issues oi concerns with this proposal? Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval of variances for the entry way/porch. 2. Recommend approval of variances for the entry' way/porch with stipulation that the porch not be turned into living space. 3. Require the entry way/porch to be smaller to conform with the 15% structural lot coverage regulations. 4. Recommend denial of variances. 5. Table for further review or further specific information, advising the applicant what other possible revisions will make the application acceptable. 6. Other. #2(505 John Doleman 1680 ShaJyMooJ Lane Variances-p.2 Lot Area; ANALYSIS WORKSHEET A) LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f.(.5acre) Actual 13,883 s.f. (.316 acre) Structural Coverage ; fo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U cJ-h Ob Date Received '/)OoO Amount Paid vFA5^.00 PROPERTY INFORMATION . c V o\ Site Address______________i^o______________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 1*1-110-31^-31100*^ A 2 «nr»1ifrl^r) nn rpninrpH ciir rropeny laenuiicauon iNumocr ir.i.u.i rii r t Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired NO / CA __________ I (do) ^0 no^ also own tlw adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _)^_residenti^ ___^other .(month/year) Zoning District: - I C> other (specify). APPLICANT —^. . Name Address:S4^^ ^ Phone (home) Al ^ 3 B _____ Phone (work) City: _______Zip: ^S3^1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:./V ti If DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: \d f (attach additional sheets if necessary) if -i VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover V. Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^•xyy »«» u»^V._______________ '/; -f n / . (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYz" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYz" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that juuu: variatice application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomiation 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 m the best ot his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature and correct to me oesi i Date OWNER’S SIGNATU The ovvTier 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. OxvTier's Signature Applicant must have^all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please 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 uk; zo z 0 (nca <m •< 1 o 010 01 o a o a 11 ^ '' _ "V • • \ 1 ' 1 J ( 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 '0 iH^I ' ) ic:::u^^rfz5 W JL V t 1 ) • • ( ■d^ <n^ •■■■'2 w' 'teESI^ f: :\ -^fy .53 • •• \ •« V I I I w • V w I 1^ W ^ ^ Wl V. o /^cAoei^ > ;> ^<f/*fOw6^ Ti<ufr- coAKytrrf 7 /y Q i?*' “ •>« tes^ ^ / I' LANOIAJC t ), ( eK/sriAi(r m 3'-o" u . .^--------*fer^^ titisrtNO- I /L ' I— Ooujaj — S? SECa^a STM^ - ^ooR joisrs iT«L OCOR -t/£UJ tr^XAjEfZ Co\^R€Q /-VJWN)Cr !)k< £X/vSt»ai6- KlTCHe'U ADD ^»C/?oM/»9 H^AoeR Ajeeoeo. £KlifUM^ CSAlf Covsr^ZD A/euj /Jpc> DfA /\s /yjeeDro I ( -Jr ----------- / ===±=n op s-p 1 □ ' A A,"z-o 4 ^-fe" a /^oa. \Jteuj ST££L £xt. 3'- • .0" r /o'-o"- ll^TfiCADS 7-0". ^oonnjOvS ^f; iMUki 7M50' f* 500-11 • V^. - WAWngOVER IN ZQWE A. House 3?// Luifih wua X X X 8. Gtrage C. Driveway X X D. SidewaU: STB/^ ^l_ 1^.3 X X E. Puio/Deck 3 X X /$" F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric //X X X Q. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3NE + B r<?7.r X 100TOTAL A. House LJUfth B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plutlc Or Fabric X X X G. Other ^3 S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. m S.F. S.F. S.F. 53 7^ S.F. S.F. <^/0 S.F. S.F. y’l S.F. S.F. s -%* % A • S.F. ///5! ^ ^ S.F. 5~^7 <r S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S ^• 4 t S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i S.F..ua S.F. T0T.\L HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE >. 4' B xlCO - S.F. S.P. % A B A S' .c ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) A. Home HARDCQV^^ ZONE Unflb / X X X WUtt 2 B. Cange f C. Driveway -3?.3 3^3 O/ X X 27 77“ D. Sidewalk X X ^■7r~ sjtoenmes E. Puio/Deck __X X F, Landscape Underlain By Piastic Or Fabric 4____ X X X “7 ”2-7 G. Otber total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY .ARE\ IN ZONE • . A - B 7^ / ^ ^ * 100 y^^pryiFTy HARD^ty^ A. House ^ J IN ZONE X Unstb 20* ^ wiem B. Garage C. Driveway ^Z.1 2C>.T 3*3.3 X X a? D. Sidewalk ■70.5 “T“ X X E. Patio/Oeck ^2. X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plutic Or Fabric X X X 0. Otber TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTYIN ZONE A ^ O3 ."H B 10 .ie>_ X ICO % ^£-’/(S£-^ 'juCv H ^ooo -■25tMW^500-1000* ^ ^ 7 S.F. 4IZ, S.F S •“S.F. S.F. S.F -9^3,/ S.F. 3 S.F. « "" S.F. —2F7^S.F. S.F. ^ S.F. S.F. -/4T, S.F S.F. m S.F. ■^S6^.04%.r. Ob-J A 7y__s.?.\ , -ALZ3^^ IS , qs7 S.F 4 ).2-S.F. S.F. S.F 4»*35.^^ S.F. ' \:X.J a37.2S S.F. "“e2f S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3503.T7 S.F. S.F. A S' •S1.3 f. i:>. •:!*' ^ V' • Vvv 4.‘ ;V-. ‘■■-1- ■zf. 4«: v,-^ •' ' *> . »»\i iP'.. ■ ;*1 5G£.^... V'.; .0^/.. •;- i^ynMi tnQ-:v*- ^ i. a *- ^ •*%f. ., r • 4*ivr.;t:5SVA- * ■ ^'- -i . - T-.-U'Av.* .»'* • Jf ^ ^ 'SST •>> i ^* alw«r. ' • -»•->•• •• t: ^ \ MTl:. i ■■”• '-r",«2 figs, 'iiSf *' ty• -, w • r t*. t\m umy . VV>. ‘ *>s *• «''"s^r'^'*,»r *« ■■ w' ■•'.'! ■• .• . ." •i>:u «5SIG£1 ■■'^*-. a*a« ,u>.P» ftii-r: .. PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date ;»7Jb 7^0 <93P3 ii"(O’ b^i ydii.^ 'ao m S^<kO S'- Sf-J^ ~7>‘?V !C- 1- 1-j 9C7j Type of Permit (tFimc OCL. Pcac HoCi/y^P ^ re^Ar /rj AJ< jlaaoitsid. r?c fict f* Uj‘\Tr^ ' A A.^ /) Application Date: Application Deadline: 7/19/00 9/17/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 14, 2000 SUBJECT: #2606 Richard Bloomquist, Rick’s Super Value 3335 Shoreline Drive Commercial Site Plan Review/Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: B-3 - Shopping Center Business District 2.85 acres (Required = 2 acres) Summary of Request: Applicant requests approval of a commercial site plan and variances for building additions to the existing supermarket totaling approximately 4,740 square feet. Applicant requests variances for 500' - 1,000' hardcover, street and side lot line setbacks and required parking. The additions would provide additional retail space, warehouse/cooler areas, parcel pick-up and an employee break room. The use of the property would not change. Retail food of all varieties is a permitted use in the B-3 district. On Februar> 10, 1997 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3842 approving variances to permit additions to the building that increased the size of the structure by 6,688 s.f. However, the additions have not been constructed and the one year time period has expired requiring a new land use application. This proposal has removed the addition of a bank and pharmacy from the plans and has requested a smaller addition totaling 4,776 s.f. Resolution No. 3842 has been attached as Exhibit L. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 Application Plat Map C-1 Proposed Site Plan C-2 Drainage and Erosion Control Plan C-3 Existing Site Survey C-4 Plan Specifications L-1 Landscaping Plan AS 1.1 Floor Plan CS2.1 Elevation Views t^2606RichardBloomquist. Rick'sSuptr Value 333J Shoreline Drive Commercial Sue Plan Review Variances August 21. 2000 pagt-l i- List of Exhibits (cont.) J K L M N O P Pre development and Post Development Hardcover City Engineer Comments (8/15/00) Resolution No. 3842 (2/10/1997) Site Plan Approved (2/10/97) Resolution No. 2923 (2/11/91) Resolution No. 2482 (8/8/88) Property Owners Notification List Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.42 Standards for the B-3 Zoning District 2. Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 A.The gross leasable area shall not exceed 28% of the total land area of the lot. Allowed = 28% Proposed = 27,605 s.f./124,420 s.f. = 22.2% B.Required front (street) yard setback Required = 20' Existing = O' Variance was approved in ^988 for a O' parking setback per Resolution No. 2482, Exhibit O No change is proposed C.Side yard adjacent to street (Kelly Avenue) Required = 20' Existing = 10' Variance was approved ii. 1991 for a 10' parking setback per Resolution No. 2923, Exhibit N No change is proposed 1 D.Requested structural setback variances West side setback Required = 60' E.xisting = 10' (To loading dock adjacent to Kelly Avenue) Proposed = 38' (To new addition located on north side of the building) Variance Required *t2606Richard Bloomqutst. Rtck 's Super Value iiJJ Shorei\re Drive Commercial Slit Plan RivicM Variances August 21. 2000 page-2 f ‘ E. F. G. South side setback Required = 60' Existing = 24' (southeast comer of building) Proposed = 40' (new addition on east side) Variance Required Required landscaping Required = 14,930 s.f. or 12% of the lot (Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (H) requires 12% of land area be devoted to green space) Existing = 34. 167 s.f. or 27.5% including an area approximately 22,000 s.f. to the south of the building that is restricted by an open space easement to require a 100' setback to residential property to the south. No change to the green space has been proposed. Additional trees and bushes have been proposed along Kelly Avenue £uid in the green space between the Super Value store and the bank to the south. The landscaping plan and planting schedule have been attached as Exhibit G. Section 10.42, Subdivision (7) (K) requires drainage plans to be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, has reviewed the plans and has commented the overall plans appear acceptable. Engineer comments have been attached at Exhibit K. Building Height would be 25' at the highest point located at the entrance to the stmcture. Code allows a maximum height of 30'. 3. 4. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) Hardcover requirements Total Area = 124,420 s.f. Allowed = 35% or 43,547 s.f. Existing = 72.5% Proposed = 72.5% An additional 4,776 s.f. of smictural hardcover would replace existing non-structural hardcover. Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (0) Required parking Retail use requires 1 parking space for each 150 s.f. of retail floor space. A variance was approved in 1991 to the parking requirement. The existing size of the retail use of the building would require 134 stalls. The variance was approved to perpiit 108 stalls. The total size of the building, to include the additions, would be 27,605 s.f. Areas such as utility rooms, hallways, storage and office are subtracted for the purposes of calculating required parking. The total floor area not devoted to the retail operation of the building is approximately 10% of the floor area or 2,760 s.f Required parking = 24,845/150 = 166 parking spaces Proposed parking = 111 spaces Variance Required f^2606Richard Bloomquist Rtck s Stiptr Value iii.? Shoreltne Dnve Commercial Site Plan Reyieu'/Varunces August 21. 2600 pag«-3 Discussion on Current Variance Requests: A. Setback variances Exhibit C is the proposed site plan. A utility easement is located to the north of the building limiting the ability to expand the building out into the parking lot and an open space easement is located over the south 100' of the property. The open space area has been regraded to accommodate storm water flows. ,\ny addition to the rear of the building would negatively impact the ability' for the site to handle and treat stormwater runoff. The City approved a 10' setback for the loading dock area adjacent to Kelly Avenue in 1991. The proposed addition would be located 38' from Kelly Avenue. This proposed addition would be the same as the addition approved in 1997. The addition to the east side of the building has been reduced in size. The 1997 addition was approved 10' from the property. This plan would place the scaled down addition 40' from the property line. Please review the 1997 approved site plan attached as Exhibit M. B. Parking variance Mr. Bloomquist has stated only one weekend per year where he would be concerned about parking. The remainder of the year he is not concerned about parking shortages. Hennepin County reconstructed the intersection of C.R. 15 and C.R. 19 in Navarre in 1988. Super Value lost over 8,000 s.f. of parking lot area. The City granted variances to accommodate a O' setback for the existing parking lot. The City has not received any reports of parking issues with the Super Value lot. No changes to the parking lot have been proposed. C. Hardcover The total hardcover on the property would not change from the existing hardcover. The building additions would change the black top to structure. Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, has reviewed the plan and has stated the overall plans appear acceptable. The 1991 engineering review, assuming the larger additions, found only minimal impact on drainage. A concern in 1991 was the flow of water from the west side of Kelly Avenue to this property. A culvert had been plugged under Kelly. Since, the culvert has been reopened to eliminate the drainage problem west of Kelly and has not had a negative impact on the Super Value site. The water flows to the detention area south of the Super Value store. Review of landscaping plan Please review the landscaping plan and planting schedule. Twenty evergreen trees would be planted along the Kelly Avenue property line and the southeast property line between Super Value and the bank. Additional planting would consist of flowering bushes and crab trees as shown on the plan. 92606RicharJ Bloomquist. Rick 's Super Value 3333 Shoreline Drive Commercial Site Plan Revie^v i’artances August 21. 2000 pnge-4 Building appearance and signage Elevation drawings have been provided. The addition would include revising the visual appearance of the building to accommodate the new additions. Some of the buildings exterior would be replaced by removing some of the wood facing and residing the building. The code would permit approximately 918 s.f. of sign space. The proposed elevations indicate a total of 196 s.f of sign space on the building. 2 - 22' X 4' Rick’s Super Value logos 1 - 10' X 2' ubank atm Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application to issue a building permit to Rick’s Super Value and to approve variances to side and rear setbacks, parking and hardcover based on the hardships as follows: 1. 2. 3. A utility easement is located to the north of the building limiting the ability to expand the building out into the parking lot and an open space easement is located over the south 100' of the property. The open space area has been regraded to accommodate storm water flows. Any addition to the rear of the building would negatively impact the ability for the site to handle and treat stormwater runoff Hennepin County ’s 1988 reconstruction of the C.R. 15 and C.R. 19 intersection resulted in the Super Value property losing over 8,000 s.f of parking area. The City granted variances to accommodate a O' setback for the existing parking lot. The total hardcover on the property would not change from the existing hardcover. The building additions would change the black top to structure. Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, has reviewed the plan and has stated the overall plans appear acceptable. The 1991 engineering review, assuming the larger additions, found only minimal impact on drainage. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval of application and forward to the Council. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. 4. Other Action. •’2c06R^Jiard Bloc^C •tsi. Rtck t Super Value Shoreline Drtv* Commercial Sue PLn Review Variances August 2L 2000 pag*-i h Application # 2^0^ Date ReceK'ed 7- / S ' 0 O Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION 4 , ^ . Site Address 3S3J^ SMa^e I in ^bite Aaoress m i if ^___________________i.___________ T>'pe of Application to be Filed Co wv-v^vc {aJ? o.v\ \;»< j \J (\^iav\c-cS Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 20 - i I T-2 3 ll ________________ . . , Phone (home) (Z£> __ Phone (worlc)^^/ 2. -^91 -^4^J _______City Zip APPLIC^. Name_jl^j^j3 ______ _ Address /^/> ^2— OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name A<L Address 9 /T<g Date Proj Lcquired Phone (home )«S^<^ - ’7^1^"'2.! _____ Phone (work ) J^ • *i City ________________(month/year) I (doW^^not^^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONA1 USE PERIvnTS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Gucit House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ^ $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals \ Other - see Fee Schedule C:.3 .e «n' M- M* 80 M__flq-M-M->>-M-M,. i3^y-^ '. a aS a*2 a a a a s »? i.,,,' ‘ \• «T - !• -|p 29- ir" J2- 2J- J«-; 2%^^ 2t^ *1- 2t ---------3 Ml 1741. ITSI 1711 (771 (7|| .(71) (I0| (I) ^,(7<l (iOl M M M 80 wT55T'5'simr*^s a a ^ - ir- jjr 797 •f) (tD.II^) ! ^ ^ 'A’ oiXj l I I «a' 90 5Q I jM TSTW A (31) ■ XiSSJ^ :?r-W^>V ( RLSNp/^ ? •? -•' i • ►. • ‘’T / • \ s.y li • » <f 9 ,*y RSP (612) 339-6760 7/24/2000 3:45: PAGE 002/2 RightFAX /V J Hardcover Calculation Worksheet: Rick's Supervalu o 3333 Shoreline Drive o P.O. Box 121 o Navarre, MN 55392 Setback Zone: 500-1000' Existing Hardcover: Hard Surface Area:67.424 S.F. Building Area:22,829 S.F. Landscaoed Area;34.167 S.F. Total Area: (TA)124,420 S.F. (2.8S acres) Total Hardcover on site: (TH)90.253 S.F. Existing Percentage of Hardcover = (TH -^TA x 100) = 72.5% ProDOsed Hardcover: Hard Surface Area:62,648 S.F. Building Area:27,605 S.F. Landscaoed Area:34.167 S.F. Total Area: (TA)124,420 S.F. (Z85 acres) Total Hardcover on site: (TH)90.253 S.F. Proposed Percentage of Hardcover = {TH -rTA x 100) = 72.5% ■a.^ I<i aiiia hi i»ra»» M»-jn BON^STROO ROSENE ANDERLIK3 ® 6516361311 08/15/00 14:20 0 :04/05 N0:323 ^iBonestroo Rosene V ■ Anderlik & |\| I Associates Engineers & Architects August 15,2000 •ontfiroo. toff nf, AndtrlUc nad AitoclAlti. Inc. ti an Arrinnairvt AcilaiVIqual Opportunity Implfsfir oni impfoyoo Owntd frinclpoij; Quo 0- Boncitroo. f.f. • Marvin L SorvplA Rt • Glynn fl Cool. Rft. • h *%•.tu •t Bootfc Q. Schunichr. »*t • Jerry A. iourden. P|. lonlor Congultonti; Mobtri W. ftosonc. fj. • JostpH C. A/id«r1<k. PJ. • mchM t. TUmvr. P|- • Suijn M. Cberlin, C.PA. u Aiivcl.it Princlpati; Hpiwwd A. Smrord. PX • Rclili A. Gordon. AO. ■ Sob.rr 0. Pfetrcrit. P.c • Olcnwo W. Potur, PX • Omrid O. LeiWtA PX • flobon C ItutiM. AJ.A. • M«k A. Hinton, rx • MctiMI r. dMUiMnn. PX • Did XPItlA PX ■ Ktrmetfi P. Andcrton, PX • M«k 0. Ooltt, PC. • 'f.= H* David A. Bonomoo. MJIA • SlMy P. WMUmion. PJ., U. • Agnoi M. Ring, m^A • Allan Ritk Schmidt, PE ’ orricos: St Pout. S l Cioudi Rochdtter and Willmar/MN • A^lwauhco. Wi lift: www.borr«trroacom Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Adminutnitor/Planner City of Orono Post OfHce Box 66 Crystnl Bay. MN 55323-0066 Re: Rick’s Super Value BRA File No. 139-2606 Dear Paul: •• We have reviewed the plant for .the proposed addition.^ onto Rick's Soper Value. The site is located at 3333 Shoreline Drive at the intersection of C.R. 19 and C.R. 15. We have the following comments in regards to enginee^ng matters. The overall plans iqipear acceptable. The applicant should provide updated storm sewer calculations showing how tiie existing and proposed storm sewer system performs in the 1, 10 and 100-year storm events. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. A Yours very truly, BONESTRCX). ROSENE, ANDERLIK A ASSOCIATES. INC. 6/k>rrt Tom Kellogg ~ Cc: Greg Qappa, City of Oroho . •ill** ■li rt.•s-,r P.M|- '.•Vt I lit -44 • 4t • •*1 • .••12 ; • m •t.f .• i.’i •t* •• i* t • .4 • '•3 .•» jV ^ • ■13 •t.' •f. 3-: •!L •t: .1^ - M ’r • :i» ■V: •41 • p*^ . U • id« • - •• i- " rV . •*»•* • ••mH .. .I. . If •:-:3 -j!> . M' '**2! .ft •• -•;r•••Ir • :r • =1* .-U ..2:. in- ■ :i ••M , 5{* ft .1 i 1 ‘4 I 1 \ • • L L CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.42, SUBDIVISION 7 (G), 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) AND 10.61, SUBDIVISION 10 (O) AND APPROVES THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO RICK BLOOMQUIST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3333 SHORELINE DRIVE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.42, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 2199 \VHEREAS, Richard Bloomquist (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in tlie property located at 3333 Shoreline Drive located within the City of Orono (hereinafter the City”) and legally described as follows: Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1422, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a building permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.42, Subdivision 2 to permit the structural additions to the existing structure requiring first a review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council before a building permit can be issued by the Orono Building staff. The application includes the following variances: 1. Section 10.42, Subdivision 4 (D) - Structural setback variance, A.West side setback (Kelly Avenue) Required *= 60’ Existing “10* Proposed = 38' Variance = 22' or 36.6% B.South side setback Required = 60' . Existing = 24' Proposed =18’ Variance = 42' or 70% Page 1 of 9 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover variance within 500-1,000' setback area. Total area = 124,420 s.f. Allowed = 43,547 s.f. or 35% Existing = 89,547 s.f. or 71.97% Proposed = 91,179 s.f. or 73.28% Increase = 1,632 s.f. or 1.31% Hardcover variance = 47,632 s.f. or 38.28% (existing = 46,000 s.f. or 36.9%) 3. Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (O) - Off-street parking variance. Required = 177 parking stalls (net floor area = 26,533 s.f -5- 150) Existing = 108 parking stalls (approved variance 11/91) Proposed =121 parking stalls Variance = 56 or 31.6% WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application at their January 21, 1997 meeting and recommended unanimous approval of the development plans per the commercial site plan prepared by Planmark dated November 12, 1996, n\ost revised date January 31, 1997, for Rick’s Super Valu based on the following unique findings and hardships: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2199. 2. The property is located in the B-3, Commercial Shopping District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 2.35 acres. 3. 4. In 1988, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation acquired approximately 8,120 s.f of area of property in order to-complete major safety improvements at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. This acquisition had a major impact on the existing parking lot and pylon sign located adjacent to the County roadway. Resolution No. 2482 of the City of Orono granted variances for the relocated pylon sign and a 0’ front yard setback (required = 20') for the parking lot adjacent to County Roads 15 and 19. In 1991, the City granted variances per Orono Resolution No. 2923 for setback and off-street parking to permit an approximate 47 x 120 addition at the west side of structure. Page 2 of 9 Co^ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TH CITV ^.OUNC’. NO. _?A4 2___ 5. 6. 7. • 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The City has no record of automobile accidents or property damage in', from reconfigured parking lot approved in 1991 variance revie\^. At that tune, the City granted an off-street parking stall variance approved at » /8 parking stalls (required ® 134). The City has limited accessory or independent sales operations within the parking lot due to inadequate parking area. A 30' utility casement extends east and west to the immediate north of the structure restricting all expansion northward. In 1974, the City obtained an open space conservation casement over the south 100’ of the property restricting all structural expansions to the south of the structure. The only feasible location for expansions of the existing structure is either to die east or west. ShavvTi Gustafson, the City Engineer, in his report of January 15.1997 confinned the 1,600 s.f. increase of hardcover paving required as a result of these improvements will have no impact on the stormwater facility located to the south of the structure. Seasonal flooding of the Kelly Avenue roadway results from plugged culvert that brings drainage from west side of roadway to east. Flooding can be reduced in this area with maintenance of culvert. In 1988, Hennepin County acquired some 8,120 s.f. for County toad improvement. Loss of this area resulted in mote restrictions for off-street parking needs with future expansion. In 1992 the City adopted the new shoreland regulations that would now include commercial properties located within l.OOO’ of the shoreline of a protected toe. The subject property is located within 500-1,000' of Lake Minnetonka and is Page 3 of 9 '■n CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a g 4 g 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. allowed 35% hardcover. In 1991, the City approved a site plan that resulted in 71.97% hardcover. The current proposal proposes a total of 73.28% for an increase of 1.31%. 14. Existing hardcover on this property is consistent with the hardcover improvements on surrounding commercial properties located within the shoreland i* f XT 1_ •areas of the Navarre business district. 15. Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (B) limits the floor-to-air (FAR) ratio at 28%. The applicant proposes 29,481 s.f. of structural improvements or .67 acres or 23.5%. The FAR has not been exceeded. The relocation of the access further south along Shady wood Road will greatly improve safety with use of access as access will be located fiirtlier away from the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. Per Section 10.42, Subdivision 7, at least 12% of the 2.8 acre property must be devoted to a green area of 14,930 s.f. The proposed and existing green area consists of approximately 28,600 s.f. of open space. Applicant has agreed to provide tree plantings within the east and south side } ards of property. Applicant's consultant has provided three schemes for the final elevations of the north and east facia of the building with the goal of improving the aesthetic appearance of structure. The 29,481 s.f. structure will be the largest commercial structure within the Navarre business district and will provide a standard for the redevelopment of other commercial properties within the business district.- Surface drainage resulting from this improvement will have no impact on existing stormwater facilities on site nor on the recent Kelly Avenue stormwater improvements located to the south of property. The new uses proposed with structural additions are all permitted and accessory uses within the B-3 zoning district. Page 4 of 9 . CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 48 _ 22. Lyle Oman, the Building Official, in his report of January 9, 1997 has estimated tvvo service availabilitv' charges may need to be paid to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services based on the area and uses proposed within the new addition. Per the City ’s fee schedule, the City will collect sewer and water adjustment charges based on the final number of SAC charges determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. Each sewer and water fee is $950.00. . 23. The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent residential or commercial property owners notified of this review. 24. 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 grantins the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a'f.re hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the appiicant. but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to presenre a substanttd property tight of the appiicant; and wouid be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the commercial site plan and landscape plan by Planmark dated November 12, 1996V most revised date January 31. 1997. and approves a hardcover vartance within the 500-1.000 ’ setback area, structural setback variances and off-street parking variance based on the unique findings and hardships noted above; and approves the Cuys '“"“B » building permit to Richard Bloomquist for the 1.456 s.f. addition at the northwest side of structure and 5,232 s.f. addition at the north and east side of structure as shown on the above referenced commercial site plan, subject the following conditions. 1. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide the foliowing information with the building permit application: Detailed gtadine, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed conto'urs, elevations and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Details should be provided for any reUtmng walls that may result along the south side lot line. Page 5 of 9 A. H- > S'! *1 'd . WM CITYof ORONO rj>i ,^>;v 2. C. D. E. F. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R Q B. Permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. An amended survey locating all improvements, 30* utility easement to the north side of structure and 100' open space conservation easement to south of structure. Permit from the Hennepin County Department of Transpoitation approving relocation of access at Shadywood Road. Letter from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services confirming iber of SAC units to be charged as a result of the expansion. Fully executed Developer's Agreement and a Letter of Credit written to 150% of the cost of the required improvements. Improvements are listed as follows: Striping of parking lot. 2) Plantings to be completed per approved landscape plan by Planmark dated January 31, 1997. 3) Signage for four diagonal parking stalls along west side of building either limiting parking for use of employees or 15 minute parking. Relocation of Shadywood access to southeast comer of property and additional paving for cast loading dock. If upgraded access involves work within adjacent bank property, applicant to obtain written approval of owners. G. Architectvial plans must be signed by a State registered architect. The City shall continue to implement policy adopted in 1991 that would discourage use of parking lot for independent or accessory sales operations. Page 6 of 9 1 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ 42 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Payment of sewer and water adjustment charges at $950.00 each to be determined by the number of additional SAC units estimated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. The additional parking lot pavement near the loading dock should be designed for nine ton loading capacity with concrete curb and gutter. Erosion coritrol measures must be installed around Catch Basin #2 pnor to begtnmng the gradmg operations near the east loading dock. Applicant's engineer shall provide an estimate of *e total cost of site improvements for the City Engineer’s review. The City Engineer shall det^e the amount of the Letter of Credit that will accompany the Develo^fs Agreement to be executed by the applicant. This information must be provided before applicant applies for a building permit. The City Council has considered the three schemes for the aesthetic upgrade of the elevations of the Super Valu structure. Applicant has agreed to iiutall either one or a combination of features within the three plans >s a condition of this approval. The structural additions will be finished with the same paved block as used with e.xisting co.nstruction. Applicant and future owner is placed on notice that ^y future request m expand the facility following proposed improvements shall not be considered unless contiguous or adjacent land area has been acquired. Authorities granted by this resolution tun with the proper^ not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be e.xercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or *e special conditions of the resolution will expire on that date (February 10. 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tins variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant and owner have read, understood and hereby agree to toebra^'^oTht °«o ‘!^nf of tld!Tesoton iTthe'Ch^TTWe of the property. Page 7 of 9 . L m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5843 ---- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a tegular meeting held on the 10th day of February, 1997. ATTEST: lorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk tiiiiiiEt Richard W. BloomcyriStT^plicant Thomas M. Ej^lers, President of MGT Company STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of February, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notar/ Public \s ^73K5^^^S^a JAMIE LBOSMA NOTARY PUeilC-MINNESOtt ____HENWEWN COUNTY Page 8 of 9 I If ■-‘j- F :. i'[ •* CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8^2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) known to me to be the person(s) described in and who ex acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY I ------- NOT^Y PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this njk day of 199J. ^fore me a Notaiy PubUc svithin and for said county, personally appeared (D . Enl<C^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. won NOTAR^r PUBLIC ^ tLfM Page 9 of 9 i s 3 JS «i: IjIji1i s I WITS",n—Lfeti'1 ^ wmi WT. ► •; . !i • tn o ■f •*ins 1 1 ll i|‘l { tKCmmm s W t 1 u% in n i «M i Hi Ni i iI*n;r• 1 mmm •••. 1 ^dsrim iwrtMi. Nf S KELLV ©iniflWE 0 00 0 @ Q e I...............•'i;- f • «□.mu __ : : • * *•««••* ••«♦• v#%►•* 0 m ro §SS »4 ””s 4/ i fi^rmm j5 ^ ^ ^ ^ /: 4 / / 11 # I / I / / / / / / / / / / /* \ / / / / / / / / / / / / V / / / JL< , 5 ; ► riI II^ORONC^ City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_ _ _ _ _ A RESOLUTIOK GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.42, SUBDIVISION 7 (G) AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 10 (O) PILE #1600 WHEREAS, Richard Bloomcuist (hereinafter ''the aoplicant") has an interest in the property located at 3333 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter Cit> ) and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (G) to permit the construction of a 75' wide addition to be located 10' from the west side lot line instead of the required 100'; and a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, iubdivision 10 (0) seeking approval of a stalls where based on the total net floor area, the expanded use would require 134 stalls. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1600. 2. The orooertv is located in the B-3 Commercial Shopping District and the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 19, 1990 end January 22, 1991 approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) A 30' wide utility easement divides the property in half forcing applicant to eith^ expand or west. A northward addition would not be allowed to encroach over the utility easement. B) The toooaraphy to the east prohibits expansion in iight of the impact on.ad3acent property and improvements on that property. Page 1 of 5 I — CITY iIrORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_________ C) The only feasible location for an expansion of the existing structure is to the west and the vacation of the northern portion of Kelly Avenue does not appear feasible and would require a comprehensive planning study of the entire area. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions^ light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property? would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty? is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant? and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application • including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.42, Subdivision 7 (G) and 10.61, Subdivision 10 (0) to permit the construction of a 47'xl20* addition to the principal structure, a 28'xl2' receiving dock, and a retaining wall at a maximum height of 17' along the west side of the receiving and delivery ramp, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council to direct staff to make the necessary amendments to the official zoning map and legal descriptions of the zoning district boundaries to include 50' corridor along the southern boundary of the existing B~3 zone, the remaining 100' of the southern portions of the property are to remain in the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Approval is based on improvements shown on plans submitted to the Orono Council by Planmark dated 10/10/90, revised 2/1/91, subject to the following conditions: A) Applicant shall agree to provide natural screening/plantings along southern boundary along detention pond where certain land alterations may require the removal of existing vegetation and trees. Page 2 of 5 k-y--City of OROiNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 292,3_________ B) Existing curb cut at Shoreline Drive shall remain in its present location. City Engineer shall approve modifications to access if improvements provide greater safety with ingress and egress to site. The undersigned owner, agent and applicant hereby agree that upon documentation and verification by either the City of Orono or the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, that if accidents (personal injury and/or property deunage) have occured resulting from the use of the access at Shoreline Drive, and that the undersigned agree to close off the access at Shoreline Drive withina reasonable period of time from such verification either by written notice from the City of Orono or the County of Hennepin. 3. Applicant shall make payment for additional sewer/water units and SAC charges to be determined at the time of building permit review. 4. The applicant and applicant's representatives have been advised that the new addition and existing building shall be served with an approved fire suppression system per Appendix E of the Uniform Building Code. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 11, 1992). 6. Violation of or non-compliance i^ith any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant, the authorized representative of Super Valu Stores Inc. and President of MGT Company have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recordxng of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 t City of OROiXO - CITY i ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_________ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of February# 199’' allin. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Pj/Ti^xL Martin Ehlers, President of MGT Company j] ed pepresentativ m Super Valu Stores Inc. 7 M'Hf'A"-'' \ Rivard BloomqulBt,-Applicant STATE OF MINNESOTA ) \ SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of February, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 7gs?52ii’{a, Page 4 of 5 City of OROivO ,..CITV - i DRONO l resolution of the city council NO.2923 STA^WWiTNHBS0TA FLORIDA COUNTY OF 4IBNNBPIN- LEE ) ) 6S. ) g:fcre"n,e . Hotlry PubTrc and for said'countyT-iTrscnally appeared -----Martin Ehlers ^pecribed in and who executed tne day of February 199 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ^ A . , // — notary public pu 3i.ic "sTATE Or FLORIDA HY COnMISSION EXP. MAY 14,1994 SO.NDED THR'J GENERAL IKS. 01®. )ss. county of HENNEPIN ) on this S'f'k day of /'le.rc^L_ /»y>i'-.^/T f 199 / t before me a on this 5±t— day of countyTpersolT^lly appeared Notary Public within and for sa _ _known to JT. ^ \4/ ___________________________:-----------L______4. K a(^e>raen r"' --;—, .a^aei^ylbed in and who executed the me to be P®^®°”^®^-^®®v„o„ledqed that he (they) executed foregoing anfthe same as his (their) free acu a« SbrARY puBiixJ BARBARA B. FAr—LL , KOIARY PUSUC-t-V.iiO.'' MW«W« ccvr.-TV IIY COMM. BWttS OCT. n. «J« ,• % STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )8S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )m » j ^ 7T f"\ » 199_[ t before me a On this Q day of I i V . personally appeared _________- 7iV'Mi;:^;'ribed in and who ex^uted theme to be ^^e person(s) d^crib <a (they) executed foregoing ^re^act^the same as his (their) free aci^ oi» --------------------—-j a ^UACe 1 NOTAR kotm'TSbli’c Xt^nesota |>age 5 of 5 "'MNNiPIN county I j My Cown Eip^es Apra 4. 1993 ; I ___,..1. ler____ ly public ■ >iWiant■ —--------- - I J City of OROixo Exhibit A - -CITY- — I - OF T)ROND: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __2923 Fecistered Land Survey No. 1422, Files of Registrar of titles. County of Hennepin; The boundary lines of said land are rnarked by Judicial Landmarks Torrens Case Nos. 17022, 17C23, 17024, 17026 and ’ Subject to an easement in favour of the City of Orono for sevage, water and drainage purposes over the Southerly'16 feet of the Vest 30 feet of the North 134 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park (Nov as to part of above land) Subject to the underground utility easement and restriction in favour of the City of Orono over the North 30 feet of the JOO feet of the South 100 feet of the North 234 feet S •‘♦MUR m> n» tiHneenh reM* eM eeetinliiMil inBook 2423 of Deeds, page 138, Document No. 34495oo; iRow as to part of above land) Subject to the underground utility easement and restriction in favour of the City of Orono over the South 30 feet of the North 164 feet of that part of Lot 1, Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park, as measured at right angles to the North line of said Lot 1 and its Easterly extension, as contained in Book 2423 of Deeds, page 170 Document No. 3449578; (Now as to part of above land) Subject to the restrictive covenant in favour of the Shell Oil Company, a Delaware Corporation as contained in Book 2623 of Deeds, page 454, Document No. 3697134, as to above part of Lot 1, Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park; (Now as to part of above land) Subject to a permanent easement for highway purposes over all that part of Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1422, Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin which lies northerly and easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Vest line of said Tract D distant 16.0 feet southerly of the Northwest corner therecf; thence run easterly parallel with the North line of said Tract D for a distance of^177.32 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 239.00 feet for a distance of 88.00 feet to a point herein after referred to as point "A"; thence continue along said curve for a distance of 40.00 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as point ”B"; thence continue along said curve for a distance of 94.94 feet; thence tangent to said curve for a distance of 106.83 feet more or less to the southerly line of said Tract D and there terminating. Also over all that part of said Tract D which lies northeasterly o' the following described line; Beginning at the above described point "A”; thence run southwesterly along a radial of said curve for a distance of 7.00 feet; thence run southeasterly along a curve having a radius_of 222.00 feet (said curve is parallel with and distant 7.00 feet southwesterly of the above described line) 1 i fcr a distance of 35.63 feet; thence run northeasterly to the above described Point "B” and there terminating. 0 f'VC^^f^'-. *•>. '-1^7 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2452_ _ _ _ _ _ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.42, SUBDIVISION 7 (D), SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5 (B), AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 3 (E) FILE #1304 WHEREAS, Richard Bloomquist, an authorized agent of Rick's Super Valu (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 3333 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter City ) and legally described as Tract D, Registered Land Survey Number 1422, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.42, Subdivision 7 (D), Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (B), and Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (E) resulting from the upgrading of County Roads 15 and 19 within the Navarre area; the applicant seeks a street setback variance of 7' for a pylon sign to be installed 3 from the newly aligned property line rather than tl^ required 10 and as a result of the redesignated parking areas within .the parking lot seeks a street setback variance for parking proposed at 0 were 20 would be required. Minnesota: HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1304. 2. The property is located in the B-3, Shopping Center Business District requiring a minimum of 2 acres in area. The property consist of approximately 2 acres in area. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on Juli 18, 1988, and recommended approval of the variances as amended basec upon the following findings; A) The location of the sign will not create a sighting probler. for any of the users of the intersection of County Roads 19 anc 15. B) The location of the sign will not present a safety hazard tc the users of the public road way or parking lot of the Supe. Valu store. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2482_ _ _ _ _ C) The parking area will be separated from the county road improvements by approximately 10',thase improvements consist of 1 1/2' wide bituminous/berm, 6 inch bituminous curb, sidewalk, and boulevard area. D) The County will provide a 1 1/2' buffer so that cars will not extend out over the walkway adjacent to the north and east lot lines of the Super Valu parking lot. E) The loss of some 8,127 s.f. of parking lot area has created a major hardship for the applicant. The need for the setbacks has been created not by a more intense use of the property, but by a public safety need to improve the intersections of 15 and 19 in Navarre. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property? would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (E), Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (D) and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (B) permitting the relocation of a pylop sign located 3* off the street right-of-way requiring approval of a 7' or 70% variance and the realignment of parking areas adjacent to County Roads 15 and 19 set ni t-han the reouired 20' requiring a 100%O' from the lot line rather than the required variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is hereby advised that if thfe existing relocated or a new sign installed within the substandard setback area that this must be approved by the City prior to the installation. Page 2 of 4 mSim$s City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2482__________ 2. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 8, 1989). herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 1988. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of August, ATTEST: 'Dorothy M./Hbllin, City Clerk ■Property Ownert^) ' I <r I a Jamek R. GraoeKr* Mhyqr Page 3 of 4 rmi \m in i «■■ i—niiM i mm iJ I I ■■iiii I a■■ 1^ I h ■ im, ■ ■I'ki —n i,i p* cv>wtn • ft iaJ w "$t ■m3 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2482__________ .t h r f * f, STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) 8S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) day of 198_fnr, <-hiB day of S> n-leivtlp^i'_________ before me a Not«y PuSIIcj>lthln and fir 6al3 county, personally town'to^me t^'t’e the perso!?(Lt described foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) execute the same as his (their) free act and deed. ft -■d.ci^-pnxJ SOT^ LP.OPCLO kJT-l^MINNESOTA «,• K • ;.v::3 county _ JSg^ My Comm Exf^e Jura 18.1991 my coMMfSSlTJFT STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of —198 , before me a Notary Public within an^d for sail “S^'tSe per^yn*i^)'^described~irand who exeo^ed the and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. notary public A 1riONA'-D J. .v::j-F5 \ -a-. -y sx'.'Ti C2-J.*'TT •.s.-.'-lihi.'! *•)•*( .^2' ‘.J, '.-yO my commission EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2482_________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ before me a appeared /jrH1 day of 5__ __ _L |0 - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ^ Notary Pyblic^^itp^i^ ^and for said county*^personally the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^JLYT\ Q-f?k 19Bf NOTARY CrA. LEOPOLD K A*'- •'OjLIC-MIMNES ’SilT^V RI0A30O COUNWMy Comm ExtBfiS Juno ^8. tWi ■SH?T5E§’ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of *'198__* before me a Notary Public within and for said Countyf personally appeared ^ known to me to be the person (sT“described in and who executTed the ' and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. notary public my commission expires RESOLUTION It4282 TONSENT Super Valu Stores, Inc., as prime lessee of the property, as described in the foregoing Resolution, hereby executes this Consent for the sole purpose of indicating its consent, as prime lessee, to the foregoing Resolution. Datei Ki'’ rmK i f Vt 5a V RUN OATC tr/is/aa HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORHATIOM SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S54tl PAGE 6 t- t . BATCH StZ PROP ABfm OWNER NAW TAMPAVtR NANE/AOOR St 17-117-2S AS IMS tttSB ADDRESS UNASSXGNED HENNEPXN FORfEXTED LAND CITY OP ORONO P O BOX U CRYSTAL DAY HN SSS2S PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR St 17-117-2S M ttt* tZStt SNADYNOOD RO NALFRED PROPERTIES LLP NALFREO PROPERTIES LLP Sltt EDEN AVE 0112 EDINA HN 5S4S4 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR St 17-117-2S 44 ttft tttSt ADDRESS UNASSXGNED CITY OP ORONO CITY OP ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN SSS2S PROP ADOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ABBR St 17-117-2S 44 fits tZStS SNADYWOOO RD S H SCNNIDT t S J SCI STEPHEN N SCNNIOT 2SGB SNADYNOOD RD BOX 15 WAYZATA HN SSStl OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR St 2t-117-2S 11 ttl7 t24SS SNADYNOOD RD P H A J N ENGLUND PAUL t JEANNE ENGLUND P 0 BOX tS NAVARRE HN 55392 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR St 2t-117-2S 11 tl24 tSSSS SHORELINE DR HOT COMPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 99t HPLS HN 55449 St 17-117-2S 4S tttt tS414 SNORELXNE DR OERH-TOH PARTNERSNIP GERH-TON PARTNERSHIP C/0 COURT NACFARLANE llt7 NAZELTINE BLWD R544 CHASKA HN 55S1S St 17-117-2S 4S tttt tS40t SHORELINE OR DALE S JOHNSON C T JOHNSON t B A J( 1411t tTH AVE N PLYHOUTH HN 55447 St 17-117-25 44 tttt 92577 SNADYNOOD RD HARCEL S DITTRICH HARCEL DITTRICH 2S77 SNADYNOOD RD NAYZATA HN S5S91 St 17-117-2S 44 tttS tSS4t SHORELINE OR VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 BOX 45 NAVARRE HN 55S92 St 17-117-25 44 tlOt tS5t2 SHORELINE DR GLASS XX PARTNERS DONALD HCCARVXLLE SSt2 NARNER LA mound HN 55S44 St 17-117-2S 44 tltl tSS4t SNORELXNE DR L t C KOEHNEN LEROY KOEHNEN 3S4t SNORELXNE DR NAYZATA HN S5S91 St 29-117-2S 11 ttt2 92429 SNADYNOOD RO VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD 15 I 19 NAVARRE HN 55S92 St 29-117-2S 11 9915 92445 SNADYNOOD RO 1ST NATL DANK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BANK OP NAVARRE CO ROAD 15 t CO ROAD It NAVARRE HN 55S92 39 29-117-23 11 9919 92455 SNADYNOOD RD P H ENGLUND ET AL TRUSTEES PAUL H I JEANNE H ENGLUND PO BOX 95 NAVARRE HN 55S92 St 29-117-25 11 9922 92525 KELLY AVE K 6 NEXNBACN IRE NEIHBACN K 0 NEXNBACN IRE NEXNBACN 2525 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55SS1 St 29-117-2S 11 9931 92445 SNADYNOOD RO 1ST NATL BK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BK OF NAVARRE P 0 BOX 12S NAVARRE HN 55S92 59 29-117-2S 11 99S2 99939 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED DAVID J DELANEY DAVID J DELANEY 4999 CASAHITA RD EXCELSIOR HN 55SS1 CD r.% CO Ck. < 4 MM DATE AT/lSytt HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEDTV XNFODNATION SVSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5491 PACE 7 ■ATCN 502 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ABOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TAXPAYER MUfe/ABOR M 2R>iI7-23 11 RtSA •2SRR SHADYWOOO RO FRESHWATER FOUNDATION FRESHWATER FOUNDATION E5«« SHAOYWOOD RO EXCELSIOR HN SSSSI SO 20-117-2S 11 ROSY OOOSa ADDRESS UNASSICNED FRESHWATER FOUNDATION FRESHWATER FOUNDATION 2500 SHADYHOOD RO NAVARRE HN 55SS1 30 20-117-2S 12 00S4 DS42S SHORELINE DR R H KEAVENY FAHILY LTO PTNRP RICHARD N KEAVENY 12000 NARXON LA W RISES HINNSTONKA HN SSS05 SO 20>117-2S 12 OOS7 02S0Y KELLY AVE C 0 C NAOLER CHARLES I CANDICE NADLER 2B00 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN SSSSI SO 20-117-2S 12 OOSO 02S15 KELLY AVE DAVID R HAROTEN DAVID R HAROTEN 251S KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN SSSSI SO 20-117-2S 12 OOSf 02S2S KELLY AVE DRK FAHILY ASSOCIATES LLC DRK FAHILY ASSOCIATES LLC C/0 BEN SACHS HN OVSFD PRDCT 9091 CO RO NO SO ROCKFORD HN SSS75 SO 20>117-2S 12 0040 02S0S KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT CONTXNENTAL PROPERTY CRP INC XSS LAKE ST E NAVZATA NN SSS91 SB 20-117-2S 12 OOSl 02497 KELLY AVE A N EVANS 0 D EVANS AUSTIN 0 DIANE EVANS 2497 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN SSSSI SO 20-117-2S 12 00S2 02499 KELLY AVE R V DAHL OHS DAHL SYLVIA A BERTA6N0LI 2499 KEUY AVE EXCELLSIOR NN SSSSI SO 20-117-2S 12 OOSS 02S01 KELLY AVE TXHOTHV 4 THOELE TXNOTHY J THOELE 2S01 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN SSSSI SO 20-117-2S 12 00S4 02S0S KELLY AVE JOHN E KUPFER 0 ANA KUPFER JOHN E KUPFER 2S0S KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN SSSSI SO 20-117-2S 12 OOSS OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSICNED KELLY COVE HNOWNRS ASN/ORONO KELLY COVE HNOWNRS ASNANMMO 2497 KELLY AVE EKCELSIOR HN SSSSI TOTAL BATCH 502 OOOSO 'iS' t * / I* • ) t.i», t* u. a 1 • 7 ».0 #1 J' ^ i ^ -'4 ■ t vr _ 1' • hki MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Sandy Smith, Commissioners Jay Nygard, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, and Daniel Kluth. Commissioners Elizabeth Hawn and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented City Staff; Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Richard Flint was present. Acting Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. («1) 2597 DENNIS KRIJMP, 25 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH - VARIANCES, 6:31 p.m. - 6:34 p.m. Dennis Krump, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct on addition to the south side of his residence which involves tearing down of an existing dining room that currently docs not have a foundation under it. The Applicant would like to construct a foundation and above it a dining room and three season porch in the same location where the deck is currently located. The addition will be slighMy larger than what currently c.xists because the walls arc being bumped out to be in alignment with the c.xisting residence. Bottenberg noted the residence was originally constructed in 1963, with the proposed section to be removed being built in 1968. Both occurred before current zoning standards were adopted. Bottenberg stated structural coverage is not an issue with this application, with no impact to the adjoining neighbors by the setback. There is not an issue with the well or septic system. The Applicant is requesting variances to the front yard setback to permit a setback of 42' for an addition where 100' is required and a variance to permit a side yard setback of 24.2' for an addition where 50' is required. Cit>' Staff is recommending approval of the application Krump indicated he has no comment regarding his application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist commented he docs not have a problem with this application. Smith stated she would prefer to sec the side yard setback stay the same as what currently exists. Stoddard commented the Applicant is proposing to increase the encroachment into the setback by 3.3 feet. PAGEl iHik MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 (II2S97 Dennis Krump, Continued) Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2597, Dennis Krump, 25 Stubbs Bay Road North, variances to front yard setback and side yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to the south side of the residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) #2598 DOUGLAS J. DAYTON, 300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES, 6:35 p.m. - 6:42 p.m. Douglas Da>ton, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 12’ by 16’ addition onto the lakeshorc side of the e.xisting residence. The addition will be located 80’ from the lakeshorc. Mooney Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Lake and therefore a 100’ setback is required for the structure. The Recreational Development Lake for Mooney Lake was adopted by the City in 1992. The existing residence is located 83’ from the lakeshore. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to remodel a bathroom and turn the c.xisting closet into a vanity area. The new addition will be a closet. The residence was constructed in 1960, before current zoning standards were adopted. The residence is located on approximately 90 acres in the RR-IB zoning district where two acres is required. The property is served with a septic system and well and will not be impacted by the addition. This addition will not add to the total number of bedrooms in the residence; therefore a larger septic system is not required at this time. Bottenberg noted structural coverage is not an issue in this application, with no impact to the adjoining residences. The Applicant is requesting a variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 80’ where 100’ is required. City Staff recommends approval of the variance. Smith inquired where the adjoining residences are located in relation to this residence. Da>lon indicated on the overhead projection where the adjoining residences were located. Da>1on stated he has no additional comments regarding his application. There were no public comments regarding this application Nygard stated he has a minor concern related to the setback variance, noting that the City Council did vote to override the setback recommended by the Planning Commission for the applicant located on Concordia Street. Nygard inquired whether the Applicant can limit the setback to the existing 83'. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#2598 DOUGLAS DAYTON, Continued) Da>lon stated it would be diffieult because of the angle of the house. Smith noted that the residence located on Concordia Street was new construction, where this is a remodel project. Nygard commented the City Council is encouraging the residences and Planning Commission not to further encroach into the setbacks whenever possible. Lindquist commented in his view this is a different situation than Concordia Street. Nygard inquired what the DNR setback is for residential properties. Gaffron indicated the DNR setback is 100' for recreational development Kluth stated they arc looking at a difference of three feet, with no other variances being requested. Kluth noted there arc no structural or hardcover issues involved with this application. Nygard commented that normally the land needs to drive the need for a variance. Da>ton stated due to the design of the house, it is difTicult to put an addition on the north side and would block the view of the lake if constructed on the other side. Stoddard commented in his view the Planning Commission in general should protect the recreational lakcshorc as much as possible. Stoddard noted this residence was constructed prior to the setback requirements being adopted by the City. Stoddard cautioned the Applicant that the\ City Council may elect to deny this application or reduce the setback regardless of tlic recommendation of the Planning Commission. Da}lon indicated a line of trees currently exists along the bank, with the house being hidden from view during the summer. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2598, Douglas J. Dayton, 300 Sixth Avenue North, granting of a variance to the lakeshore setback of 80* where 100* is required to permit a 12* by 16* addition to the residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item Nos. 3,4,5, and 6 follow Item No. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS JUNE 26,2000 AND JULY 10,2000 Lindquist indicated he attended the July 10, 2000 City Council meeting, wherein the City Council discussed the VVoodhill Country Club application. Lindquist stated the Mayor basically indicated PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES, Conlinued) that he will not be held hostage by the complaints of the neighbors on this application, and suggested the neighbors attempt to reach some t>pc of reasonable solution with the Country Club. Lindquist commented in his view the neighbors may not be ready to reach a solution at this time. Weinberger stated the Van Eck Hout application has been referred back to the Planning Commission in an effort to find alternate access to the subdivision, with another 60 day extension being granted on tlic application. Weinberger indicated the Applicant will be submitted a revised plan. It was noted that a representative of the Planning Commission was unable to attend the June 26, 2000 City Council meeting. («I2) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JULY 24,2000 AND AUGUST 14,2000 July 24 - Smith August 1 4 - Kluth («I0) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith inquired whether there were any other instructions regarding the cameras. Gaffron indicated thev would like to have the cameras returned within a month. Kluth reported the joint meeting with the Long Lake Planning Commission went well, with Long Lake requesting that Orono provide them with a list of common concerns. Smith commcp*'^ 4 it was her understanding they had agreed to share agendas with each other. Gaffron stated it is hi« belief they arc currently providing Long Lake with the agendas for the Orono Planning Com •.•is'; ion and City Council meetings. Kluth stated it was the goal of both cities to improve relations between the two Planning Commissions regardless of what happens with the merger and to discuss issues of concern and common interest relating to various items, such as the new Highway 12 corridor. Lindquist inquired if any plans had been decided upon regarding the old Long Lake Ford building. Gaffron stated to his knowledge a decision has not been reached regarding that building. Kluth stated Long Lake was also going to include the Orono Planning Commission membera on their mailing list for their cit>' newsletter. Smith commented she would like to sec it included in their packets if possible. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION) Lindquist commented he would like to see more green space in Navarre, if possible. Lindquist inquired whether the old church located in Navarre is going to be tom down. Weinberger indicated the developer has been issued a demolition permit today. Smith commented the Long Lake Snyder Drug is c.\panding, with the possible addition of a drive-up window. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER, 648 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES, 6:56 p.m. - 7:17 p.m. Bob Bcutlcr, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants arc proposing to remove an existing house and construct a new house on the property located at 684 Tonkawa Road, which is located in the LR-IB Zoning District requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width at the lakcshorc and structure setback of 140'. This lot consists of .68 acre The Applicant is requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot having a lot width of 85'. A second variance is also needed to permit a 12' cncro,. hment into the average lakcshorc setback for a portion of the new residence. The new residence would be located approximately 100' from the 929 4’ OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Weinberger indicated that the lot has a driveway that connects with the lot to the north, with both lots also ing individual access to Tonkawa Road. Weinberger stated the shared portion of the driveway would be removed from this lot to reduce hardcover and close the shared portion of the driveway. 'The Applicant is also proposing to reduce the w idth of the new' driveway servicing this lot. Weinberger stated the proposed residence would be located approximately 100' from the lakcshorc, w ith the existing residence being approximately 80’ from the lakcshorc. The total encroachment of the new residence would be about 12' into the average lakeshorc setback that has been established by the adjacent structures. There is a site line issue with the adjacent property to the north. Weinberger noted the Applicant is relocating the house significantly back from what currently exists and would have a minimal impact on the neighboring residences’ view of the lake. Weinberger stated the Applicant has a two-stall attached garage, with the existing garage remaining in the 250-500’ setback. Weinberger indicated once ail existing hardcover and stmcturcs have been removed from this lot, no structures w ill exist any closer to the lake than the proposed residence. Weinberger noted PACE 5 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 (112599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER, Continued) the Applicant will not need a variance to either hardcover or structural coverage under his proposed plan. The Applicant is also proposing to remove the e.xisting stairway to the lake, with a narrower stairway being constructed to limit the amount of hardcover in this area. Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan today, with the City Engineer not having an opportunity at tltis time to rcvie\v it. The Applicant is proposing to construct a small drainage area at one comer of the house to collect all the water runoff from the driveway and the area that currently drains towards the neighbor's residence. City Staff would recommend approval of the application as presented, w ith approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to permit a 17.' encroachment into the average lakcshorc setback based on the follow ing findings: 1. Construction of the house in the proposed location places the house 100' from the lakcshorc 2. The proposed location of the house best utilizes the topography of the lot. Using the flat area area of the property would permit a house to be constructed w ithout requiring additional grading beyond what would normally be permitted with new home construction. 3. Impacts to the lakcshorc views for the property to the north would be minimal. The existing house is located 20' closer to the lakeshore than the proposed new house. Weinberger stated the proposal is consistent with the existing development in the area, with no issues relating to septic. Weinberger noted it is noi possible to acquire any additional land to make this lot bigger since both lots are currently developed Weinberger stated the proposed location of the new residence best utilizes the topographs of the lot and takes advantage of the natural drainage channels existing on the property, with minimal grading required. Weinberger stated one concern is the lack of decks or patios depicted on the plan. TIk Applicant has indicated they would make use of existing enclosed areas rather than construct a deck or patio. The Applicant has indicated he understands the concerns of Staff that the proposed plan docs use up most of the allowable hardcover and structural coverage in this area. Staff would not recommend any variances to allow the construction of decks or patios in the future unless the Applicant demonstrates within his final plan that there i^ additional hardcover available to allow a deck or patio. Smith inquired w hether there is an issue relating to easement and access as it relates to the shared driveway. Smith noted nothing currently exists in the record regarding that shared driveway. Bcutler indicated that was an agreement reached between the two parties Weinberger stated there has noi been an\thing recorded on either property. Weinberger staled the adjacent resident has been notified of this meeting Smith inquired whether the Applicant has spoken with his new neighbor regarding his proposal. PACE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 («599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER, Continued) Beutler stated he has spoken with his neighbor who indicated he docs not have any major concerns regarding the proposal. Beutler indicated they have been working closcl> with City Staff to arrive at a plan that would be acceptable. Beutler stated in his opinion this plan is a win/win situation, with the four>season porch allowing them to enjoy the climate year-round without the need for a deck or patio. Smith inquired whether there were any concerns that City Staff may have relating to the recently submitted grading and drainage plan. Weinberger stated City Staff at this time docs not have any major concerns regarding the grading and drainage plan. Weinberger stated Staff docs have a concern with the long driveway and the lack of a turnaround being provided. The Applicant has indicated there is a way to include a turnaround in this proposal. Lindquist inqi ,:*’cd whether that would negatively impact the hardcover on this lot. Weinbergci ci:»od the hardcover was calculated based on a larger driveway that what is being proposed sliould not be an issue. Weinberger stated the Applicant is aware that he needs to complywjfh the 2 > percent hardcover limit on this application. There were kr f ublic comments regarding this application. Lindquist commented his only concern with this application was the lack of a turnaround and the impact to hardcover should a turnaround be constructed. Beutler indicated he is aware of those concerns. Kluth noted the proposed residence encroaches upon the average lakeshore setback by a few feet, and inquired whether it would be possible to relocate the house out of the setback. Beutler stated the lot has topography issues, which arc solved by pushing the house back a little bit. Beutler indicated the location of the existing driveway is where the new driveway will be constructed, with the dirt then being able to be utilized to correct the drainage problems on this lot. Beutler stated if the plan is reversed, it would create an additional drainage problem for the property on the other side. Beutler commented this is the best location for the house based on the topography of the lot. Smith inquired wliat impact it would have if the house were totally removed out of the average lakeshore setback. Beutler stated if the house is pushed back any further, the>' w ould lose their view of the lake and would not be taking advantage of the existing natural drainage ehannels. Weinberger stated the only way to eliminate the average lakeshore variance would be to remove a portion of the proposed residence. Weinberger st.nted the proposed drainage and grading plan lends itself well to this property and keeps the residence consistent w ith the other houses in the area. PAGE? -i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#2599 BOB AND WENDY BEUTLER, Continued) Weinberger noted the house is located approximately twice as far from the lake as required by the ordinance, with the only issue being the possible placement of a deck in the future. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2599, Bob and Wendy Beutler, 684 Tonkawa Road, granting of a variance to lot area and lot width and granting of a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit a 12’ encroachment into the average lakeshore setback to allow the construction of a new residence on this lot, with the understanding that there will be no hardcover allowed over the 25 percent limit, and subject to review and approval by City Staff of the drainage and grading plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2602 JOHN GRAHAM, 1065 TAMARACK DRIVE - PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, 7:18 p.m. - 7:50 p.m. John Graham, Applicant, was present, along with Thomas and Jennifer Graham. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication. Weinberger stated the Applicants arc requesting a subdivision of a developed 5.1 acre parcel into two lots, with one new building site being created consisting of 2.0 acres north of the existing house. The existing lot was platted as part of the Underhill Famis Addition in 1976. A pond is located on the property located on what would be the southern lot, with a flowage and conservation easement being granted at the time the Underhill Farms Addition was recorded. Weinberger stated Lot I would be the new' building site and would meet the minimum lot size and width for lots in the RR-IB Zoning District. Based on the survey submitted, the building pad is located within the required setbacks and all setbacks arc met to the drainficld sites. This lot would share a driveway with Lot 2, with an easement being granted in favor of Lot 2 for access over Lot I. Using tlie existing driveway would eliminate the need to cut down any trees and works well with the existing house. Relocation of the driveway would result in the driveway completely circling the house and come close to encroaching into the wetland setback area. Weinberger noted there is an existing storage building that would be located on Lot 1 without a principal building. Weinberger su ggested the building remain for a defined length of time before the principal building is constructed on the property or if the ow nership changes between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Weinberger stated Lot 2 would not have direct access to Tamarack nor to County Road 6. The property owners would prefer to use the existing driveway located on Lot 2. Lot 2 also meets the minimum requirements for subdivision. Hennepin County may have additional requirements for that portion of properts' located along County Road 6. Weinberger noted aecording to the survey ail land along (Tounty Road 6 and Tamarack has been dedicated to the public. Weinberger indicated the City Council has recently adopted a new Septic Code that permits slopes of up to 12 percent for mound systems. Previously sites could only have a six percent PAGE 8 fMir—I ITnnliB MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) slope. Both lots have demonstrated two sites on each lot that would permit the land to be subdivided with the new standards and have been approved by the Septic Inspector. Weinberger stated the standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat ten feet along the e.\terior property lines and five feet along the interior property lines, with an easement and maintenance agreement being recorded with the final plat for the shared driveway access. A certified list of all easements recorded on the property shall be submitted prior to final plat application. Weinberger recommended the propert>‘ owner pay a park dedication fee for one new lot rather than offer land for a park dedication. City Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary' plat since both lots meet the requirements for subdivision in this zoning district and have demonstrated suitable septic sites. Graham stated at the present time there are no plans to develop Lot I at the present time, although they may wish to develop Lot 1 sometime in the future. Graham noted they have recently purchased the property in September. Smith inquired what amount of time they were contemplating before Lot I would be developed. Graham stated they arc easily looking at five, si.\ or seven years before they would develop Lot 1. Graham commented they would like to keep the c.xisting storage building since ownership of both lots would not change with this subdivision. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be interested in relocating the shed onto Lot 2. Graham stated they have discussed that, but at this time have not made a definite decision on relocating the building. Graham stated the building is in good shape at the present time. Graham inquired whether it would be possible to waive the park dedication fee since they currently have almost a one-half acre of a conservation casement dedicated to the City. Weinberger stated the park dedication fees arc a result of the existing land and arc required on each new lot created. Weinberger noted the City Council makes the final determination on whether the park dedication fee can be waived. Currently City Ordinance requires that a park dedication fee be paid on every new lot created or there be a land dedication. Graham indicated he has no further comments regarding his application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether an outlet for this subdivision should be created to deal with the issues relating to the shared driveway. Gaffron stated the City tv pically will request an outlet be created in the situation of a back lot/front lot situation. Gaffron stated the Citv has manv shared driveway s at the present time. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE OftONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 (U2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) Stoddard commented it was his understanding the City was attempting to keep away from easements and request outlets. Stoddard noted this property consists of 5.1 acres, which may not leave enough room for the creation of an outlet. Gaffron stated the City tvpically does not require an outlet on a shared driveway serving two residences, but tends to look at it differently if there are more houses being serviced by the driveway. Stoddard stated that keeping the existing building may need to be reviewed further prior to approval. Lindquist inquired whether the two lots would be kept combined for tax purposes. Graham stated he would like to keep them combined. Weinberger indicated once they are subdivided, they become two separate tax parcels and requires a new subdivision application if you were to separate two combined lots. Weinberger stated the Applicant could consider the option of obtaining prcliminaiy plat approval and extending that approval every year. Graham stated they utilize the building currently for storage. Kluth noted City Code does not permit an accessory building to exist on a lot without a principal structure. Graham noted ownership of both lots would not change. Graham suggested a period of time be given in which the shed has to be either removed or a principal structure constructed should ownership of the property change. Kluth inquired why the Applicants arc proceeding forward with the subdivision at this time if they do not plan to develop the property. Gndiam stated they would prefer to have the property subdivided at this time since they are able to subdivide the property under the existing codes. Lindquist commented he has concerns with leaving the accessoiy building on the lot without a principal structure. Stoddard indicated requests arc sometimes made to the Planning Commission to leave an existing accessory structure while construction is undergoing but not for an unspecified period of time. Smith suggested a period of 18 months be given to allow for the lot to be developed, and if the lot is not developed within that period of time, the shed be relocated elsewhere. Graham stated the use of the property w ill not change at all until the lot is sold. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) Stoddard stated Lot I needs to conform with the existing City Codes. Graham suggested a condition be placed on the subdivision that upon sale of the lot, the lot must be developed within a certain period of time. Smith inquired whether the City has allowed an accessory structure to remain on a lot without a principal structure in the past. Gaffron stated a situation did exist on North Arm Drive where a swimming pool remained for three or four ycais and eventually became a problem. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any other situation similar to this. Lindquist stated in his view the Applicant should perhaps be given a year to a year and a half in which to make a decision on what to do with Lot I and the storage building. Weinberger inquired whether a similar situation occurred on Little Orchard Road where the bam was permitted to remain without an existing structure. Gaffron stated it is his recollection the property owner was given approximately a year in which the bam could remain on the lot without a principal stmeture, but that the owner was in the process of developing that land. Gaffron stated he does not have any major concerns w ith the storage building remaining on the lot w ithout a principal structure provided ow nership of both lots docs not change. Gaffron stated there would need to be a covenant on Lot I filed w ith the City once the lot is sold indicating the property needs to be developed w ithin a certain period of time or the shed needs to be removed. Graham stated he would be agreeable with that. Smith inquired whether that would apply if ownership of either lot changes. Gaffron stated both lots would need to remain in common ownership, and as soon as ownership of one lot changes, the covenant would become effective. Nygard stated another trigger would be construction on Lot 1. Lindquist commented in his view the Planning Commission has been clear on this in the past and they should continue to follow past practices and only allow the shed to rentain for a limited period of time if the property is not developed. Graham stated a covenant could contain w hatever condition the Planning Commission requested and would show up in the title opinion letter at the time of final plat approval. Lindquist stated it would be his preference that a limited period of time be granted for the shed to remain. PAGE 11 Jiik ..iliMi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 {U2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application ^2602, John Graham, 1065 Tamarack Drive, for a two lot subdivision, with the understanding that the storage barn will be removed or a residence constructed on Lot 1 within 18 months of approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council. Smith commented the Applicant may need to look at relocation of the shed if they do not plan to develop this lot within the next year or two. Graham reiterated the City could require a covenant on this property requiring that the shed either be removed or a principal structure constructed within a certain period of time once ownership of the lot changes. Graham stated that covenant would be recorded with the title and any new property owner would be aware of the restrictions on that shed. Nygard commented the 18 months gives the Applicant time to look at his options regarding this lot. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to vote on the motion that has been made. Graham stated he would like the Planning Commission to go alicad and vote on the motion. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays I, Nygard Opposed. (^5) #2600 BRIAN KERBER, 740 ORCHARD PARK ROADS - VARIANCES, 7:51 p.m. - 8:18 p.m. Brian Kerbcr, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application requesting variances to permit construction of 60’ by 40 ’ (2,400 square foot) pole bam on his 4.8 acre property. City Code currently permits a nmimum structure of 2,000 square feet. This pole bam would be considered an oversized accessory stmcturc. A second variance is needed to permit relocation of the Uvo-stall garage 72.9’ from the side street lot line where 100’ is required. City C, v'; docs not permit detached garages or other accessory buildings to be located neared the front ,>• lot line than the principal building on a non-lakcshorc lot. Weinberger stated this property is located in the five acre zoning district of the City along County Road 6 and Orchard Park Road. Neither of the buildings would be fully visible to the adjacent properties and would not be visible to the property to the south based on the mature trees between the lots. Access to the pole bam would be gained off of County Road 6. Weinberger noted the cast half of the property consists of low land and w etland area. Weinberger stated one issue to consider is the new Highway 12 corridor will affect seme if the property in this area. PAGE 12 KaXarm»M.m rtfrtilgV MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) City Code states that the maximum size of an oversized acccssoiy structure is 2,000 square feet, with a variance being needed for the additional 400 square feet. The proposed building will be located in an area near the two-stall detached garage. The Applicant is proposing to relocate the detached garage slightly between the pole bam and County Road 6. This would require a variance since the garage would be located within the setback. Relocation of the driveway to County Road 6 would not be feasible due to the number of mature trees and the existing access to the property would not change. Weinberger stated the Applicant has indicated the larger building would accommodate more storage and allow him to house a workshop within the building. The Applicant would also like to store his vehicle and trailer utilized in his occupation within this structure. Reducing the size of the pole bam to 2,000 square feet would allow the Applicant to build the structure without the need for a variance. Relocation of the structure to another spot on the property is not possible without replacing the septic system. The existing system has been found to be non-compliaiU due to the three foot separation to the water table but docs not need to be replaced until the year 2010. Staff has found the location of the septic tanks and drainficld docs restrict the Applicant from constructing this pole bam behind the house. Further, the property drops off and is considered to be low land south of the drainficld, with water table and drainage issues. Location of the pole bam in this location w ould also require extensive regrading and construction of a vciy long driveway to the rear of the property. Weinberger stated in order for a variance to be granted, a hardship must be demonstrated. The hardship appears to be the propert)’ owners need for additional storage space, which is really not a hardship inherent to the land. Staff has concerns regarding the possible precedent that may be established by approving an oversized accessory building greater than what is permitted by the ordinance. City Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow relocation of the two-stall garage as proposed on the site plan, w hich would allow for the building of the pole bam in this location. The structure will need to meet the 26’ setback from the wetland. The hardship is the location of the septic tanks and drain field restrict construction of the pole bam anyw here else other than in the location of the existing garage. City’ Staff is recommending denial of the variance to permit the 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building since a hardship inherent to the land has not been demonstrated and a dangerous precedent may be set. Kerber indicated he has no comments at this time. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether it would be possible to move the two-stall garage further back without encroaching into the wetland setback. Kerber indicated the garage could possibly be relocated another 10 to 12 feet further baek. PACE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) Smith inquired why tire Applicant would like to construct a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building as opposed to the 2,000 square foot building permitted under City Code. Kerber stated the need for the oversized structure is driven by the need to park a vehicle and trailer, which amounts to 56’, in the structure and to have Uvo feet in the front and back to allow someone to walk around it. Kerber stated he needs a minimum of 36’ wide, noting that a 60’ by 36’ building comes to 2,160 square feet, which is still over the maximum allowed by the Code. Kluth inquired why the Applicant could not reduce the size of the building to 33', which would bring the structure under the maximum allowed. Kerber stated he needs the width in order to store additional equipment and to allow a workshop within the structure. Kerber indicated his hydrosceder that he utilizes in his business is appro.ximatcly nine feet wide, and in order to allow ample room to back out of the pole bam, it is necessary to park the vehicle away from the side of the structure. Smith inquired if the existing garage could be utilized for his workshop and other equipment. Kerber stated the existing garage would be used for storage of vehicles, with the pole bam being used to store his work vehicle and trailer along with a workshop and other equipment. Nygard inquired how Hennepin County’s application for the sand/salt storage stmeture differs from this application. Weinberger stated the difference is the use of the property, noting the Hennepin County application was for highway maintenance and not residential use. Nygard questioned w hether Hennepin County w as expanding its use of the property w ith the new storage building. Weinberger indicated the City Council did not find that the new storage building would not necessarily constitute an increase in the use of the property since the number of deliveries was being reduced and the nighttime deliveries were being eliminated Nygard stated the comprehensive plan had designated the Hennepin County property as potentially becoming residential in the future. Nygard questioned whether the accessory building constructed on the Hennepin County property was larger than the principal structure on that lot. Weinberger stated the building proposed by Hennepin County was larger than what was permitted for the property, w ith the building being downsized somewliat in response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Nygard commented in his view the City Council did not vote correct!)’ on that application, noting that he has a similar problem with this application. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 2000 (#2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) Kluth stated he would recommend denying this application based on no hardship being demonstrated. Nygard commented in his view Hennepin County did not demonstrate a hardship cither. Kerber stated that was one example he was going to raise. Stoddard stated he would like to sec the size of the building reduced somewhat. Kerber indicated he would be willing to reduce the size of the pole bam to 60' by 36\ which amounts to 2,160 square feet. Smith commented she would be okay with the 2,160 square feet, with relocation of the two-stall garage being further back on the lot but outside the 26' setback from the wetland. Smith noted if the Applicant owned an additional two-tenths of an acre, he would be allowed the next larger size building. Kerber stated he would be willing to move the two-stall garage back as far back as possible. Stoddard commented he would be agreeable to the 2,160 square foot building. Lindquist indicated he would not be in favor of voting for a building that is in c.xccss of what is permitted by City Code due to the precedent that it may set. Kluth commented he w ould not also not be in favor of voting in support of a pole bam in excess of what is permitted due to the precedent that would be set despite the vote by the City Council on the Hennepin County application. Smith moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2600, Brian Kerber, 740 Orchard Park Road, granting of a variance to permit construction of a pole barn no greater than 2,160 square feet, and to grant a variance to permit relocation of the two-stall garage within the side street lot line, with the understanding that the Applicant will relocate the garage as far back as possible and still remain outside of the 26* wetland setback to allow the garage to be more closely aligned with the proposed new accessory structure. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Lindquist and Kluth Opposed. Lindquist indicated he voted in opposition to the motion because no hardship inherent to the land has been demonstrated. Kluth stated he is in agreement with Lindquist. Smith commented the decision by the City Council on the Hennepin County matter did not affect her vole on this application. PAGE 15 MINUlf S OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#6) #2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK. 2100 SUGARWOOD DRIVE - VARIANCE, 8:19 p.m. - 8:37 p.m. Karen Blank, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 29’ by 55’ S|K>rt couit at the rear of their property. The proposed sport eourt would be loeated ten feet from the rear property line where 50 feet is required. Bottenberg indicated this property* lies within the Sugar Woods development, with Resolution No. 2653 being adopted in July of 1989, ercating Sugar Woods as a Planned Residential Development. Tlie resolution states approval was based on limiting the development and future use of property within the Sugar Woods development. It specifically defines building setbacks and limits hardcover improvements. Bottenberg indicated performance standards were established for each lot and allows a building pad for principal and accessory structures by establishing specific setbacks (50’ front and rear, 30' sides). The resolution limits hardcover to 80 percent of the building pad and lot coverage to 15 percent of the entire lot. The only hardcover allowed outside the defined building pad is a narrow driveway to the road. Bottenberg stated these standards were established not only to pro\ idc buffers but to protect the wooded character of the unique Sugar Woods property. The Applicants have presented their proposal to the Sugar Woods Homeouners Association as required. The Board of Directors of the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association unanimously approved the plan. In Staff s opinion the abbreviated process was not intended to apply to accessory structure setback variances, especially when such structures would not only be in violation of the more restrictive standards for Sugar Woods, but would also not meet the less restrictive general zoning standards or the standards for the underlying R-IA zoning district. Bottenberg stated the total property hardcover, including the sport court and c.xisting driveway, will be an area equivalent to just under 57 percent of the building pad area, meeting the 80 percent limitation. Blank stated their hardship relates to the trees in the area, noting that there arc some very large Maples they would like to save. Blank commented they have attempted to locate the sport court in the place w here they w ill save the most large trees and to allow room for a gazebo. Blank stated by mo\ ing the sport court forward, they would be required to remove a couple of large trees. Smith commented that the Applicant w ould be required to remove a number of small trees with the sport court in the proposed location. Blank stated in her opinion those trees are scruffy trees Smith stated that one of the inherent features to the Sugar Woods area is the heavily wooded trees along the rear property lines, which this setback has been designed to protect. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17»2000 (^2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, Continued) Blank stated their area is heavily wooded and has become more heavily wooded over the years. Blank stated a section where the sport court is to be located does contain a number of small scruffy trees and weeds. Smith stated that section has been set aside as being within a protected area as part of the Sugar Woods development. Blank stated to her recollection the guidelines were geared around a particular size of the tree located within this area. Blank stated trees over a certain diameter arc not to be removed. Gaffron stated Resolution 2653 talks about the open space areas, outlets A and B, and the defined setback areas within each residential lot shall be restricted from all grading and land alteration activities, and no tree in c.xccss of two inches in diameter and four foot height shall be removed. Stoddard inquired whether the resolution contains a certain foot setback that they need to stay out of. Gaffron stated the defined setback areas arc the 50’ front and rear and the 30’ sides. Stoddard inquired where the sport court could be located without the need for a variance. Bottenberg indicated the location of the sport court on the map. Stoddard commented she would be able to go 20 f ;ct further back according to his understanding. Gaffron stated she would not be allowed to build any structures outside of the building pad that has been defined bv the 50’ front and rear setbacks and 30’ side setback. Stoddard stated Section 10.03, Subd. 14(D) reads: rear setback: tennis courts - when such accessory structures c.xcccd 1,000 square foot footprint area shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: rear year 30’ minimum and not within the required rear yard area. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant is being granted an extra 20 feet. Gaffron stated that is not the ease, noting the more restrictive code always applies. Gaffron stated the section of the Sugar Woods Resolution is more restrictive relating to setbacks than what is contained in Citv Code and is what the Citv needs to use as their standard. Stoddard commented they have received some requests for driveway variances in this area, with this setback area being established to protect the wooded area in this development. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist stated he has a problem approving this application due to the encroachment into the setback area that has been established specifically for the Sugar Woods development. Smith stated she is in agreement with Lindquist. PAGE 17 (#2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, Continued) Kluth commented he also is in agreement with staying out of the defined setback area. Nygard stated he also would have a hard time approving this application with the sport court located within the defined setback area. Blank inquired whether they would be able to construct the sport court in another location which would require the removal of the larger trees. Lindquist stated the Applicant can construct the sport court but needs to stay out of the defined setback areas. Blank reiterated if the court is constructed in another irca on the property, they would need to remove the larger trees in order to save the smaller, scruffier trees. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission cannot set a precedent by allow ing her to construct the sport court within the defined setback areas for this development. Blank commented it was her understanding other residents within lliis development have applied for variances, which have been granted. Smith stated she recalls variances being granted to allow the residents to construct a driveway but d 3cs not recall an\' variances relating to other items. Gaffron stated he is not aw are of any ' .;,<ianccs being granted outside of \ ariances for a driveway. Nygard moved to recommend denial of Application #2601, John and Karen Blank, 2100 Sugarwood Drive, lor a variance to construct a sport court in the rear of their property. Nygard commented the Applicant has the option of tabling this application tonight or having the Planning Commission vote on the motion. Nygard stated the Applicant has the option of submitting a revised plan. Blank stated it probably would be a better option to withdraw the application. Nygard stated if the Planning Commission votes to deny the variance, this application w ill proceed to the City Council with that recommendation. If the application is tabled, the Applicant has the opportunity to submit a revised plan. Smith stated the .Applicant would need to comply w ith the standards contained in the PRD for the Sugar Woods development. Blank stated they woaJd probably proceed with censtmetion of the sport court in another location which would not require a variance. Smith suggested the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Cits Council in the PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Jay Nygard, Sandra Smith, and Dale Lindquist. Commissions William Stoddard, Janice Berg, and Daniel Kluth were absent. The following represented City St^: Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Richard Flint arrived at 7:12 p.m. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS ^ (#10) #2590 DENNIS AND BECKY STANTON, 3325 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES 6:31 p.m. - 6:36 p.m. Dennis Stanton, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to remove the existing deck on Ae rw of Ae resi^nce and concrete sidewalk on the southwest side of Ae residence because it is deteriorating and located wiAin Ae Dakota Rail right-of-way. The Applicants would like to replace Ae deck wiA a brick paver patio wiAin Aeir property lot lines. The proj,>>- d deck is 170 square feet. A variance is needed to permit Ae patio to be located at Ae lot line where a two foot setback « required. Variances to hardcover are needed to permit 55 percent of hardcover wiAin Ae 0-75 setback where 0 percent is allowed, and to permit 64.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250 setback where 25 percent is allowed. City Staff recommends approval of the variances. Stanton stated Acy have a hardship in Aat they have a very small lot and Acre is a very limited amount of space to work with. Hawn inquired whether the planting beds situated in Ac back arc also located within Ac Dakota Rail pght-of-way. Stanton stated Aey are. Smith inquired whether Aey have been in contact wiA Dakota Rail. Stanton stated Ae deck and the plantings were installed by Ac previous property owner, and that it was his understanding when he purchased the property that everything up to the fence was his. following Ac cr-rcplction of a survey, Stanton stated he was informed he docs not ow-n that land. Stanton stated Ac other residents in the neighborhood have similar situations, with a number of sheds and landscaping being located within the Dakota Rail right-of-way. Stanton stated he did PAGE I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2590 DENNIS AND BECKY STANTON, CONTINUED) attempt to purchase the property from the Dakota Rail, but was unsuccessful. Smith inquired whether the Applicant needs some type of document from Dakota Rail saying that this is permitted within the right-of-way. Weinberger stated in the case of this application, the patio is being relocated onto to Applicant’s property, with the landscaping having been allowed by Dakota Rail for a number of years. Weinberger stated at the time thut Dakota Rail wishes to reclaim the land, in his view this issue would be taken care of at that time. Stanton stated the Dakota Rail is aware that there arc encroachments onto their right-of-way in that area but has no intention at this time to have it removed. There were no public comments regarding this application. Nygard moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2590, Dennis and Becl^ Stanton, 3325 Crystal Bay Road, to grant variances to the lot line and hardcover to Permit construction of a brick paver patio. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Hawn indicated the Planning Commission in the future will probably not grant any further variances to hardcover on this property. Hawn noted that the Planning Commission granted the variances on this application b^use it docs improve the existing situation on the property and reduces the amount of hardcover currently on the property. (#7) #2579 JAMES AND CANDACE KEMNA, 1110 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH VARIANCES, 6:37 p.nu - 6:37 p.m. The Applicants were not present. Hawn noted this item has been withdrawn at the request of the Applicants. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 AND MAY 15,2000 Hawn noted the April 17, 2000 Planning Commission minutes have already been approved at the May Planning Commission meeting. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 15,2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 2 f < MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 («13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Hawn noted a Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 27, at 6:30 p.m., and encouraged all members to attend if possible. Gafihron stated another meeting will probably be scheduled for sometime in July with the Long Lake Planning Commission as well. Gaffron stated they will be ineeting with representatives of Hoisington-Koegler to review the work to be done for the joint planning study of the Highway 12 corridor. The Planning Commission gave updated information on their phone numbers and addresses. Smith inquired whether City Staff has had an opportunity to look at the possibility of ^^ng a consent agenda to the Planning Commission’s agenda. Smith suggested that one possible option would be to call for the items at the beginning of the meeting and ask if there is My discuMion from the commissioners on those items, and if there is, leave that item on the agenda for later. Smith commented the public could also be asked if they would like to speak on any of those items at that time as well. Gafrron stated in order for that to work, all applicants and residents would need to be here at ^ same time. Gaffron stated City Staff receives a number of phone calls prior to the meeting asking when a particular item will be heard by the Planning Commission so they do not have to sit through the entire meeting. (/»12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY 22,2000 AND JUNE 12,2000 Smith stated she attended the June 12, 2000 Cit>- Council meeting, noting that the Walford Properties application concerning the old church site was approved. Smith reported the City Council had a lengthy discussion regarding the Gehrings’ application Md the amount of srt^k that should be allowed. Smith indicated it was her belief that application was approved with a 50 foot setback versus the 42’ setback. No Commissioner present at tonight’s meeting attended the May 22, 2000 City Council meeting. («15) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 26,2000 AND JULY 10,2000 June 26 - Hawa July 10 - Lindquist PUBLIC HEARINGS («1) #2595 SHARON TAPANI, 781 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:52 p.m. - 6:56 p.m. David Erotas, Erotas Building Corporation, appeared on behalf of Sharon Tapani. » « PAGE 3 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2595 SHARON TAPANI, CONTINUED) The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has filed an conditional use permit application to allow plumbing in an accessory building. The 10' x 20' accessory building will be us^ as a “pool house" and will be located next to the pool for the storage of pool equipment. The accessory building will include a bath/changing room with sink, toilet and shower. The Applicant has been issued a building permit to begin construction on this project since the proposed building does meet all setback requirements. Bottenberg stated the Planning Commission will need to make a finding on whether the proposed use for the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood and find that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. Bottenberg noted the accessory building is conforming in location, size and height, and the property is 2.153 acres in size, which exceeds the acreage requirements for that district. The property owner agrees to file a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City Code; that the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained; and that the accessoiy building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as dwelling under any circumstances. Erotas indicated he has read the Planning Report and does not have an>1hing to add. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the application met the five criteria outlined in the Planning Report. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant was agreeable to the filing of a covenant on the property* restricting the use. Erotas stated the Applicant is agreeable to the covenant, noting that the use of the pool is very* limited. Gaffron indicated a form will be provided to the Applicant to fill out relating to the covenant. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2595, Sharon Tapani, 781 Ferndale Road North, and grant a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Plumbing in an Accessory Building Adjacent to the Pool, subject to the property owner filing certain covenants on the title to the property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 4 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2) M564 WILLIAM SCOTT DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES, 6:57 p.m. - 7:04 p.m. William Dampier, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffiron stated this application was tabled at the April Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans and was continued to the June Planning Commission meeting at the request of the Applicant. GafTron stated the intent is to change the roof line in order to have a full second story to the house. A variance is required to the side yard setback as well as a variance to the hardcover in the 75*250' setback area. The Applicant will be removing some hardcover in the 75-250’ area, with a reduction in hardcover to 48.9 percent from 55.4 percent. Gaffron stated the revised plan includes lowering the northerly and easterly portions of the existing deck, so that no portions of the deck or its required railings will be more than six feet above grade. Gaffron noted the deck has been modified in such a faishion to reduce the amount of structural lot coverage on the property below the maximum 15 percent. Gaffron stated this is a reasonable solution to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission, with City Staff recommending approval of the application. Gaffron stated there no longer is the need for any variances or conditional use permit for the deck. Smith inquired whether the Applicant is satisfied with this proposed resolution. Dampier indicated he was, noting the downside to this is that he will be required to locate a lock box at the front of the residence rather than store his dock equipment under his deck. Dampier indicated he is fine with that. Hawn inquired whether the lock box would be included in the hardcover numbers. Gaffron stated a lock box would not be considered as hardcover since it is one of the few structures allowed within the 0-75’ area without being considered hardcover. Gaffron stated the lock box can be up to 20 square feet and 42 inches in height. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2564, William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, granting of variances to hardcover and side yard setback based on the fact that there will be a reduction in the existing hardcover. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2588 ROBERT PIEPER, 3995 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN TWO ’A ACRE LOTS, 7:05 p.m. - 7:17 p.in. Robert Pieper, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to subdivide the Sandy Beach property, consisting of 1.3 acre, into two residential lots. Currently there are six cabins on the property being used as rental dwellings The Applicant is proposing to remove all the cabins and parking areas in order to build a home on Lot 1 and sell Lot 2 as a residential building site. Weinberger stated a portion of the property is located within a Hennepin County right-of-way, with Hennepin County having an easement over that area and will be dedicated on the final plat as a public roadway. The Applicant has recently purchased the property and would like to create two one-half acre lots. The property is located on a 90 degree curve along County Road 19 (North Shore Drive) and driveway access to both lots independently is not the best option. The Applicant is proposing a shared driveway access into Lot 2 immediately to the cast of the property line. Locating the driveway access any further to the west would result it the driveway being very close to the sharp concern and raising some safety concerns. Both the City Engineer and the Public Works Director have reviewed the location of the driveway, with this option being recommended by both. Weinberger stated the main issue regarding this property relates to a drainage issue that is long outstanding. Drainage from the north of North Shore Drive is blocked due to a culvert that was plugged. This culvert has become plugged over the years and will need to be cleaned out to allow the water to flow back across to the Sandy Beach property. Weinberger stated the property will need to be regraded in order to avoid all the water runoff from going across the parking lot, which is a proposed building site. The City Engineer has reviewed thi< site id is recommending continuing an existing ditchway along the County Road to divert the flows into an existing drainageway between the culvert and the road. The City Engineer feels a 20 foot drainage and utility easement along North Shore Drive would be adequate to handle the regrading and the drainage and would also help save the building site on Lot 2. This drainageway would also eliminate the ponding in the area that occurs foliowring a large rainfall. Weinberger stated prior to this application proceeding forward, a revised grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Weinberger stated both lots do meet the mini* turn requirements for properties located in the one-acre zoning district. Lot width for Lot 2 is required to be 100 feet along the Count>’ Road, with the proposed lot width being 188.5 feet. Weinberger noted the lot width for lakeshore properties is measured at the structured setback from the lake, which is 170 feet. Pjth lots are one-half acre dry buildabic, w ith one portion of the property being lor aed in a low area but outside of the proposed building sites. City Staff believes that drivewavs »nd tcosonably sized houses .ould be constructed on both lots that would meet the requirements for hardcover. Structural co.erage may be an issue since these PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 lots are one-half acre in size. Staff would recommend no variances be granted on these lots to have a structure built on the properties that is not in compliance with the Zoning Code. City Staff is recommending the property ow ner pay a park dedication fee for one new lot rather than offer land for a park dedication. Weinberger noted only one lakeshore lot is being created as a result of this subdivision, which would limit the number of docks to one and would only provide access to the owner of Lot 1. Currently the Sandy Beach area has a joint dock license where there are several docks in the area. Following removal of the cabins, this joint dock license would be eliminated. City Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision since it meets all requirements of the sut^vision and zoning chapters for lots created within the LR-IC District subject to review and approval by the City Engineer of a rev ised grading and drainage plan. Pieper, 1847 Shoreview Lane, inquired who would be responsible for placement of the culvert. Weinberger indicated the culvert is currently in place but is blocked at this time and needs to be cleaned out. Pieper inquired whether the County would be responsible for the cleanout of the culvert. Weinberger stated the culvert would be cleaned out as part of the grading that would occur on the properties to create the driveway. Weinberger stated the developer would be required to clean out the culvert and divert the water away from the building pads. Weinberger pointed out a culvert is also necessary under the driveway. Lindquist inquired whether the area by the Chcriy trees is considered to be a protected wetla.nd. Weinberger stated it is not considered a wetland and is located a few inches above the floodplain. Patrick O’Reilly, 3928 Cherry Avenue, commented he is pleased to hear that the pond in that area will be eliminated since it posed a safety threat to young children in the area. O’Reilly stated in his opinion the one-acre acre lots are appropriate for this area. Hawn indicated she would be in support of this proposal if the City Engineer is fine with the proposed grading and drainage. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #3588, Robert Pieper, 3995 North Shore Drive, subdivision of a one acre parcel of land into two one-half acre lots, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer of a revised grading and drainage plan, payment of a park dedication fee, the standard easements be provided to the Chy, approval of access to the County Road, and with the understanding that no variances will be allowed on the properties to construct the new residences VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 'ij ♦V PACE? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#9) «589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WOODHILL ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:18 p.m. - 8:24 p.in. Edward Jackson, President of Woodhill Country Club, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Woodhill Country Club has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the expansion of the bam to accommodate a kitchen, storage area, bathrooms and coat room. The interior of the existing bam will be remodeled and a deck and porch will be added to the bam near the paddleball courts. Weinberger stated the use of the bam will remain essentially the same, with the Club requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit updating of the facility. The Woodhill Countr> Club is also requesting a sewer connection for the bam although it is outside of the MUSA. Weinberger noted a portion of the Woodhill Country' Club is located in Wayzata, with the bam being located in Orono. Weinberger noted it is against the policy of the City to amend the MUSA because it is located within the rural/rcsidcntial district. Weinberger stated the City is able to add up to SO units to the MUSA based on certain criteria. Weinberger stated a sewer line does mn through the Country Club and does serve the club house, which is approximately 400 feet from the bam. The Applicant is requesting a sewer connection for this facility because the existing system for the bam is non-compliant at this time due to the three foot separation issue. The septic tanks of the existing building are located approximately 28 feet from the building, with the addition bringing the tanks to within 10 feet, which meets State standards. Weinberger noted the existing system will be required to be replaced, with other suitable sites in the adjacent area being difficult to Hnd due to the topography and the drainage in this area. Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission on whether it would be appr^riatc to allow City sewer to this area since the use of the bam is not considered residential. Weinberger stated the ultimate decision on whether City sewer should be provided to this facility would be up to the City Council. Weinberger stated the proposed addition would not significantly change the use of the building, maximum occupancy of the building is listed at ISO people based on the usable space within the structure. City Staff docs not feel the addition w ill have a negative impact on the adjacent residences since the bam is not visible to the neighbors. City Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions that grading and drainage plans be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; two, access for all contractors and equipment shall use the County Road 15 entrance to the Country Club; three, the building shall meet Fire Code protection standards; four, the building shall meet the minimum ten foot setback to the septic tanks; five, evidence of a standard septic system to accommodate the proposed use of the building or connection to sanitary sew er only if approved by the City Council. Jackson stated he is the president of Woodhill Countiy Club and a resident of Woodhill Road, which is adjacent to this property. Jackson stated the Club would bear the total expense of rutming the sewer line to the bam. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 r (#2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) Hawn inquired whether the Club is willing to bear the entire cost of the connection. Jackson stated they have some questions on how the connection charges would be calculated on this project, but that the Club would like to have a sewer connection to these outside buildings. Shelly Storch, 1245 Woodhill Avenue, noted in talking to some of her neighbors regarding this proposed project, some were given notice of the hearing while others weren't. Storch indicated some of her neighbors have indicated they are opposed to this project. Storch stated she is opposed to this project because it will result in an expanded use of the private road. Stoicn expressed fhistration over the fact that the gate to this private road, which is supposed to be locked at 8:00 p.m., w'as left open 30 percent of the time. Storch stated this situation has only improved after numerous complaints to the City and to the Country Club. Storch stated the proposed addition will only add to the use of tb<s bam and increase traffic levels on the private road, which will cause added traffic, noise, and safety concerns in their neighborhood. Storch cited an incident which occurred on New Year's Eve in which a long line of cars utilized this private road after midnight when it should have been closed. Storch indicated they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to get this area monitored by the local police since it is considered to be a private road. Storch noted that this private road was to be off limits to construction people and vendors, but is routinely used by commercial vehicles for access to the Club. Storch noted the Club has installed a monitor on the gate to check the levels of traffic on this road th'S past week, but in her view is biased since the Club is aware when they will be busy or slow and will not accurately reflect the amount of cars that utilize this private road. Storch commented she has attempted to work with the Club on these issues, noting that none of her phone calls have been returned. Storch stated she does not want to see her quality of life adversely impacted any further by the actions of the Club. Jackson stated the facility has existed on the propcrt>’ for a number of years and has been neglected. Jackson stated the Club is not looking to expand the use but is looking to upgrade and modernize the facilities. Jackson stated the addition of the kitchen may cause use of the bam to become more attractive, but the use of the bam will not change with the improvements. Jackson stated the improvements to the bathrooms will make them handicap access. Smith inquired whether the improvements are designed to make the bathroom facilities function better or whether the Club will be adding more toilets and expanding the other areas of the bam. Jackson stiud the usable »pacc within the building is being expanded by approximately 17 square feet. Jackson stated the kitchen area will be made larger, with the appliances being upgraded. Jackson stated currently the food being provided to this facility is brought dow n from the main club house or is brought in from the outside PACE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) Storch stated the proposing addition will add 1,000 square feet to this bam, with the addition in effect resulting in an increased use of this facility. Storch stated the Woodhill Country Club operates under a Conditional Use Permit, and in her opinion these improvements will expand the current use of the facilities. Storch stated under the Conditional Use Permit the Country Club has the right to continue doing what they are doing now but should not be allowed to rebuild a deteriorating bam which is located within a residential neighborhood. Storch stated the proposed expanded use and additional parking is not within the purview of the Conditional Use Permit. Weinberger stated this application is a Conditional Use Permit Amendment amending an existing conditional use which is currently allowed within the RR-IB zoning district. Weinberger stated the Country Club could technically expand or remodel under the Conditional Use Permit Amendment versus a non-conforming use. Smith inquired whether Jackson anticipated the number and scope of the parties held at this facility will increase or change at all in the future. Jackson stated the Country Club is not looking to expand the number of parties held at this facility but is up to the members to determine when and where they will hold a party. Jackson stated the majority of the parties at this particular facility occur in the wintertime, with a smaller number occurring in the summer months. Jackson stated he is unable to predict whether there will be a major increase in the use of the facility following the improvements. Smith inquired whether the facility is currently undcr-used today because of its condition. Jackson stated he is surprised at the amount of usage the bam gets at the present time. Lindquist stated in his view thcie arc two main issues that need to be addressed prior to approval of this application. Lindquist stated Woodhill Country Cl^ib has an obligation to be a good neighbor and to try to get along with the adjoining residents as best as possible. Lindquist stated the other issue is the conditional use permit. Lindquist indicated he was on the Planning Commission at the time the private road was approved, with an agreement being reached with Woodhili Country Club that the use of this private road would be limited at off limits after a certain hour. Lindquist stated he would not be willing to approve this application until the problems with the neighbors are resolved. Lindquist stated in his opinion there is no question the proposed improvements will expand the use of this ft^cility, and that the problems with the neighbors should be addressed prior he could give approve to this application. Smith commented that ti'c Countiy Club may not be following the standards that were set by the City Council. Lindquist recommended Woodhill Country Club sit down with the neighbors to see how these issues can be resolved. Lindquist indicated he would like to see that meeting occur prior to any approval being given on this application. PAGE to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) Jackson stated in his view the Country Club has resolved the issues with a couple of the neighbors. Storch indicated she has not been invited to speak with anyone from the Country Club since May of last year. Ha\NTi commented that in her view there is something amiss in the relationship between the Country Club and its neighbors. Hawn stated this application in and of itself will not present a problem but that the problem lies with the perhaps unpermitted use of this private road. Hawn stated according to the Conditional Use Permit, the Countiy Club has the right to ameliorate within limits their facility, and that if it is in a situation of decay, it is appropriate. Haun stated in her view she feels it is encumbant upon the City to help its residents come to terms with one another, noting she would like to see the City take whatever efforts it can to insure that the access off the private road is not abused. Hawn inquired whether the City could verify whether the police do have the right to determine whether there is an inappropriate use of this road that is occurring. Weinberger stated he was unaware that the police could not respond. Jackson stated in his opinion the police can respond. Hawn stated that perhaps the police should be directed to respond. Hawn commented in her view an outside neutral person might be able to help in this dispute. Hawn acknow ledged that this has been an aggravating situation for all parties and that the improvements to the bam may in fact encourage more parties. Hawn stated she was unsure whether it would be appropriate to condition the use of this bam on the behavior w ith respect to another issue. 1 lawn inquired of the parties how this situation can be resolved or improved in a reasonable manner. Storch commented they have heard rumors that Woodhiil w ould like to expand use of that road by making it a two-way road. Storch suggested the road be limited to one-way by having the Country Club promise not to make it a two-way road in the future. Storch stated the improvements to the bam will expand the use and will adversely affect the neighborhood. Storch statod in her view the City docs have the right to make sure that the road is used properly by the Club. Hawn inquired whether the gate w ould be open during the times of the parties. Jackson stated the gate is tvpically closed within 15-20 minutes. Jackson stated they have conducted a traffic study for a total of four weeks over the past two and a half months w ith the membership being ur.v.varc of the study. Jackson indicated they have a very good record of the number of cars that uo tisf ^ ■ igh that gate. Jackson stated the gate is open from 7:00 a m. until 8 00 p.m., with the rcniaining closed the days the Club is not open Hawn commented if the gate is actually closed at 8:00 p m., then the issue of people leaving after a party should not be an issue. Hawn stated in her mind this is a reasonable application, but that the PAGE II MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 («2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) Club needs to take steps to insure that the gate is closed properly. Jackson suggested the police patrol that area periodically to see whether the gate is indeed closed at 8:00 p.m. Jackson stated the police could check randomly or routinely. Weinberger stated Staff will check with the police chief to see whether that would be possible. Jackson stated the Club has taken steps to insure that the gate is closed. Smith inquired whether the Club would have some way of documenting when and by whom the gate is closed. Jackson stated it currently is not documented when the gate is closed. Jackson stated the gate is locked with a padlock, which prevents someone from opening the gate once it is closed. The manager of Woodhill Country Club indicated since they have been monitoring the gate, not one car has left through the gate after 8:00 p.m. Storch acknowledged that the Club has gotten better w ith locking the gate but only after a numter of complaints. Hawn stated she would like to have the parties work together in order to resolve this issue, noting in her opinion this is a reasonable and appropriate application. Hawn stated the City does have an obligation to Mrs. Storch to try to resolve this issue in some way. Smith eommented in her opinion this application docs create the presumption that the road may be used a little more than currently, but if a current problem c.xists with the road, then action on this application may suggest that the City is not taking any steps to resolve the issues relating to the road but may be adding to them. Smith stated that a solution may be as simple as requiring a few e.\tra performance standards before action by the City Council. Smith remarked that perhaps the Applicant could suggest some additional steps that could be taken in order to insure proper closure of the gate. Nygard commented he understands the concerns of the neighborhood, but that this application is not directly related to the problems surrounding the use of the road. Nygard stated if traffic is going down this road the wrong way, the simplicst solution would be to install stop gates on the road where they puncture someone's tire if they are going the wrong way down the road. Nygard stated he w oukI feel more comfortable v oting on this issue if some conditions were added regarding use of the road. Nygard suggested that a punch card system be utilized which would show* the exact time the gate is closed every night. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to give some direction to Woodhill Country Club onwhat steps they should take to help resolve this issue. Hawn stated if the gate is closed, then people should not be able to use that road. Weinberger stated when the Conditional Use Permit was granted two years ago by the City Council, PAGE 12 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) a resolution was adopted by the City setting forth certain performance standards. Weinberger stated that perhaps enforcement is the issue here. Hawn commented it was her understanding the conditions contained in the resolution were adopted by both sides. Jackson stated the resolution also stated there could be up to 100 cars per day, with the maximum number of cars that typically use that road being 63 cars according to the Club’s traffic study. Storch stated the language included in the resolution stated if there routinely were more than 100 cars per day utilizing this road, the City Council would have the option of revisiting this issue. Hawn commented it may simply be a matter of verification of whether those standards are being complied with. Smith stated she is unsure whether the issue relates to the conditions not being followed or whether new conditions need to be added, which is probably something the Planning Commission cannot address at this time. Lindquist stated he would like to see Woodhill Country Club sit down with the neighbors to try to resolve these issues. Hawn indicated she would be prepared to make a motion approving this application with some added conditions, which in her view may not be approved, and that it may be more appropriate to table this application to enable some of these issues to be addressed. Smith stated if this application is tabled, then peibaps City Staff could meet with Woodhill Country Club and the neighbors, look at the conditions that have been imposed on this road to see whether they are appropriate and are being complied with or what steps should be taken to insure that these conditions are met. HawTi inquired whether the Planning Commission should address whether those standards are being complied with and whether some additional conditions should be added. Smith stated in her view to look at those standards now would take a great deal of time and may not be appropriate at this time. Hawn stated in her opinion MUSA is entirely appropriate for this facility. Lindquist stated he was in agreement with Hawn. Nygard stated MUSA in his opinion is appropriate for this property. Jackson stated he would be willing to sit down w ith the neighbors to tr>' to reach some solution on these issues. Jackson stated in his view the Club has done a good job with seeing that the gate is closed at 8:00 p.m., and whenever a problem has arisen that they arc aware of, the Club has taken PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 («2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) steps to see that it does not happen again. Jackson noted he was unaware of the problem that apparently occurred on New Year’s Eve. Jackson indicated the Club has installed signs that read no exit. Hawn suggested the employees be told of the proper use of this road. Storch stated she would be in agreement with a punch card t\pc system, but that she still has a concern about this road becoming two-way in the future. Smith suggested that the neighbors be given the name of a person at the club that they could contact in the event of a problem. Jackson stated he is unsure whether the Club would be willing to bear the expense of having someone sit at the gate 24 hours a day to insure that the road is only used during the appropriate hours. Jackson stated the members are routinely reminded of the regulations regarding this road and the fact that it is a one-way road. Storch indicated the situation has improved, but that she has almost gotten hit by someone going the WTong way on this road. Storch stated part of the problem is the fact that Woodhill Country Club has made promises to the neighbors in the past which have then been throw n out. Storch indicated the neighbors were initially told this road would only be temporary. Storch stated in her view there is no guarantee that Woodhill Country Club will live up to their promises and that their quality of life is gradually being diminished. Hawn moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2589, Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road, granting of a Conditional Use Permit to Permit the Expansion of the Barn to Accommodate a Kitchen, Storage Area, Bathrooms and Coat Room, contingent upon the installation of a punch card system on the gate to document the time that gate is being closed at the appropriate times. Jackson expressed concerns that this system may not w ork 100 percent of the time due to the weather. Hawn stated a box of some t>pe could be constructed around it to protect it from the elements. Storch stated this solution is better than nothing and would provide a document showing when the gate is being closed VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION; Ayes 2, Nays 2, Smith and Lindquist Opposed. MOTION FAILED. Storch commented that the neighbors arc not opposed to having emergency vehicles enter through this gate but that they should exit by another means. Storch stated she has concerns relating to the safety of young children in the area w ith \ chiclcs using this road, especially if they go down the road the wrong way. Smith suggested tabling this application for 30 days to allow Woodhill Country Club time to meet PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) with the neighbors and try to resolve these issues and to discuss whether additional conditions are necessary. Jackson stated the Club would like tc do these improvements prior to wintertime. Smith noted this application will go before the City Council as a failed motion. Hawn recommended the parties meet prior to this application appearing before the City Council to tr>‘ to resolve these issues. Smith stated in her view by allowing this application to go before the City Council as a failed motion, the Planning Commission has not completed their job. Lindquist stated in his opinion the unresolved issues that have e.xisted for over a year need to be resolved prior to this application proceeding on to the City Council. (#4) #2592 MIKE HILBELINK AND JOHN VOGT, 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH - PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, 8:25 p.m. - 8:49 p.m. Mike Hilbelink and John Vogt, Applicants, were present, The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication v\cre noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants arc proposing a lot split of an existing parcel located at 3.50 Stubbs Bay Road North. This property is located within the RR>1B zoning district, with a two acre minimum this site is located on the cast side of Stubbs Bay Road, with the land to the west of Stubbs Bay road being located in the five acre minimum lot size district. The Applicants arc proposing a front/back lot subdivision which requires greater zoning standards for properties that do not have immediate road access. Lot 2 would not have direct access to a road. This property docs have adequate land area to make this subdivision work, with both lots having acreage that exceeds the required minimum standards. Weinberger stated one lot would consist of approximately four acres, with the other lot consisting of approximately 10 acres. Weinberger stated three acres arc required for a lot that docs not have direct access to a road. Weinberger stated Lot I will be approximately 2.73 acres dry buildabtc, with the wetlands not impacting upon the proposed building pads for either lot. The main issue with this application is the access to the two properties, with front/back subdivisions requiring that an outlot be created as an access outlot for a private driveway. Weinberger stated m this case the»c is an existing driveway, with the outlot being configured in such a way as to allow access to the back lot. This arrangement would require a shared driveway acecss. Weinberger sta,cd it would be appropriate to increase the width of the outlot an additional 10 feet to the south to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening from the building site on Lot 1. The submitted site plan indicates the outlot's southern boundary follows the existing driveway PAGE 15 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2000 (#2592 MIKE HILBELINK, CONTINUED) screening shall be required along the south side of the driveway to protect the building site and to act as a natural buffer between the driveway and Lot 1. Weinberger stated the septic inspector has reviewed the submitted septic plans, with all four septic sites as shown on the property conforming to all standards and would be suitable for the construction of a mound system. City Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plans subject to the changes to the access. Hilbelink stated they would like the 30 foot outlot to remain the same since another 10 feet will result in pushing the setback from the house further down the hill. Hilbelink stated the current driveway is a solid surface already and should be sufficient to serve the two homes. Hilbelink noted they have dropped off some information regarding the landscaping, noting the property currently has a significant number of trees w hich they will attempt to save. Lindquist pointed out the trees and the area within the additional 10 feet w ill not change. Hilbelink stated the additional 10 feet would cause the house to be located further downhill Lindquist stated in his opinion there is enough room to do that. Weinberger indicated the additional ten feet would not impact the septic sites. Weinberger stated Staff could rev iew this at a later time. Vogt questioned how they can determine whether placement of the driveway should be if they are unsure where the building pads arc for both lots. Vogt stated they could potentially plant trees where the driveway will go. Vogt inquired whether that could be something that is stipulated to and completed at the time the building permit is issued. Weinberger stated that could be an option. Weinberger stated Staff could review the location of the driveway and the planting of trees at a later time once a final determination is made on the location. Lindquist inquired on Lot 2 what w ill happen in the future if they should want to split that lot. Hilbelink stated they did look at another plan initially which would involve bringing a road and a too foot outlot and a 100 foot cul-dc>sac. Hilbelink stated the way the lot was divided did not create the best lot and was rejected. Lindquist suggested having a SO foot outlot in the event Lot 2 is subdivided in the future. Hawn stated the way it is currently proposed, it cannot be developed in the future. Lindquist commented the City has a number of driveways that are only 20, 30 feet in w idth that service six or seven houses because the propcitics have been further subdivided. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2000 iU2S92 MIKE HILBELINK, CONTINUED) Hawn stated in her view the Planning Commission typically docs not permit that. Hilbclink stated that would require the removal of the pine trees in that area. Lindquist stated the trees could remain but the area would just be platted as a SO foot outlot in the event this lot is developed further in the future. Hilbclink stated they did not prefer that option and have elected to only subdivide the property into two lots. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission could request the property' owners place a covenant on the property preventing it from being further developed in the future. Hilbclink stated he would have a problem with a covenant in the event the owner of Lot 1 in the future decided to subdivide. Lindquist stated he has a concern that someone in the future will want to subdivide this property further and will not have drivewav access. Hawn indicated it would be difftcult to subdivide the back lot under the current City Codes. Hilbclink pointed out that further subdivision of this property may impact the septic sites. There were no public comments regarding this application. Weinberger noted he has been contacted by a party' interested in purchasing the entire piece of property. Hilbclink stated they have been in contact with that individual, noting the party did have the chance to make an offer on the property. Lindquist inquired whether they were okay with the additional 10 feet. Hilbclink stated that would be acceptable as long as it did not impact the septic sites Weinberger noted a minimal amount of grading is required on this property since the driveway already e.xists. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application ff2592, John Vogt and Mike Hilbclink, 350 Stubbs Bay Road North, subject to the platting of a 40 foot outlot, the standard drainage and utility easements being dedicated, and the planting of additional landscaping along the driveway once the actual location of the building pads and driveway is determined. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 17 *1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (HS) ##2594 JAMES R. JOHNSON, 2240 FOX STREET - PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, 8:50 p.m. - 9:04 p.m. James and Helen Johnson, Applicants, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting preliminary plat approval for a two-lot subdivision of an 8.1 acre site located at 2240 Fox Street. The property is located in the two acre zone and will create one new building site. Bottenberg noted the lot division is a front/back lot split, with the back lot needing to be a minimum of three acres. Access to the back lot will be provided off Fox Street via Outlet A. The driveway to the back lot is proposed to come off the existing driveway used by the house on the front lot. Both lots meet all requirements for subdivision without the need for variances. Bottenberg stated the septic inspector has reviewed the septic sites and has determined both sites meet all City and State standards. The existing septic sites located on Lot 2 are conforming systems and would not be impacted by the subdivision. Bottenberg stated Outlot A would be created as an access outlet for a private driveway to serve Lot 1 and Lot 2. Access outlets arc required to be a minimum of 30 feet wide to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. Bottenberg indicated Outlot A is 109 feet wide, with no additional screening necessary. Bottenberg noted a flowagc and conservation easement was dedicated over the wetlands in this area in 1977. A 50 foot corridor on the west side of the property was purposely not included in the easement at that time to allow for future drivewav access to the future back lot. The Building Inspector granted the Applicant a permit in April, 2000, to continue the driveway to the back lot. The City would require approval of a w etland filling variance and the Applicant would be required to obtain approvals from each of the affected agencies with wetland jurisdiction. James and Helen Johnson had no comment. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn expressed a concern that the proposed driveway is going through DNR protected wetland, which may be setting a precedent. Hawn noted the Citv' normally docs not allow people to fill protected wetland. Smith inquired whether the driveway could be relocated. Johnson indicated the location is based on an easement given in 1977 for the driveway. Hawn inquired whether this wus prior to the time the wutlands were protected and when this wetland was designated on the City maps Gaffron stated the City did an inventory back in 1974 and 1975, with this wetland being included on the list at that time. Gaffron stated that in 1977, with the lot was split off, the City accepted PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 («2594 JAMES JOHNSON, CONTINUED) an easement over the wetlands, which was thought to be the shortest, most logical way to access the parcel. Gaffron commented the rules and regulations concerning wetlands at the present time are much stricter, with the Applicants needing to get their approval prior to final plat approval. Gaffron stated the City should perhaps have held off granting the driveway permit until the other approvals were obtained. Bottenberg noted for the record that a letter has been received from the Swiontkowskis indicating they own ^e property to the north and they would like to see as many trees saved as possible with this development. Johnsca commented he has a problem with condition number four contained in the Planner’s Report, noting the agencies are unidentified and that the time period of open-ended. Lindquist stated if the Planning Commission approves this application, it will be subject to the conditions contained in the Planner's Report. Lindquist stated Cit> Staff will be able to provide the Applicant with a list of the appropriate agencies to contact. Lindquist noted the Applicant will need to obtain those approvals prior to this application being approved by the City Council. Johnson indicated the rest of the conditions arc acceptable. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2594, James R. Johnson, 2240 Fox Street, Class II Subdivision, subject to Conditions 1-7 contained in the Planner’s Report dated June 19, 2000, with the approvals relating to the wetlands being obtained prior to City Council approval of this application. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:05 p.m. - 9:10 p.m. (#6) #2596 BRENSHELL HOMES, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL - PROPOSED SIX LOT SUBDIVISION WITH DEVELOPMENT OF GARDEN LANE AS A PUBLIC ROAD, 9:10 p.m. - 10:02 p.m. Steve Behnkc, Brcnshcll Homes, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted a preliminary plat application for a six lot subdivision of approximately seven acres of land located at 1181 Wildhurst Trail. The lots would have access from Garden Lane, which is a platted but undeveloped street. Garden Lane would connect Tonkaview Lane to Outlot A. The road is proposed as a public road to the cul-de-sac. The proposed access from Tonkaview eliminates a number of problems w ith the proposal with the sketch plan review. The Garden Lane access will eliminate driveways to Wildhurst, thus protecting the trees along Wildhurst Trail and controlling stormwater runoff on site. PACE 19 ill MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2000 (#2596 BRENSHELL HOMES, CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the six proposed lots would average approximately one acre in site, w <i all lots being connected to sewer and served with private wells. Sewer is currently available in Wildhurst Trail and would need to be extended between Lots 2 and 3 to the new road. Weinberger indicated Lots 2 and 3, located at the end of the cul-de-sac, do not have the required lot width for new lots in this zoning district and would require variances for lot width. Lot S does nc. have the required frontage along the proposed road and would require a variance as the width of the lot is narrower adjacent to Outlot A than Garden Lane. Garden Lane would only be developed to the intersection with Outlot A and would become a public road. Weinberger stated Lot 1 is proposed at 1.03 acres, but does not account for land area dedicated for the NURP pond, with the City not crediting buildabic area for land that will be used as a drainageway or for storage of stormwater. Weinberger noted a variance w ould be required for lot area. Weinberger stated Lots 2 and 3 would require lot width variances since they are less than the 140 feet required w idth at the rear of the front yard setback. Both lots are considered to be through lots since they would have access to the new road and arc adjacent to Wildhurt Trail. Weinberger stated Lot 4 would be a conforming lot and docs have a buildabic area that would be suitable for residential construction. Lot 5 would have approximately 90 feet of frontage along the front property line, with no direct access being available from Garden Lane. Weinberger stated Lot 6 contains a major ravine, which is shown on the preliminary drawings as a drainage easement. City Code requires proF>crtics served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area.. According to the proposed plan, the driveway access would impact the southern edge of the ravine. Weinberger noted the City Engineer is reviewing this driveway location for Lot 6, with on-site grading and drainage plans needing to be submitted to the MCWD for review. Weinberger stated access to Lot 6 is not possible without impacting the ravine. Weinberger stated athc road and most of the lots will drain towards the NURP pond depicted on Lot 1, with the pond draining to tlic ravine along the south lot line of Lot 2. Staff has a concern about the drainage being diverted into one location before it drains to the cast side of Wildhurst Trail, with the City Engineer recommending that all drainage be diverted to the north from the pond and into the ravine located in Lot 6, with some form of water retention dow nstream before it enters Lake Minnetonka. Weinberger stated additional information regarding the drainage will need to be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval. Weinberger stated the Park Commission will need to review this application as it relates to the issue of park dedication. This property is located across an undeveloped road from the Saga Hill Park and provides the City of Orono with an opportunity to determine if a land dedication would be appropriate to protect the ravine. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2000 («2596 BRENSHELL HOMES, CONTINUED) City Staff is recommending this application be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting in order to give the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Steve Behnke stated he has a number of questions relating o the issues raised in the Planner's report. Behnke stated currently in his view Garden Lane as being required because of Lot 64, which is the lot to the north being a potential public access to a private lot. Behnke stated in his opinion Lot 1 does show over one-half acre diy buildable outside of the NURP pond, with the engineer for this development calculating two-thirds dry buildable on this lot. Lots 2 and 3, lot width variances would not be ncccssaiy* since at Wildhurst Trail the lots are 224’ and 153’, and if measured along the setback, there is the potential that they are less than 140’, but are obviously greater in width across the northern section. Behnke pointed out both lots will be located on a cul-de-sac. Behnke stated it was on the recommendation of City Staff that this plan took the approach from Garden Lane. Lot 4 also contains enough frontage along Garden Lane and would not need a vanancc. Behnke acknowledged that there arc issues relating to grading and drainage concerning this property, which will need to be addressed further. Behnke stated it is his opinion that Lot 6 and the ravine have been addressed. Behnke noted they have adopted the DNR’s definition of a bluff as the method of determining the top of the ravine. The top of the ravine docs not extend to Garden Lane and ends prior to it, and because of that, the acreage on both sides is being incorporated into the dry buildable acres. Behnke stated the driveway docs not impact the ravine proper as defined by the bluff definition. Behnke stated Lot 6 consists of approximately 1.25 acres in size, and they would be able to manipulate the lot line if ncccssaiy. Behnke commented the current division of water between the north and south is essentially equivalent to what it was prior to this plan being created, with this development not increasing the water runoff. Behnke stated the intention of the NURP pond is to hold the water to allow it to drain to the ravine at the same rate that it is currcntlv. Behnke stated the water that drains to this property offsite is also included in the NURP pond proposed for Lot 1. Behnke stated the comment by the City Engineer that all drainage be directed to the north is opposite the natural direction of the water. Behnke stated in his view there arc some inaccuracies in the statements by the City Engineer. Behnke stated in his opinion he should not be responsible to extend Garden Lane to the north as part of this project since they arc offsite. Behnke indicated they arc in agreement with the standard easements and that Outlot A should be a public right-of-way. with the road being a public road due to the number of houses that w ill be scr\ iccd bv it. Behnke stated they will continue to work with City Staff on these issues. Behnke noted the proposed drainage for this development is designed to keep the water runoff at the same rale as what currently exists in the ravine. Weinberger stated regardless of the one-half acre dry contiguous, these lots arc located within the one acre zoning district and still require the one acre dry buildable regardless of being separated by a drainage area Weinberger stated Lot 6 docs meet this requirement, with Lot 1 being less than one PAGE 21 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2596 BRENSHELL HOMES, CONTINUED) acre in size due to the location of a NURP pond on that lot. Weinberger stated Lots 2 and 3 do front on a cul-de-sac, with Staff measuring the lot width from the setback from the cul-de-sac. The frontage along Wildhurst would technically require a variance. Weinberger stated as it relates to the drainage, the comment from the City Engineer were based on the information provided by the Applicant. The City Engineer has not commented on the new information submitted. Weinberger stated the concern initially was that all of this drainage was going to one location. Gai) Welsh, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, stated he lives east of the proposed development. Welsh stated the ravine that nins on the south side is actually the ravine that runs through their property, noting he is well aware of the drainage that runs through the ravine. Welsh inquired w hether this was a situation where the rules will be bent by granting the variances to allow the extra density and have an adverse impact on the area due to the added hardcover and increased runoff. Welsh commented that perhaps more water needs to be held on the property in order to address the drainage issues. Mike Hollcnhorst, 1200 Wildhurst, stated in his opinion due to the number of variances required on this development, the application should be denied. Hollenhorst indicated they live downhill from Lots 2 and 3, with the construction as a result of this development causing the entire roadway and driveway to be blocked while the sewer line is being c.xtended. Hollcnhorst requested that the Planning Commission require a substantial bond on this project to enable the City to restore the land back to its original state should the developer go bankrupt on this project. Sandy Robinson, Wildhurst Trail, expressed concerns relating to the proposed density and drainage. Robinson stated in her view the City should not permit a developer to push the amount of lots that can be developed in this area. Robinson stated in her opinion three lots would be acceptable in this area. Robinson commented the depth of the ravine in the area should give a clear indication to the Planning Commission of the power of the runoff in that area, and that ample steps nc; J to be taken in order to guarantee proper drainage from this development. Michael Wear, 1184 Wildhurst, commented in his view the developer has a right to develop this property if he so chooses, w ith the City having the right and the obligation to place sufficient conditions upon the developer to insure proper compliance w ith City Codes and adequate drainage. Wear stated in his view this area needs to be developed with the issues in mind, especially in light of the drainage that flow s through this area Wear stated the current condition of the ravine is not very attractive due to the number of downed trees and debris w ithin the ravine. Wear suggested the developer revise his plans to work with the runoff and the other issues and reappear before the Planning Commission. Robert Birkeland, 1298 Wildhurst Trail, stated when this area experienced a 12 inch rain, the ravine looked like the Missippissi River under the existing conditions Birkeland stated in his opinion the City needs to get some kind of balance between w hat currently exists and w hat the developer is attempting to do. The President of Brenshell Homes stated they would be w illing to table this application in PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2596 BRENSFIELL HOMES, CONTINUED) order to address these concerns and arrive at a better medium ground. Ha^\7l stated she appreciates the offer to table this application, noting that this is a difficult piece of property to develop with a number of complicated issues, which is not the fault of the developer. Hawn noted the developer has indicated he is willing to work with City Staff and the neighbors on these issues. Hawn encouraged the neighbors to work together with the developer on this pn^)Osal. Hawn indicated in her opinion she feels the number of lots being proposed for this area is ambitious and should be reduced by one or two lots, with particular attention being given to the drainage issues in this area. Smith commented the number of variances being requested generally serves as a flag to the Planning Commission that perhaps what is being proposed for the area is a little too intense or not appropriate for the area. Smith commended the developer for suggesting that this item be tabled in order to allow these issues to be addressed. Lindquist stated he concurs with tabling this application, noting he would like to see the developer and the neighbors get together to discuss these issues. Nygard indicated he was in agreement. Hawn moved^ Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2596, Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail, to give the Applicant time to submit revised plans at their request. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#8) #2584 ANDREW AND TRACY RASCHER, 4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 10:03 p.m. - 10:18 p.m. Tracy Raschcr, Applicant, along with Jeremy Bakkcn, Builder, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the May 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to revise their proposed plan regarding the construction of lakeside retaining walls The Applicants arc seeking a Conditional Use Permit to replace two existing retaining walls and construct two additional retaining walls within the 0-75 ’ setback. A variance is reeded in the 0-75 ’ setback since retaining walls arc considered as hardcover. Bottenberg stated the Applicants, the contractor, Cit>’ Engineer, and City Staff met on May 19,2000, at the site to discuss how to stabilize the existing walls and steps with minimal impact to the property. The City Engineer at that time reiterated his initial observations regarding the proposed new retaining walls as requiring substantial grading, with the recommendation that no new retaining walls be constructed. Bottenberg stated another solution discussed was to replace the existing walls in their current location and to their current dimensions. What is bang proposed by the Applicants is to replace the PACE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2000 («2584 ANDREW AND TRACY RASCHER, CONTINUED) two existing retaining walls and extending the wait that is currently located behind the tree, with elimination of the two proposed retaining walls by the lakcshore. Bottenberg stated the nev/ retaining walls will be in the same location and approximately the same size as the existing walls, with the new walls being constructed out of Keystone, which is different from what currently exists. There will also be a slight design change in locating the steps in the middle of the walls instead of at the west end, which will reduce the amount of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area. The existing steps and walkway will be removed and replaced with sod. Bottenberg stated the project as proposed requires a variance for land alteration within 75* of the shoreline, a variance to hardcover w ithin 75' of the shoreline, and a conditional use permit for land alteration. City Staff is recommending approval of the current plan for replacement of the two existing retaining walls in the 0-75’ setback area and replacement of the wall behind the tree. Staff is recommending denial of lengthening the retaining walls behind the tree. The walls shall be of the same dimension and location as what presently exists, with vegetation being planted for screening. Bakken stated they have worked with City Staff in order to develop some plans that would be acceptable to the City. Bakken stated they arc not proposing to really change any of the existing grading, with the ends of the walls being w rapped into the ground to help prevent erosion and improve drainage. Rascher indicated their lot is located right at the end of Saga Hill at the edge of Lake Minnetonka with erosion being a major concern. Rascher stated they are attempting to make this area useable while attempting to address the issues relating to drainage and erosion. Rascher stated they would like to complete this project as efficiently and correctly as possible. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether City Staff is recommending any particular t>pe of landscaping for this area. Weinberger stated they have requested a landscaping plan from the Applicant, recommending leafs on shrubs. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2584, Andrew and Tracy Rascher, 4705 North Shore Drive, granting of variances and conditional Use permit for replacement of existing retaining walls within 75* of the shoreline. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PACE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2000 (#11) #2591 GINA HANSEN, 583 PARK LANE - VARIANCES, 10:19 p.m.- 10:24 p.m. Gina Hansen, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants arc proposing to change the use of a 4’ x 18’ section of the existing covered deck and adding a second story to the back portion of the existing residence. The second story addition will be approximately 255 square feet, with the first story walls and foundation remaining. Bottenberg stated the roof line will be higher than what presently e.xists on the back portion of the residence, but will still be within City zoning code requirements. Bottenberg stated the structural coverage on the lot will not change with this proposal because the portion of the deck being changed into living space is currently covered and considered structure. The existing lot coverage is 21.7 percent, with the allowable being 15 percent. Bottenberg stated this project will not change the three feet from the side lot line. Hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area and 75-250’ setback is not changing, with existing hardcover being 20.7 percent in the 0-75’ setback and 65 percent in the 75-250’ setback. City Staff recommends approval of this application, with the recommendation that approval of the variance for side setback be conditioned on the existing foundation being inspected by a structural engineer to determine if it is able to handle the additional weight of the addition before applying for a building permit. Hansen indicated this project will have little impact on her neighbors. Hansen stated she has Discussed this project with her neighbors, who have indicated they arc in support of it. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist indicated he docs not have a problem with this application. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #259^ Gina Hansen, 583 Park Lane, granting of a side yard setback variance to permit a .^ide Yard setback of three feet for a second story expansion where 10 feet is required. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Nygard moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair PAGE 25