Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-18-1999 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 18,1999—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 advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the November 8, 1999, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1.#2525 Larry Jacobson and Vickie O'Neill, 635 Femdale Road North, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 2.#2527 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Painter's Creek between South Katrina Marsh and County Road 6, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. 3.#2535 James D. Render, 1315,1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive, Class III Subdivision. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). Zoning Amendments 7:30 p.m. 4.#2536 City of Orono revision to the Orono Zoning Code Section 10.50 Industrial District. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 8:00 p.m. 5.#2537 City of Orono revision to Adult Use Ordinance. (Staff; Paul Weinberger) CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS; PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.#2528 David and Patricia Yorks, 2825 Casco Point Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 7.#2529 Brent Bentrott, 1453 Park Drive, Variances. (Staff; Paul Weinberger). 8.#2530 9.#2531 10.#2532 11.#2534 12.#2538 13.#2539 William Wear, 2160 Wayzaia Blvd., Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). Roger and Elizabeth Olsen, 815 Partenwood Road, Renewal Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). Herman and Marilyn Crawford, 4745 North Shore Drive, Variances. (Staff Wendy Bottenberg). W. Duncan MacMillan, 1820 Fox Street, Variance. (Staff Wendy Bottenberg). Rob and Tori Jafffay, 540 Barrett Avenue, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). John and Becki Sundet, 684 Tonkawa Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on September 27,1999 and October 11,1999. 15. 16. Other issues for discussion. Planning Commission approval of minutes for September 20, 1999. 17. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on October 25, 1999 and November 8, 1999. ADJOURNMENT .1 Public A ttendance Meeting Date to 'i - 7 C ouncil ^ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. V .•.-.vA PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. \! \ cH, ^ C)'Lh, 11 {/ f c\(/ f'L ^c) \ /'A 2. } fii' 1 /•'C'C \ X ' >"//4 i\i,/ir A 7^ \ \ 3. Cylc^</n /'I t >^J. it/'a/ t/ (f^^J ivv/2H7-------------PL^_---------j----- 4. ' ^ cLt bi. 0Cl. V -C cW r" J TT.'.d P/ i.rV r.l 5. Koy^V/ fc/i' X'.' r OMl/O .A/.3 s-sy 7.<:r/- 9/.^ 8. - J 3T3?/r '_^ C ~T7-,iJc.i<c /C/. 10.x.;// 1 ^ 1 { / LCv/''s-'V/ i'^Lxr- V 1 11. fl.fo ^'^<V 5*1 f r>n?Cl-Tr 12.. 13.. 14.. 15. X:\APPS\WPWlN49i WPDOCS\FORMS\Pt’BUCJi1 1 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner October 12,1999 SUBJECT: #2525 Larry Jacobson 635 N. Femdale Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area:93,185-5,775(easement)= 87,410 s.f.(2.01 acres) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.03, Subd. 12: Crowding Principal Building: No accessory building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory structure.: To permit a crowding prncipal building variance to allow a detached garage to be located 8’ where 10' is required from the principal building. Section 10.28, Subd. 5: Side yard Setback Regulations: To permit a side yard setback variance to allow a detached garage to be located 8’ where 10’ is required from the side lot line. Application Summary: The applicant has proposed to construct a detached garage on the north side of his home. The detached garage will be 569 s.f and located 8* from the property line. The property is unusual that it currently has two curb cuts that connect an U-shaped driveway. The applicant seeks approval of variances of side yard setback for the garage to be located 8' from the side yard where 10' is required and crowding principal building for the garage to be located 8' from the principal structure where 10' is required. U2525 Larry Jacobson 635 S. Ferndale Road Var-arce 10/1199 pagt-l ANALYSIS Lot Area: RR-IB Lot Area Required 2 acre (87,120 s.f.) Existing 2.01 acre (87,410 s.f.) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75'-250'54,900 s.f.13.725 s.f. (25%)6,802 s.f. (18.1%)7,370 s.f. (13.4%) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot is heavily wooded with mature trees. The applicant wishes to leave them. 2. The survey and drawings submitted are not to scale and correct dimensions. Hardcover and structural coverage are not an issue with the application. 3. The road easement is 15'. The doors will face street, but will be located more than 30' away. 4. The well and septic system are accessible and not an issue where the garage is placed. 5. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. U2525 Larry Jacobson 635 S. Ferndale Road Variance 10/12/99 page^2 I i Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances for side yard setback and crowding principal structure for the detached garage. Also, a current and scaled survey be submitted with the building permit. Attachments A Application B Letter from applicant C Site Plan/Survey D Sketch Plan E Plat Map F Location Map G Hardcover Worksheets H Property Owner's List 1 Permit Record i i It2525 Larry Jacobson 635 N. Ferndale Road Variance 10/12/99 page-3 A Application # c^SoLS crrv OF ORONO - variance application Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received <9 / Amount Paid Property Identification Nui^f (P.I.D.) _________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pro I (do) Acquired OcJ-X ^_____________ also own the adjacent parcels of land. * ———- ^ (month/year) Present use of property: reridential ___ Zoning District: / \i\'C. IV other (specify). APPLICANT . Name | v Jacc ?^Sc ^_ Address: rj ____ ____ 4H4- City: L>Av^-ha..______Zip:__5S2fLi^r?>^ Phone fliome^ ^ y.-?>OWNER (if different than applicant) ^ .......- v-----. . --------- Name Phone (work) Address: ________________ City:_Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cia ? /5">OC7t7 Describe request in detail: Ao4:Arf^t>-i ta ^ Qr/xa.^^^----------------- .. 'y (attach additional sheets if necessary)m- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover Lot Coverage 5 9 .'Ti'-; 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 rnmnliance with Zonins Code reauirements: ___ - * « B HARDSm/DESCRlPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS We live on a private drive with 15 other homes. Almost all have 3+ garages. Our home has been appraised by the City of Orono for tax purposes at $370,000. We are at a hardship to sell our home for the appraised value with a two car garage. In addition, we need storage for a 19 ft. boat and a third car. The property only allows for an additional garage on the north side of the property, no other workable location exists. The soc- side has a high water table and drainage ditch, the east is close to the common road, and the west hfl^ no easy access because of the location of the septic tanks and dram fields. The temporary structure for the boat on our property is, also, not attractive to our neighbors. m c ■J 1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR LARRY JACOBSON IN GOVERNMENT LOT 3. SECTION 36-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA IfiSl ** FlMIfll! It fssti IS•m.6 mu 9 • t %rm •«rt«r ••aFlAfi Sa««i 9999 •« ttSM^S itllM. fPll ••rt«P I9i994% 16 9999 tM S««A4iflat •# %»• U# t99 UcatlM 9t 99 •atltl»f MM UArM. It #••• Mt pmr99r% M IM* Mf tlMf l»pr«f«M««lt 99 tMr6acM««tl. ■SVt: il»« Mt*««» ilfS m4 Im 1m6 If IMm ff9m a t»r»§f ittts i-t»-st. • • §mu99m MX »«■•MfO. U0^m - eciiiN vV (.[(n\BU'<-. 4 » 1|5{*-•I . • •-ikf *|i • ' .1 .-••v, 4» 1>*1* • ■ -fAvC-,,., 1;; •• • • > !?■ ’ * .-<1.- •0 *» i - •-./ •?. a lY ^ • :/> ; a p;-. =.:,-A - :;• Lc-.“~!0'^. D 6/a) S 15*27 V /. 179 ■••■/,■ O St O 5? ) AllcinV llv» . >* d;L* • • • .■ ' ^' Wayzat- - Country C •TH/ivTi; l-r'-'-'S. • .. « -f. X’^X ^ 8/t^^ *"’ ife" "mrs mtr • • if o 1 ^5g F®0/C^S?^, “• 2 i Ml IM favir L104 •». ^r ^ Vv ^HOAli ..•*•;•• - • •• i* . . . • •*,-rr i-i'V • j^\. • < • ••;. .*c r» • • • • r^J* if ■/ «• •ttVWooWND •• *•'" ..i .-f ••- •- •# • • -.. • HARDCOVER CALCULA SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' .WORKSHEET 250-500'SOO-K £ A nSTlNG HARDCOVERJN_ZQME House ^ _____2» ^ /f**X X X Width 2^ B.GmgJ^ ^4 0.4 C. Drivew D. Sidewalk a.7 X X X X K? E Patiio/Deci©_ife X X 20 F. Landsctqte Underlain By Plastic X X X G.ZJcTl^ A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______________ B _____ + B ___ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE House Length Width X X X B. Garage iSr C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B Sf. SI. SI. SI. SI. loSrO S.F. S.F. SE. SJ. SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. & X 100 X 100 !Qj4 SE. SE. % SE. 2^^SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. S.F. SE. SE. SE. OU.) A B SE. SE. SE.. SE. SI. . I0>51 4 S.F. A 5^700 SE. B X 100 - \^.M C/^LCuuA-iiov S15*27W I 17 9 •••••-■y:;- ^ ..j r^y RUN DATE •A/Il/99 X NENNEP2N COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY ORNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXAS5AR1 PAGE 39 BATCH 595 PROP ADDR OHNER NAIffi TAKPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ORNiR NANi TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ORNiR NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR TAXPAYER NME/ADDR 30 39-11B-23 11 9997 99BB5 FERNDALE RD N DANIEL D DANIELSON ETAL DANIEL 0 DANIELSON SS5 NORTH FERNDALE RD RAYZATA NN S5391 SB SB-lia-23 11 9999 99435 FERNDALE RD N L JACOBSON B V A O'NEILL LARRY JACOBSON VICTORIA A O'NEILL 435 FERNDALE RD N ORONO NN 55391 39 34-11B-23 11 9919 99445 FERNDALE RD N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E t JOAN N STRAND 445 NO FERNDALE RD RAYZATA NN 55391 SB 34-11B-23 11 9911 99445 FERNDALE RD N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E t JOAN N STRAND 445 FERNDALE RD N RAYZATA NN 55391 39 34-11B-23 11 9929 9993B ADDRESS UNASSIGHED KAREN BELDEN FREY RILLIAN R COBB 793 FERraiALE DR N RAYZATA NN 55391 39 34-11B-23 11 9929 99427 FERNDALE RD N BONNIE D JOHNSON BONNIE D JOHNSON 427 FERNDALE RD N RAYZATA NN 55391 39 S4-11B-23 11 9931 99429 FERNDALE RD N J R THQNAS SNA THONAS JOSEPH R 9 NANCY A THONAS 429 FERNDALE RD N RAYZATA NN 55391 39 34-119-23 12 9992 99725 FERNDALE RD N N J SORADA I N B SORADA NICHAEL J/NARGARET B SORADA 725 FERNDALE RO N RAYZATA NN 55391 39 34-119-23 12 999B 99735 FERNDALE RD N R 0 9 L VIAULT RAYNONO 0 I LUCILLE VIAULT 735 FERNDALE RD N RAYZATA NN 55391 SB 34-11B-23 IS 9991 999SB ADDRESS UNASSIONED STATE or N1NNE80TA DEPT or NATURAL RESOURCES TAX SPEC BUREAU OF RE NOT 599 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL NN 55155 TOTAL BATCH 595 99919 Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AH ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS or THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNORLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 1 5 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 13,1999 SUBJECT: #2527 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Between South Katrina Marsh and Hennepin County Road 6 Conditional Use Permit Summary of Request Conditional Use Permit per Section 10.55, Subdivision 9. Hie Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to permit excavation, dredging and disposal of materials and restoration of a 1,250 foot section of Painter ’s Creek in Orono. Painter ’s Creek between South Katrina Marsh and Count>- Road 6 has become obstructed by sediment deposits and fallen trees. Recent complaints from neighboring property owners have been received due to the sediment and logjams causing some minor local flooding. The MCWD has scheduled to dredge and restore Painter ’s Creek this fall and winter. The MCV.'D would be required to obtain temporary work easements for access to the creek and complete the project. The scope of the project would include about a half dozen properties in Orono. Storage of Excavated Material The W’atershed District has been advised the material excavated can not be placed on private property without the proper permits issued by the City of Orono. Individual property owners must receive a land alteration permit for fill to be deposited on their lots. Over 500 cubic yards of fill on any property requires an additional conditional use permit. A large area around the creek is within the fioodplain. The Shoreland Ordinance would not allow any fill to be placed within the defined floodplain (Floodway District). Creekwood Trail Creekwood Trail is a private road that is owned, controlled and maintained by the Painter ’s Woods Homeowners Association. While the Cit>' has underlying road access and utility easements, the City has not exercised its right to take the road as a public road. The applicant must gain approval from the Homeowner’s Association in order use Creekwood Trail should it be necessary as a haul route. lt:S27 MCWD Conditional Vs* Ptrmll I0/I3>99 Pat* I Road restrictions begin in Spring, the City of Orono shall have the authority to stop hauling activity on the project until restrictions are lifted if the project is not completed. The applicant shall be advised any surface cleaning or repair of roads necessary as a result of the project shall be its sole responsibility. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the MCWD for excavation and dredging within the floodplain subject to the following conditions: 1.The MCWD obtains easements from all property owners to permit work to be completed on the property. 2.All excavated material is properly disposed, any questions regarding the disposal of material the MCWD shall contact staff. 3. The City Engineer approves the plans prior to City Council approval. 4. Prior to commencing construction, the MCWD, or an agent on its behalf, shall provide to the City of Orono a haul route map. Exhibits A B C D Application Plat Map Property Owners Notification List Project Summary sfcwD Comillional L'u Ptrmii lO/ia/99 Pag€2 !; ( : ZONEC ii« r *. Be^m ' r^0L'»nfcnok ^nd ‘ TPiIjZONE I cn H s Ij lii' tc 2cc 8 L • <1I • ‘ (pi *' ■ V ^ I X v -C-V a -L;Mr. F •■ * . /■* r- ' . ■. A ZONE A r X r * ‘ ZONEC , I 1* :i ii :| U J1 S \ } \ \ \ -. >------—4. BAYSlOE V- IM-V. ' . . • -^ » -r-.rv" v® N L*^►v II r< - l)C / •yo - .* >. ^ '>■ limit OF STUt --'.r^v • V -2- /. •it-M"' V r=~'". * •■ Application # ^^3^7 Date Received 7- 7 Amount Paid — o — CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION yzJLL SouH/i Aiay\si\PROPERTY LOCATION^^ ^ / Site Address 6. Type of Application Property Identification Number fPJ.D.^i^ajrj'ai/< ce^>r^ APPLICANT . . Phone (home) /J/a________ Name/^>y^^A?4? £nzek /iJAl/i^L>J ^'s^igr Phone (work)(^/^ ^7/'^9^ Addressic>a7et'C^/7j^. jJa.ifa//‘£\^ Zip„^^'y?y €sZ^ofsJjJ^^^I7Z2/7C OWNER (if different Jhan applicant) Name Address>s /or? City Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - W 0 F BB _____$ 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 $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplaii^ Grading and filling -^01 cu. vd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore 3s. PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Afler-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 - sec Fee Schedule REQUIRED SUB>nXTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, / A-603, Government Center, 1 IftiaWI). 3 V S’ ‘ f? 4. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\'eyor) - refer to handout for survey y information. 5. /A Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 6. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve y changes in elevation (grades). 7. djA— 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). 8. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 9. d/^ 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 L.ARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ll” X 17 ” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. INacVi^IC DateApplicant's si OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings 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 arid advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. # O f", PROP ADDR ONNBR NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 30 118 23 33 0003 4750 CRBEKWOOD TR D H JBLLISON A S L JELLISON DAVID M A SUSAN L JELLISON 4750 CRBEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 CONDMN « 38 30 118 23 33 0004 4700 CREEKWOOD TR RVC HOMES INC RVC HOMES INC 4700 CRBEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 CONDMN i 38 30 118 23 33 0005 4680 CREEKWOOD TR J F A V M O'NEILL JAMES P O'NEI" 4680 CRBEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 CONDMN • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 03 117 24 14 0001 6445 CO RD NO 26 GERALD C DODDS ETAL GERALD C DODDS 6445 CO RD 26 MOUND MN 55364 CONDMN « 36 03 117 24 14 0002 36 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED L A ROY A M M MILLER LESA A ROY 4156 RESERVOIR BLVD COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MN 55421 CONDMN 8 36 02 117 24 23 0001 301 ROLLING HILLS DR HOWARD L JOHNSON HOWARD JOHNSON 301 ROLLING HILLS DR MOUND MN 55364 CONDMN i PROP ADDR ONNBR NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR I1 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE O 0 RHAHA CREEK WATFRStfFD DISTRICT PROJECT SUMMARY PAINTER CREEK MAINTENANCE LOCATION: BETWEEN SOUTH KATRINA MARSH AND HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PROJECT SUMMARY PAINTER CREEK MAINTENANCE .*___ • * V - to <;• \CC:0 c». ‘ ^ ^ BETWEEN SOUTH KATRINA MARSH AND HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAP NO. 6 The crwk between South Katrina Marsh and County Road 6 has become obstructed by sediment depositioo, £dlen trees Gog jams), and debris. Complaints from proper^ owners adjacent to the creek have been receive d. The project covers approximaiely 1,250 lineal feet of the creek and consists of the following: *1. Clearing and grubbing of the constmction area 2. Excavation, dredging, and disposal of materials 3. Restoration The project is tentativeiy scheduled for the fell of 1999/winter of2000. Materials lexnoved during maintenance will be di^wsed off-site. Enclosed is a maintenance profile and plan view showing the work area. APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET NORTH AND SOUTH OF HENNEPPi COUNTY ROAP NO. 26 The creek approximately 400 feet north and south of Comity Road 26 has become obstructed by sediment deposition, feUen trees Gog jams), and ddiris. The project covers approximately 800 lineal feet of the creek and consists of the foUosving: 1. Clearing and grubbing of the constmctioa area 2. Excavation, dredging, and disposal of materials 3. Restoration The project is tentatively scheduled for the fell of 1999/winier of2000. Materials removed during maintenance will be disposed off-site. Enclosed is a maintenance profile and plan view showing the work area. Cl) if ^ £1 ,f A*./ CLCVATION IM FEET ELEVATION IN FEET s t t 2 8 8 3 a ato2 8 8 - s SS2882228 8 ELEVATION IN FEET 2S28828288 $ I i it I • • • *t* • • 81• • • sJ3s “4- h•j 4 I •• • • 1*I! i i 8 S S 2 8 8 8 8 ELEVATION IN FEET 2 8 8 ^ $ \f•A • 41• • • • • I • • • »• • I K #••••• Pi • • • I • 8 b I! li li?liM : 'li ’ li i8{i *•ih I • • •*• • • • ■ •••l-B <>r:i3 s*tp» i'Sli i'M'i • I ! •• 1 • ••J* • tOa Eptm* il ( «: i»i.t il il il $ t S 2 8 ELEVATION IN FEET S(H »M U>s 8 3 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 ELEVATION IN FEET sjltll? \3|?i ? 51 i -•V" .'M* i;a'153 w J??: i I ♦ W’ ' 'h . MNTER MARS m mmm ;• KSiWii m •; . , j.. :•.:•! A-.' ■'''■■ .ViWv,*'.}'. f. "I ’•' ■■»(!■;. mmmmmgrn^ Pf ' tw '* fe™ I* If- V'7'flf*' ^ rL r^JKn.m »MsiWimmm mdK * i.'WuvM.’.rAv • feccc^v'/i »»•«•!■ fI ^1 'mm ■mM ‘j5?TiSSi ' ♦’ i* *i ' * • , ** -1 ' »!lv' •. ' • •*' * ^r^i* ,’ <• * v. \^:. it; V '. .'/•• ii^ • ^v?M>,■•.;'fe■^;:;', ' ■ ‘ '" *■ .> • .1 i'' "? IJ',■' •■ vj’i’tvV*' •^•^■.7 v.^m ;• • , .' ..I, »!' Vjvk ■ !v^ ,7 \ • : fv ' V .i ;< ». t ;• n ; , ;fe:al, i w $i r7\. ». ..i- • ■'i *.. :'i^>V;;«: '!r.(v^-^;iv- ' * i ■> ; , life ■:ifei'S m im m^m Hmmi i«yu »vv.*:' '.' ■WH'ilii ■ "■■Siif !;ps»' S-:;r» • • I!■! 11 ELEVATION IN FEET 8 8 ELEVATION IN FEET ELEVATION IN FEET a 8 S S S T ^SSSSSSSS ELEVATION IM FEET •MN JkMM^S • •••••wli!|!-i ___mI__lA-4 ______ ? mm I i SSSSBSSS^SS R" i I U* $ ••!•••• •••!••• • • « • • • ••IV;l 11 :l Jl !"\ r ••■«••• • • • I • • • « • • •. • •j^rT :$ • t \«i 11. I i / i 4- iII Ikl"•*’ ■fri'! ' I I Q: ?! MS 0 ELEVATION IM FEET S3SSBSSSTSI ELEVATION IN FEET 3 To:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date:October 11,1999 Re:James D. Render Render Development, Inc. 1315, 1335, 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive Class III Preliminary Plat Subdivision-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre minimum lot size. Sewered Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service/Urban Residential 1/2 acre density Site Area:2.38 Acres Proposal:Three lot Residential Development (Single Family) Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Application Preliminary Plan (dated 9/21/99) Plat Map Section/Address Map Legal Description Final Plat of Tonkawa Shores (approved 6/8/99) Resolution No. 4091 - Approving the Plat of Tonkawa Shores Resolution No. 4053 - Approving the Preliminary Plat of Tonkawa Shores Section 10.25 - Standards for the LR-IC Zoning District City Council Minutes (6/8/98) City Council Minutes (3/23/98) City Council Minutes (3/9/98) Planning Commission Minutes (2/17/99) Property Owners Notification List »2535 James Render 13IS. 1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive Subdivision 10/18/99 page-1 1 • c PARCEL INFORMATION Property Identification: The subdivision includes the following parcel(s): 08-1 17-23-42-0005/06/07/08 Summary of Request James Render, Render Development, Inc., has proposed a three lot Class III Subdivision - Preliminary Plat application. The subdivision would involve four existing conforming lots being reduced to three lots. On June 8, 1998 the City Council approved the Plat of Tonkawa Shores (attached as Exhibit F). Tonkawa Shores created three .5 acre p>arcels to be served by a private Outlot, shown on the plat as Outlot A. Mr. Render currently owns Lots 1,2 and 3 within the Plat of Tonkawa Shores. He has proposed a Preliminary Plat, to be known as Tonkawa Shores 2nd Addition, which includes an existing lot located at 3430 North Shore Drive. The four lots " ould eliminate one lot and relocate the existing property lines to create larger parcels. Lot Size Existing Lot 1, Tonkawa Shores (1355 Tonkawa Road) Lot 2, Tonkawa Shores (1335 Tonkawa Road) Lot 3, Tonkawa Shores (1315 Tonkawa Road) 3430 North Shore Drive Outlot A, Tonkawa Shores (Private Road) 0.55 acre 0.56 acre 0.64 acre 0.63 acre (est.) 0.16 acre Proposed Lot 1, Tonkawa Shores 2nd Addn. (1355) Lot 2, Tonkawa Shores 2nd Addn. (1335) Lot 3, Tonkawa Shores 2nd Addn. (1315) Outlot A, Tonkawa Shores 2nd Addn. (Pvt. Road) 0.89 acre 0.81 acre 0.67 acre 016 acre it25S5 James Render 1315, 1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive Subdivision 10/18/99 Conformity to Zoning and Comprehensive Plan The LR-IC zoning district has a 0.5 acre minimum lot size. All proposed lots would exceed the minimum lot size for properties in the district. Lot requirements in the LR-IC district are as follows (Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Address Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeshore .5 acre 100’30’10'75 ’ or ALS* 1315 .67 acre iir 127 ’15 ’250’ 1335 .81 acre 140'Undeveloped 1355 .89 152 ’Undeveloped the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the inunediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Surrounding Properties The lots are located on the south shore of Lake Minnetonka's North Arm Bay. The lots to the south of the subdivision are zoned LR-IC and developed as lakeshore lots with access to Crystal Bay. Maxwell Bay boat landing is east of Tonkawa Road and is zoned B-2 for marina use. Lot Layout and Lot Standards As demonstrated in the table on page 2, each lot would meet minimum requirements for new lots in the L'l-lC zoning district. The district requires a minimum lot size of .5 acre and demonstration of a sui.able building envelope. Outlet A would serve as access to the property. Lot 1 would include an existing lot located at 3430 North Shore Drive and the w est half of Lot 1, Tonkawa Shores Addition. A demolition permit was issued for the house on the 3430 North Shore Drive lot in 1994. The property gained access via a shared driveway across the property to the south. Lot 2 would include most of existing Lot 2 and the east half of existing Lot 1. The property is undeveloped and does demonstrate a suitable building site based on the prior subdivision approvals last year. H2535 James Render 1315, 1335 .ind 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive Subdivision 10/18/99 page-3 Lot 3 is currently being developed with a single family home. The property will slightly increase in size. The lot has an existing drainage easement for stormwater treatment. The easement is in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Tonkawa Shores but would not include the 3430 North Shore Drive property. Sewer Connection All three lots are served with municipal sewer and have been fully assessed for sewer. All three lots would be served with private wells. Access The City Council approved a variance for Outlet A permitting the road to only be platted with a 25' width. An 8' roadway easement is located south of the Outlet allowing a total of 33' dedicated for the private road. A second variance was approved for the private road allowing the road to be developed 16' in width where 24' would be required for a private road. The property owners have the obligation to maintain the road. Outlot A has been platted to end 5' short of the west boundary of the property per Council's intent, such that it will be incumbent upon the City to deal with the owner of Lot 1 should the City ever wish to make the road connection to Birch Lane. The Planning Commission should consider whether Outlot A should be extended to include that portion of Lot 1 and provide a future link to Birch Lane should the connection ever be required. Easements 1.A number of easements exist on the property for drainage and utility purposes. All drainage and utility easements along the property lines shall be vacated and new easements shall be dedicated 10' along exterior property lines and 5’ along interior property lines. 2.An 8' road easement exists south of the development that is available for the approved roadway agreement. 3.Subdivider shall grant Drainage easements across the wetlands located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation. Park Dedication Fee Park dedication fees were paid for the three lots as part of the original subdivision approval. No additional park impact fees are required. i^2535 James Render UI5. 1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive Subdivision 10/18/99 page-4 Drainage The City Engineer and MCWD shall approve drainage and grading plans for the development prior to subdivision approval. A permit likely will be required by the Watershed District. Issues for discussion 1. The road is proposed to be platted 25' in width as it exists. There were discussions previously that the road shall not be connected to Birch Land at this time, but it may become necessary at in the future. In Resolution No. 4053 (attached as Exhibit H) indicates the City has no intent to continue said private road westward to Birch Lane at this time. The intent of stopping the underlying road easement 5 feet short of the west boundary is to limit the likelihc^ that a future Council will make the future through road connection to Birch Lane. Should Outlot A be platted through the subdivision to provide for a future connection, or is it the position of the Planning Commission the road will not be necessary because access is available to each lot and a future road would run parallel with North Shore Drive? 2. Although the road has not yet been completed, a "T" turnaround was approved in lieu of a cul-de-sac for emergency vehicle access. Staff would recommend die turnaround be provided. 3. Staff will require a new Developer’s Agreement and drainage easement be granted to the City. The drainage easement may be required to increase in size due to the size of the lots within the development being increased. The developer was given credit for the drainage easement within Lot 3 for hardcover calculation purposes only, not lot area. 4. Is the proposed lot layout acceptable? STAFF RECOMiv JMJ iTiON All the lots meet the zoning district requirements for developments in the LR-IC zoning disdict. Staff is recommending approval of the application based on the following conditions: 1.The City Engineer reviews and approves the drainage plan and stormwater treatment within the development. 2. Hennepin County approves the access to Tonkawa Road. Hennepin County has approved the existing lot arrangement and access for the underlying lots. ^2535 James Render 1315. 1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3J30 North Shore Drive Subdivision 10/18/99 page‘~5 3. 4. 5. New drainage and utility easements are dedicated to the City of Orono. Underlying drainage and utility easements are vacated. Final plat approval is subject to the MCWD approval of all grading and drainage improvements. #2335 James Render 1315, 1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive Subdivision 10/18/99 page-6 Application #_____ Date Received ?/a t / y y Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address /3/r 3S. V. gkiug Property Identification Number (PID)________________________________ Please check one - Property ^ abstract or Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Nam e t/p torrens? Address ________Phone (home) City AylrJ____________________ Zip£iv^Phone(woric)c»tzW<rs'' OWNER (if different than applicant) Name C, f>At r *1^ —______________________________ • Address Sa^pru ________ City________________________________Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Reanangement Only (no new building sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites V Existing Units - i New Units ^ Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per ___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ m A \ TONKAWA "shores'2ND ADDITION PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR ^^\lN LOTS 1, 2 & 1, TONKAWA SHORESV --------- v\ AND LOT 16. LYDIARDS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA \ \ \\v \ /jP' V waoot- s/ 0.674- ACHES ^ > \*v> V\V 5V’ 9 K \ \ / \\ / 'V 0 v% ^ \'X'A v> 7>/ V y>s VA -V 0^ V \N % % \ \ / I V / V \\V V / / »ioo4^ sr. fit- ACfCS ' V n \ \ Ik \ X : % Xv V:»» \\ -vk:/ \ //A \ \ UMESVTF) 1 \ \ \ \\ / / , y*** ~ 'snoot- s/.» \\ A '\x'« \ / .A vV x\ \ \w \ \ \ \ \ \ \ >' V * \ \ .\ 16 \: .‘A.. \ \ 13 \ \ \ \ \ \ 14 \ i\\ \ \ \ \ \ a \ \ \\ \ •.15 \ \ LYDIARD x\\ park \ \ \ \ \\ 4 'V \ \ \ \ \ \ VTSi-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/ .■> \ \ \/ / tmr M* - /«, T0» t /».0f s l.U t**tO o ; Iron morhff . „BwvinQf fhown oro botod upon on oifumfd flOtom 200 legal description op PREMISES; Lot 1.2 iixn. Block I. TONKAWA SHORES p«t of Loi 16. Lydi«d‘i P«k.BegbiSiii •! • poim OB ito SoMllwntcriy Unt of iild lot dlR^ IMS from tho dotted line artaxlfaig ocron Iho SouthMy .-. recorded piM ihereoli tl«ce Northeal^dlftim 179.5 feet Nofthi^itcrty of tKs laisfiectiw of ftt<l clottsd Ib6 iod •« Northetsterty line, and Um ending. SCALE IN FEET 0 %• •"- ;•-• TV" - :lri»~i ♦ TQV^-’^-'-'^ii-’ V y ^ vite:y§ maxwell bay WJM/:'?i^ MS' A - -^A A - V - \ N ©•^ V .--n* ts» ^> WMHNs. . -S%) /\'\V>w / /,\iN" V. ■ 4 r V"" A* yN '> j.r^>y .'a '« VX .' X *«'v //X*.• /;;A y AUO SUBI NO 273 /C ri o^lSS ^1 rr I • It f. I (XI (131 (xij ^Ciu^-f^ S-htl. *<7 • V dr TONKAWA SHORES i ’Vx JirJi^TSDSDrs ^ ^ \ ^\o I \ \ \ '•>**..\^ r««M M«y ^»W<w M# ^W* N In* F CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. d 0 ^ i A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF TONKAWA SHORES FILE NO. 2339 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision igulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a three lot plat by James Render (hereinafter "the subdivider"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that would allow its use for a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances, WHEREAS, the subdivider has agreed to complete all requirements of the plattin regulations of the City, including: aa 1.Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 4053, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the Class III subdivision. 2. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 3. 4. Creation of a private road shown on the plat as Outlot A. Concurrent with the creation of this private road in Outlot A, dedication to the City of road and utility easements granting to the City permanent access, iniprovement and utility easements over said Outlot; and the creation of non-exclusive ingress, egress, drainage and utility easements over said Outlot in favor of all abutting lots within the plat including a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and private roadway easement wherein any lot shall be sold, transferred and coriveyed together with an undivided one-third interest in Outlot A whereby benefitting lot Page 1 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 91 owners covenant and agree to permanently maintain and pay cost of maintenance for said private road. 0.Dedication to the City of drainage easements over all detention areas, wetlands, and drainageways within the plat providing for limitations on the use of these areas and shown on the plat as drainage easements. 6.Execution of a Developer's Agreement providing for the installation of improvements required as a condition of subdivision approval, and posting of security to ensure that these required improvements are completed to the City's satisfaction, subject to approval of the City Engineer. 7. Provided evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. 8.Payment to the City of a park dedication fee for Lots 2 and 3 in the amount of $9,800. 9.Payment to the City for the final plat review fee and fee for legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $400.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Tonkawa Shores, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final grading plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. No grading within the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone will be allowed. Erosion control shall be maintained over all disturbed areas until natural groundcover is restored. No building permits for Lots 1 or 2 will be issued until a satisfactory, road base and all drainage improvements have been installed per approval of the City Engineer. A building foundation permit for Lot 3 may be issued prior to completion of the road base work, due to the site limitations and proximity to Tonkawa Road. 3.The existing residence on Lot 1 and the existing detached garage on Lot 2 shall be removed within 90 days of the date of final plat approval, and no building permits Page 2 of 4 il I oT o mi£ CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 n 9 1_____ for new homes on Lots 1,2 or 3 shall be issued until such time that said buildings have been removed. 4.Subdivider shall grant drainage easements over the stormwater pond to benefit the Lot Owners and the City, and shall provide for maintenance thereof by the Lot Owners. 5.Applicant shall grant a sewer connection easement over Lot 2 for the benefit of Lot 1, subject to approval of the City Engineer. 6.Prior to City release of the plat for filing, applicant shall provide evidence of fee ownership of the property in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, and applicant shall meet any other title requirements as may be required by the City Attome>. 7.Applicant shall provide all documents noted in this resolution in a format acceptable to the City Attorney prior to release of the plat for filing. 8.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before November 26, 1998 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the casements, deeds and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __A-O-S-1------- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of June, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrumenC was executed on behalf of the City. NOtMYPUeUC-WINJ.'ESOTA {• HENNEPIN COUNTY ^ „ t MyCcmrihsicnE)QirtsJsn.31.2000 Notary Public Page 4 of 4 V —s CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._4 0 6 ?____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY approval of a class III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1365 TONTCAWA ROAD - FILE NO. 2339 WHEREAS, James Render (hereinafter the "subdivider") on January 23,1998, filed a formal subdivision appUcation with the City for approval of a three lot residertial plat of property legally described as; That part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, "LYDIARD’S PARK" Lake Minnetonka lying northwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 distant 225 feet norlhwesterly from the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 with the base line shown on the plat of said "LYDIARD’S P.ARK" Lake Mirmetonka; thence northeasterly perpendicular to said southwesterly line of said Lot 15 to the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, and there ending. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the propert>'"); and ^\'HEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 1998, at which time all persons disiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on March 9, 1998 and March 23, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: The property is located within the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of one-half acre of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot, 2. The property' contains a total of approximately 1.91 acres of land. There arc no wetlands located on the property. Except for a portion of the road ditch along 1. Page 1 of 7 & CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 O a 3. 4. 5. 6. Tonkawa Road, the property is above the floodplain elevation of 931.5’, and homes can be developed without the need for filling oi encroachment of the floodplain. The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, each meeting the minimum 1/2 acre lot area requirement and each having 100' in defined width at the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and at the 75' lakeshore setback line. All three lots are served with municipal sewer and have been fully assessed for sewer. All three lots will be served by private wells. Lot 1 contains an existing residence structure which encroaches across the easterly lot boundary into Lot 2. Lot 2 contains an existing detached garage which encroaches within the required 10' side yard of Lot 2. The portions of the house w’hich encroach the 10' required side yard of Lot 1 and which encroach into Lot 2, and the detached garage in Lot 2, shall be required to be removed within a specified limited period of time after subdivision approval and shall be removed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into two separate ownerships. All three Lots shall be served by a private road designated on the plat as Outlot A. Said private road Outlot shall be 25' in width, realizing a total 33’ functional width whe; used in combination with an adjacent 8' City road easement on the adjacent property to the south. Said road shall be constructed to a 16 pa\ed width, with a T turnaround for emergency vehicle access. These dimensions require the granting of a variance to City road width and cul-de-sac standards. The basis for such variance is the negative visual and traffic iinpact on neighboring properties that would occur if such private road was constructed to City standards at this location near the Maxwell Bay lake access. Said Outlot shall be subject to an underlying road, drainage and utility easement to be granted to the City for possible future use, except that the westerly 5 feet of said Outlot shall not be subject to said casement. 7. The Cit>' has no intent to continue said private road westward to Birch Lane at Page 2 of 7 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4- Q 5 3 this time. The intent of stopping the underlying road easement 5 feet short of ijjg west boundary as noted above is to limit the likelyhood that a future Council will make the future through road connection to Birch Lane. 8. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to the private road via a shared driveway in order to minimize hardcover on those lots. 9.A stormwater pond will be developed within Lot 3 and a drainage casernent will be granted to the City over said pond. 10.Thomas D. Johnson, Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his letter of February 12, 1998, approved the proposed curb cut location to Tonkawa Road (County Road 135). 11.The Orono Park Commission has recommended that no additional right-of-way or trail easements are required from this developer since any future trail needs can be accommodated within the existing right of way. 12.The area of the stormwater pond shall not count towards lot area of Lot 3 for zoning purposes, but shall count towards lot area credit for hardcover calculation purposes only. The City intends that no hardcover variances will be granted for development of homes on Lots 1, 2 and 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the oreliminary plat application of James Render at 1365 Tonkawa Road per prelimin^ plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surv’eyor of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc, dated March 18, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1.Proposed Road (Birch Lane) on said preliminary plat drawing shall be platted as a private road cutlot to be designated as Outlet A. 2.A variance will be granted for the 25' width of Outlet A and for the 16* paved width of the private road which do not meet the 50 ’ oudot width and 24’ paved road width or 80’ paved cul-de-sac standards for a private road serving 3 or more Page 3 of? CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 5^____ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. residences. All Lots shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to Tonkawa Road shall be allowed for any Lot. Lots 1 and 2 shall access the private road outlot via a shared driveway as shown on the preliminary plat drawings. The private road in Outlot A and the stormwater pond located in Lot 3 per the preliminary plat drawings shall be constructed by the developer subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed between the City and the developer. Private road and stormwater pond construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road and pond have been approved by the City and the Developers Agreement has been executed. The private road shall be allowed to access directly to County Road 84 subject to conditions for such access as imposed by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in their required access permit. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the developer. The developer shall create a homeowners association for such ownership and maintenance. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and been approved by the City. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for all of Outlot A e.xcept the westerly 5 feet thereof. Subdivider to designate drainage casements over all drainageways and stormwater ponds within plat. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval nor allow road and pond construction to commence until the MCWD has approved all grading and drainage improvements on the property. 11. The portion of the existing house on Lot 1 that is within 10* of the cast side lot Page 4 of7 12. 13. ClTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ’4 O R 5^ line, as well as that portion which encroaches into Lot 2, and the detached gar^e on Lot 2, shall be removed by the applicant within one (1) year of final . plat approval. Applicant shall execute a Special Lot Combination Resolution to be filed in the chain of tide of Lots I and 2 which disallows Lots 1 and 2 from being sold separately until such removals occur, and which would disallow any building permits for Lot 2 until the encroachments are removed. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, March 23, 1999. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary' subdivision application with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator hvo weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Moridays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1 Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted pc preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated March 18, 1998. b. Private road to be designated on the plat as Outlot A. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. Designation and dedication of drainage casements over detention ponds and drainageways as shoNvn on preliminary plat. c. d. f. The naming of plat. Page 5 of? CITYof ORONO g«< RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 5^ 2. Legal documents required: L a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c.Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A), drainage facilities, etc. d.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. e.Signed and executed Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlot A except the westerly 5 feet thereof. f.Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easeinent and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". g- h. Completed "Application for Private Road Name", Special Lot Combination Resolution (to be drafted by City and adopted by Council at time of final plat approval). 3. Fees to be paid: Total due- S400.00* a. b. Final plat fee *= $200.00 Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 c.♦Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor's report has been filed with City. Page 6 of 7 I • • • • of®^o CITYofORONO % |W ^RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. '405^ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular . meeting held this 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: j' I. C/j^ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )I' The foregoing instrument vvas acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. i HAS6MAN O, lil „•• Mv Commission Expire* J*"-3'8 11 M I' I I V tt I ' Notary Public Page 7 of 7 11 tr ■^nk«i n»»MW I § 10.25 SEC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ''LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water nmofif into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back. Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-lC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Any permitted use as regtilated in the "R-1 A” District. B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communications equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. 2. Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure may be allowed as a secondary use by administrative permit, provided they comply with the City policy regarding the use of City-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the following conditions: a. The antenna shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. b. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antemia shall be in compliance with manufacturer ’s specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. c. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. d. Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. ORONO CC 286 (4-1-84) § 10.25 e. ''/'hen applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. f. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within the existing structure. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. g. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administra:or or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. h. Antennas shall utilize camouflaging techniques or shall be side mounted to an antenna support structure in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. i. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate portable personal wireless service coverage and capacity to the area. Source: Ordinance 183,2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-99 Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-1 C" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA" District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-iC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District any 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. ORONO CC 286-1 (4-1-84) § 10.25 B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Lot Front Side Rear Side Yard Adjacent to Area miih laid Yard laid Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet ORONO CC 286-2 (4-1-84) ■**■*•—- --------- -•» - m L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 8,1998 (U6) #2339 Jim Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - continued Gronberg proposed to cut the drainage easement in half and work with the City Engineer to develop a grading plan to handle phosphorus and sediment. This would mean a change of the easement line on the plat and would move the house 20-30 ’ further back from the lake. Goetten agreed that Gronberg’s proposal was a reasonable option. Council did not object to the applicant digging the basement on Lot 3 at the same time as road grading. Kelley stated he would vote against the proposal, as he did in the preliminary subdivision application, because he was not in favor of granting variances to City road width standards and cul- de-sac standards, and the road should be brought all the way to the property line. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4091 granting final plat approval of the property located at 1365 Tonkawa Road, on the condition that the applicant and City Engineer work together on modifying the NURP pond and reducing the drainage casement in half, and to allow the applicant to obtain a building permit to do the foundation at the same time as road construction. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1. Kelley opposed. (#7) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4092 Moved by Goetten, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution No. 4092 granting approval of a preliminary subdivision for the property located at 3280/3290 North Shore Drive. Vote: Ayes 4, nays. 1. Kelley opposed as he is not in favor of a duplex at this site. (#8) #2341 DAN ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FINAL PLAT approval - RESOLUTION NO. 4093 Gaffron explained that the stormwater plan for this plat has been approved by the Watershed District, and the mylars are available. Approval should be conditioned on the applicant completing the punchlist of items listed in the May 22, 1998 memo to Dan Anderson including: standard documents to be filed. park dedication fee to be paid in the amount of $29,400. grading plan to be followed. - private road to be constructed. buffer strips to be created for stormwater runoff. . ?MINU1 £S OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23.1998 (#12) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4053 The applicant was present. Gafiron reported that the application was tabled at the last Council meeting for plan revision after applicant was provided conceptual direction. The 1.9 acre parcel is proposed to be divided into three building sites. Access has been the main issue of concern. Whether the 8' easement can be combined with the 25' private road for a 33* total has not yet been confirmed by the City Attorney. Gaffton reviewed the directions given by Council. He noted that the shared driveway to access the outlot road would reduce the amount of hardcover needed for Lots 1 and 2. The stormwater plan has been reviewed. Tom Kellogg had determined that the elevation of the houses would not affect the layout of the plat. The existing house on Lot 1 will be lived in for a time before it is sold by the applicant. Two options were given for the encroachment of the detached garage and portions of the house onto Lot 2. The resolution as drafted requires that the encroachments be removed within one year as well as requires a Special Lot Combination. Staff recommended approval ot the application subject to the conditions as noted m the resolution. Render said he saw no conflict with the recommendations made by Staff. Jabbour noted that the stormw'ater pond has been moved fi’om the firont to the rear yard. GafGron said there were questions on meeting the standards and impact on the lot. Mark Gronberg said the NURP pond is larger than what would be required for a regular pond. He would like to be allowed to have a regular pond and make a contribution to the Watershed District. Jabbour emphasized that the Council does not support contributions made to the Watershed District for ponding and believe all ponding should be conducted on the property. Jabbour asked Staff to inform the Watershed District not to suggest to residents of Orono that cash contributions be made for ponding as it will not be approved. GafOron explained that there were different standards for a stormwater quantity pond and a NURP pond. The NURP pond standards were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed that more discussion is necessary on this issue as the pond will have more of an impact on smaller subdivisions than it would on larger ones. Jabbour questioned whether staff is suggesting we do not need stormwater ponding, and noted we should require ponding if it’s beneficial to the lake, not just because we were mandated by other agencies to require it. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 (#9 - #2317 Khasrow Daivari - Continued) Goetten said she was more concerned with the structure’s worthiness than with the averase lakeshore setback. If the oorch cannot pass the buildinz insoection and it was unsafe, she would not support it. Jabbour noted that if the request does not receive support, no building permit would be pven, and the porch would have to be tom down. Jabbour agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4051 to deny Application #2317. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2327 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC - B-5 DISTRICT - AMENDMENT ORDINANCE ADOPTION NO. 170,2ND SERIES John O'Sullivan and Tom Dillon were present. Gaf&on reported that the request is to amend the B-S zoning district to allow coffee and bagel shops as conditional uses. The application was tabled at the request of the Council to allow for additional information to be gathered. Gaffiron reviewed the number of issues that had been identified resardinz specific uses, such as limitinz the tvpe of foods allowed or accepting the use at face value. Other issues included how food was prepared, the kitchen facilities, and seating. Both uses function as a convenience type for take out or cat in services. Gaffron indicated that there was enough parking on the applicant's specific site for the use. Gaffron reviewed types of restaurants and the amount of seating and parking required. Based on the information. Staff reviewed whether it was practical to regulate products and uses within the zoning district. He felt the City’s goal should be to regulate the impact and not the product. Based on the information, Gaffron added to the amendment a condition "d" stating that an individual use would be limited to 45 seats, or 60 seat maximum for a combined use. Dillon said they have worked well with staff and feel the conditions are satisfactory. There were no public comments. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 170, 2nd Series.Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. "i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 {§12 ~ #2339 James Render - Continued) Cook said the ponding is being done because it is required and is impc.fant but does not necessarily have to be done in this manner. There are other ways to treat the water but they are more expensive. While this is not as aesthetically pleasing as it would be in a rural setting, it is the kind of system necessary to protect the lake for the long term. Jabbour said the ponding is then necessary. He suggested the pond be made as minimum as possible to meet the code. Flint and Peterson agreed. Gaffron said he was not recommending a change in the code but the need to realize the impacts of ponding. Goetten said she would not support the easement for the connection of Birch Lane to Tonkawa. She approved the subdivision itself but is concerned with what might happen in the future if the easement was taken, jabbour agreed that the connection should not be made but felt the easement should still be taken. Render suggested the easement terminate 5’ from the property line. Peterson said she agreed with Goetten’s comments. Flint said he felt this was the opportunity to get the easement. Mr. Putnam said it was upsetting that the Council may vote for an easement when they do not desire the road to go through. Jabbour said he supported the proposal and Staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Gerald Ray, 3442 North Shore Drive, opposed the Birch Lane connection. He liked what the Council was saying regarding no connection, yet noted that the Council will change in the future and so might the feeling regarding the connection. Dave Lindberg, 3440 North Shore Drive, agreed with Ray. He does not wa.it to see the easement widened. He would like to maintain the current look of the neighborhood. Jabbour suggested stopping the casement as mentioned by the applicant 5* from the property line. Flint asked what the current use is for the easement. Jabbour said there is a private road and easement on the road. There are fences and garages located on it as well.^ Flint asked if the existing easement is used for any purpose. He was informed that it was a^ utility easement but may not provide complete vehicular access to the sewer. Flint said he would support the recommendation to stop the easement 5' from the property line. Jabbour asked Staff to amend the resolution to reflect the 5' change as noted. MINUTES^F THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 (#12 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Jabbour asked Barrett’s opinion regarding Staffs recommendation on the house encroachment. Barrett agreed the recommendation was satisfactory as long as the special lot combination was completed as a condition of the preliminary subdivision. Render asked if the special lot combination requires further Council review. He was ' informed that it can disappear after one year. Render asked if it was necessary for the subdivision. Gafifton said it was not. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4053 for preliminary plat approval with the addition that the easement will stop 5' fi'om the property line and a special lot combination agreement is signed as drafted by the City with the house remaining for a time period not to e.xceed 12 months. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (A short recess was held.) (#13) #2341 DANIEL J. ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL The applicant was present along with Ed Otto, Kevin Prohasso and Marty Campion. Gaffron reviewed the general direction previously given to the applicant by the Coimcil. The stormwater plan has been submitted. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed it and had some questions relating to the grading plan. A stormwater pond is proposed at east end of Lot 7. It has been conflimed that Lot 7 meets the two acre minimun after adjusting for the pond. Cook was asked to comment. Cook said the amount of runoff that will reach the pond will be an improvement over the current situation. Lots 4, 5, and 6 will drain runoff toward the lake. Jabbour noted that by preserving the shoreline vegetation, there should be no problem. Gaffron indicated that an option would be to create a second pond by the lake but that would result in much damage to the shoreline. Cook agreed. Marty said about 1/3 of the site will drain to the pond. The remainder will drain to the north through a ditch system along the county road or to the lake directly. There will also be less runoff on the north lot with the expected decrease of hard surface fi'om the existing situation. Anderson said the goal for runoff from Lot 3 is to bring it to the fi*ont by the cul-de-sac. Gaf&on noted that the layout for Lot 7 technically makes the front lot line 50’ in length as opposed to the 200 ’ standard. He questioned whether it should be considered a back lot. Lot 7 will now accommodate stormwater while still having septic sites and building pad. He asked if Council was satisfied with the layout of Lot 7 noting it appears to be functional. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,199S (#9 - #2338 Grant Wenkstem/Lakeview Golf - Continued) Peterson asked Kellogg to respond to the reference in the City Engineer’s letter regarding a 10:1 bench, now shown at 3:1. She asked if this was an appropriate change. Kellogg indicated that a 10:1 bench establishes an aquatic buffer as a safety factor but is not desirable on a golf course. He did not believe this was a big issue and would support the 3:1 bench. Gafifron concurred. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4045 granting a variance and conditional use permit to Lakeview Golf Course for land alterations involving expansion of the 5 th and 18th tees and creation of two ponds. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The motion had been amended as it originally only included the variance without the CUP.) (#10) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY PLAT The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for preliminary plat review of the 1.9 acre parcel proposed for three building sites. The property had been subdivided in the past as part of a larger subdivision and now consists of three lots which were legally combined. The property is located in the 1/2 acre zoning district, and the lots meet that requirement. The Planning Commission reviewed the application both as a sketch plan and preliminary plat. The main issue for discussion is access. A 3-lot subdivision typically calls for a private road. This was originally proposed as a backlot configuration. The Planning Commission and Staff have concluded that a 50' corridor should be established for a road to potentially connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa. The Long Lake Fire Chief was present at the Planning Commission meeting and noted the difficulty with access for emergency vehicles when road systems are minimized. He cited a recent problem gaining access to a fire in a home. Staff recommended bringing a road to at least the west end of the property with a cul-de- sac. The applicant proposed a road that ends with a T that would be functional for the fire department to use as a turnaround. This is the fire department's least desired option; they would prefer a through road and cul-de-sac. The neighbors, however, find a number of problems with having a connecting road. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Gaf&on indicated that Staff is today in receipt of a stormwater plan, but it has not yet been reviewed by Staff. Gaffron said he would recommend that the application be tabled after discussion of the proposal. Staff recommended a private road be platted with an underlying easement to the City. Gaffron asked Council to consider whether the 42' in width for the outlot added to the 8' of adjacent easement will satisfy the SC corridor. It will have to be confirmed by the City Attorney that the city has roadway rights over the 8*. The Council is asked to determine whether the corridor should serve as a link to connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa. Gafiffon indicated that the applicant has asked for a 17' credit towards hardcover if he gives more than 25' for the road as he would lose area that could be considered in the hardcover calculations. Gaffron said Staff reluctantly supports that request. He noted that larger homes could be built if there were only two lots instead of three. One lot includes the existing house but the garage is located over the proposed lot line requiring further review. Gafl&on reviewed the issues for discussion #1 through #5 as noted on page 4 of the memo. Mr. Render said he would like to create three lots vnth similar size homes to the neighborhood with about 4000 s.f of hardcover. Render said he is not in favor of the cul-de-sac option due to the public landing nearby. He agreed with the need for good planning indicating a possible need to connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa in the future. He reiterated his request for a hardcover variance to offset the property given for a road easement. Render said the only other issue of concern is the requirement for a NURP pond. He said the proposed pond has been pulled back on the property to protect two large oak trees. He feels the rate of flow can be handled without requiring a NURP pond. He suggested the possibility of making a cash contribution to the Watershed for mitigation. Jabbour informed the applicant that the City of Orono requires that all mitigation be on site. He would not support any cash contributions in lieu of ponding on site. Jabbour said, while he is not an advocate of the cul-de-sac requirement in the code, a cul- de-sac cannot be selectively chosen. Jabbour felt it is best to look at the issue comprehensively. He felt it would be better not to have a cul-de-sac if the concerns of the fire department could be addressed. He felt the road should be 28’ wide. Gaffron said he is obligated to defend the code. He suggested the code be amended if the Council is not comfortable with it as written. Jabbour said he is also concerned with violating the Comprehensive Plan by having a private road in an urban area. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) KeUey disagreed with Jabbour. He felt it was appropriate to have a cul-de-sac wth a 28* wide road. Kelley said the lots will be restricted in hardcover and no parking will be available for these homes with a smaU narrow driveway. A 28’ road with cul-de-sac would enable more cars to park and enable fire trucks to better access the properties if need be. KeUey noted that roads also become nanower in the winter months with snow storage. Jabbour did not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement as it would set a precedent. Goetten agreed. Jabbour asked if the NURP pond was considered hardcover. GaflQron said it was not allowable towards the defined lot area, but he noted hardcover credit has normally been given for wetlands in the past, and logic would support giving hardcover credit for a pond as it is similar to wetlands. Goetten is concerned with having a snowball effect with a 28' road, cul-de-sac, and a future connection of Birch Lane to Tonkawa. She feels the connection is not necessary and would impact the neighbors. She felt the connection road would be used by dnvers to by-pass major roads even if it is a private road. She reiterated she would not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement. Goetten felt a large cul-de-sac for Three lots was more than necessaiy. She felt the T would be sufficient if it ad^uately provided for the fire department needs. Goetten indicated she also supports the need for the NURP pond. Jabbour polled the CouncU. He noted that if the cul-de-sac was eliminated, a re^on would have to be established as the code calls for the cul-de-sac. He noted this has een a concern in other small subdivisions in the last few years. Gaffiron indicated that there are many rural 3-lot subdivisions with cul-de-sacs. Gaflfron cited examples of where cul- de-sacs were and were not used. Goetten indicated that the need for cul-de-sacs has been reviewed case by case. Jabbour indicated that if the Council agrees with a hammerhead style, they would then be agreeing that it is a suitable substitute. Moorse noted that the requirement for a cul-de-sac is to enable a fire tmek to turnaround. He said that with smaller lots trucks do not have to go as fv mto the property, and this can be used as a reason for a T versus a cul-de-sac. He noted the fire chief indicated that a T is adequate but not as easy for the trucks to maneuver. Moo«e suggested reviewing the length of the road may be a consideration on whether a cul-de- sac should be required. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Gaffron clarified for Goetten that there is an easement for the sewer as well as an access easement. Kelley indicated that fires where no hydrants are available are fought by setting up a swimming type pool. Tankers bring the water to the pool where it is dumped into it and pumped out by pumpers to e.xtinguish the fire. This allows for a continual stream of water and requires a tremendous amount of room. Kelley said if a hammerhead is considered, the Council must also consider how fires are fought. He noted that the Council is charged with protecting the citizens' health, safety, and welfare. Goetten said she would support the hammerhead if no credit is allowed for hardcover. Jabbour said he agreed with Moorse regarding considering the pro^mity of the homes to the road. He indicated that fire equipment could be set up along Tonkawa to serve these homes. He also agreed with Kelley. Jabbour felt the road should be private. Dan Regan, 3410 North Shore Drive, reported having a problem with the fire department technology requiring large vehicles when the environment is fiill of small lots. He felt fire equipment should be geared to the size of the properties they arc protecting. He asked why the lake was not being used in fightmg fires He suggested the fire department determine in advance how they would gain access to properties in the city. He felt it would be ridiculous to require a 28' road for three properties. He said the three lots are marginal at best and do not fit in with the community. Jabbour reported that there are four fire departments that work within the City. He indicated that the issue of large and small trucks has been discussed in the past. Jabbour noted that milfoil presents a problem with clogging up equipment when lake water is used. In response to Regan's comment about marginal lots, Jabbour said the applicant would not receive credit for the road easement tow ards hardcover. Jabbour noted that time was given for public input at the Planning Commission review. Ken Carlson, 3498 North Shore Drive, reported that Birch Lane is only 20' wide and considered an alley. He noted that some of the garages are close to the road. With the concern expressed with fire equipment gaining access to properties, Carlson questioned whether the properties in this area are currently protected. He suggested a suction box be used in order to use lake water. He questioned why there is a fire lane nearby if the lake is not used to fight fires. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNXIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Carlson indicated that the low portion of Birch Lane is in a flood plain. He asked how far the flood plain extends. Jabbour sujwested Carlson discuss the issue with staff. He noted that the Watershed District was redefining the flood plain, and this is a concern for the Comprehensive Plan update. Jabbour informed Carlson that the Council will be^ discussing stormwater at their work session. Carlson asked that an answer be given regarding the possible connection of Birch Lane as it will affect many homes. Mr. Lindner, 3440 North Shore Drive, reported that there are 4 homes served on his 10* driveway. He noted that the fire chief had indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that a fire truck must be within 500’ of a pool to serve a property. Lindner said all of the homes located in the back of the area can be served from CoRd 51 so questioned why access needs to be provided elsewhere for the equipment. He felt a 28* road was not aesthetically pleasing, noting there are smaller roads in the City. Lindner said he has experienced problems with having the Maxwell Bay access nearby. He felt the road would add to that problem, and he would be further affected if the road was connected. Lindner noted there is no room for children to play in front of the homes and the road would eliminate the ability for the children to play in the rear of the homes. Lindner reported that his home is 1500 s.f and others were about 2000-2500 s.f. He questioned how the proposed 4000 s.f. homes would fit in to the neighborhood. Render responded that the 4000 s.f includes all hardcover, including driveway. Lindner said he would like to see the property divided into two lots only and asked that no variances be allowed. Ed Engler, 3450 Birch Lane, reported that Birch Lane ends at his garage. He noted the large amount of traffic due to the public launch, the public access, and nearby marinas resulting in no snelter irom traltic tor many of the neighbors, it the road was connected, it would increase this problem. He felt the road connection would be dangerous and create an unhealthy situation. Debra Robertson, 3440 North Shore Drive, said the 10* driveway has served the four homes for over 30 years no problems. It baffled her to think that a 28 road was required to serve three homes. Robertson reported that Birch Lane did run through the property 80 years ago and a trade for access to Crystal Bay was made for CoRd 51. The road connection would result in their losing their access to North Arm, and the properties would be surrounded by three roads causing increased traffic. Jabbour reported that the reason a 28* road was recommended was due to the vision of it becoming a public road in the future. He said the Council is obligated to recommend access that would accommodate fire trucks. Jabbour said the council is aw^e that the area is congested and is attempting to control it as much as possible. He said it is not the Council’s vision to surround homes with roads. MESUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCEL NE.ETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Mark Gronberg commented that the hammerhead is an approved fire truck turnaround in many cities. He noted that the uniform fire code calls for a 20’ road. He also referenced the close proximity to Tonkawa. Gronberg added that the three lot subdivision would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Goetten asked if Jabbour did not visualize the street going through, what width he felt the road should be and whether private or public. Jabbour responded that this is the best time to obtain an underlying easement. He asked the Council whether the City needs the easement and how wide it should be and how long the road should be. Peterson said she agreed with Kelley that the Council is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its community but noted that qualify of life is also important. She felt a narrower road was appropriate for the neighborhood. • Jabbour said he agreed with Moorse in questioning if the intent of the code can be met without having to build a major road while providing fire protection for the homes. He does not feel the welfare of the people would be placed in jeopardy but questioned where the new residents '^ill park. Kelley commented that the first three homes access on CoRd 51 and that is the logical place for access for all of the homes. Council members agreed. He noted that if all of the homes were being plotted today, all sbe lots could access fi’ora a 28’ easement at the rear, but he understands that this is not possible. Jabbour concurred that the Council must work with what is there. Render suggested an alternative of a 25’ road easement on the property at this time. In the future if more roadway is needed, easements can be acquired from other properties. Jabbour agreed. Gattron was asked to verify that there is 16’ of easement now and the 17’ additional feet would equal the 25’. Gaflfron said he would have to confirm with City Attorney Barrett that the 8' easement could be used for a road. Gronberg indicated that information indicated it was a road easement and not a driveway easement. Jabbour asked Council if the easement is necessary. Kelley said the minimum amount of easement should be 33'. Flint said he also favored the 33’ easement but did not support the road going through. Peterson and Goetten agreed. Goetten said she assumed this did not include any credit for hardcover. Jabbour confirmed that it did not. He noted the applicant would also be required to mitigate on site for ponding. ^^NUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 Jar»es Render - Continued) Jabbour reiterated that the plan should include a 25' easement for a total of 33'. There would be no hardcover credit for the road, and the applicant would have 16' for a driveway. A hammerhead style turnaround would be acceptable with parking at the end of it. Kelley said he would not support any proposal without a cul-de-sac and 28' road. Peterson asked what size cul-de-sac would be required. GaflBron said it would normally require an 80' paved surface to provide the necessary benefits. Jabbour suggested u)i properties likely would be served from Tonkawa for fire emergencies and the .'-'unmerhead would provide the needed parking space for the residences. Jabbour reiterated the outlet would be 25' plus 8' for a total of 33' for the easement. The road would be 16' wide with a hammerhead. No variances would be allowed for lot area, lot width, setback, or hardcover. Jabbour questioned whether credit would be given in area for the ponding. Gafiron indicated that the pond area could be credited towards hardcover in the 75'-250' setback. The credit would not be for lot area, which has been done in sew'ered areas only with wetlands. Gaffron indicated that the pond would only affect the one lot in which it will be placed. Gronberg noted that the attempt was to accommodate the neighborhood drainage but suggested the pond may be built to only tr^at these 3 lots. Gaffron indicated that the City Attorney has suggested if there was any variances that a 60-day extension be requested after the initial 60-day period. Jabbour asked if any variances were anticipated. Gaffron said a road width variance would be necessary. Render was asked for approval of the 60 day extension. Render asked if all of the 60 days were necessary. He was informed that it would probably not take the entire time period. Render indicated the property is to close on May 1 but would give approval for the extension. Barrett indicated that consent is only necessary when the City goes beyond the 60 day time period. Kelley asked for clarification on the road easements. He was informed that there was 8 on the south side as part of the 33’. With the additional 17’ to the 8’ on both sides, the total would be 33’. Jabbour said the 8’ casement requires verification. Kelley suggested that it be stipulated in the resolution that no hardcover variance would be allowed. Gaffron said a statement of intent could be included. Kelley asked that this be done. Jabbour agreed that the City should take a more aggressive stand on this issue. Harold Gillette, 3470 North Shore Drive, said he has lived in the neighborhood for 50 years. He voiced concern for the children if the road were to go through to Tonkawa. Jabbour informed him that this Council felt strongly that the road should not go through at this time. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Mr. Carlson asked if the Council can add language stipulating that the road will not go through in the future. Jabbour informed him that this Council cannot bind future Councils but indicated that the minutes will reflect the Council's desires. Mrs. Robertson asked if all of the neighbors were contacted regarding the application. Jabbour said any review of the road will not occur without the neighbors being contacted. Mr. Regan asked about the pond. He was informed that the pond acreage will not count against the hardcover but only applies to the one lot unless the pond is built as part of two lots. Gronberg noted that the pond is bigger due to the runoff from Tonkawa. Gaffron recommended the application be tabled for preliminary plat review noting the conceptual direction given. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2339. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short recess was held.) (#4) #2317 KHASROW DAIVARI, 1082 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to obtain an extension of the time period for review of the application. If the extension is not granted by the applicant by the end of the business day on March 11,1998, the application will be denied. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Staff was asked to explain to the applicant that State Statute mandates the extension be provided. (#11) #2341 DANIEL J. ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - PRELIMINARY PLAT The Applicant was present. Gaflfron reported that the application is for preliminary plat approval of the 17.5 acre Carpenter property. The sketch plan included 8 lots. The plan has since been revised to 7 lots. The property is located outside of the MUSA boundary and will require septic and well. A 700' road with cul-de-sac is being proposed. Gaffron reviewed the house locations. The 7 lots will be served by a private road. The 7th lot will have a driveway that is an extension of the private road. This has been approved by the County. The existing residence on Lot 1 will remain and will meet all setbacks. Lots 1 and 2 are technically through lots. Lot width variances are required for Lots 2 and 3 as they do not meet the 200' width requirement at the 50' setback. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17,1998 (#4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2326 for commercial site plan with building design and building material variance to allow shake facade, a hardcover variance, front yard parking setback variance of 5' requiring a 15' setback, and subsequent signage approval by Staff for a uniform sign plan, and as further recommended by Staff. Dillon asked what will occur if the study finds that they are unable to get a 15* setback. Stoddard said the Council will discuss it and use the Planning Con^ssion’s recommendation in their consideration. McMillan noted in her opinion the applicant should consider that they have not demonstrated a hardship for this variance. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#5) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:31-8:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. James Render and Mark Gronberg were present. Gaffron reported that the proposal is to subdivide a 1.9 acre parcel into three building The original plan had proposed three lots with an outlot that continues only to the third lot. The revised plan would expand the outlot to a 42' total width. Along with the 8 easement already in place, it would result in 50' for a future road connecting Birch Lane to Tonkawa. The plan includes issues of concern for a cul-de-sac and its impact on hardcover. The plan also does not address the need to serve the neighbors in the future, especially in emergency situations. Birch Lane is presently a 20' corridor that serves about 10 homes. The property between Birch Lane and Tonkawa is presently served by a driveway. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the need to expand Birch Lane over to Tonkawa. He questioned whether the road needs to be developed now or provide the means for future expansion. The issue also involves whether to require a private road and> cul-de-sac to serve 3 or more lots. The subdivision would provide the land for the road extension. The hardcover impact is a primary concern for the westerly lot as the area within that lot is smaller. The Commission was asked to consider whether to give the applicant hardcover credit for the property given for the roadway. Gaffron recommended that a temporary cul-de-sac be constructed between lots 2 and 3. A vacant lot to the west may eventually need access as well. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA^JNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17.1998 (#5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Gaflfiron reviewed the engineering issues as noted in the information packet, #1-6. The future street extension is provided for in the current plan. He noted no information has been received from the MCWD. A developer ’s agreement would be required including a financial guarantee. Gaffron reviewed the general subdivision comments noted. He indicated that the existing 33' right-of-way is satisfactory for Tonkawa Road. Ga&on said the issues for discussion center around access. He noted that the ^ Comprehensive Plan for an urban area looks at the need for a public road. If that is the case and a cul-de-sac is built, there would be an issue with traffic and proximity to Ma.xweli Bay access. He questioned whether the road could be restricted in its use or if it should be posted as private. Gafiron reviewed the Staff recommendations #1-7 as noted on page 6 of the packet information. Long Lake Fire Chief, Mike Brown, was present. He indicated that his immediate reaction to the plan was to ask that the road be extended across to Birch Lane. Brown said this area is difficult to access. He relayed difficulties that recently occurred from a fire on West Farm Road. The situation is similar to that found in this area for emergencies. Brown said he discourages cul-de-sacs as they are difficult to get to and maneuver in. If a cul-de-sac is built, it should be larger according to Brown. He would like to see cul-de-sacs that are large enough to drive into and turn around and wide enough for trucks to pass each other. Brown was informed that the standard for a cul-de-sac is paving 80' in diameter. Brown felt this was sufficient for emergency needs. McMillan noted the problem with having private wells and no hydrants. Brown said water is trucked in. Brown said at least one engine has to get into a property when fighting a fire. James Render agreed that good planning calls for the continuation of the two roadways. He had informed Gaffion that he would contribute Ws share to that cause. While there would normally be an even share for right-of-way. Render agreed to provide 42' on his side of the property for the future road. Render noted that this results in a large loss of area that is necessary to meet hardcover allowances. He requested a credit be given for the property taken towards hardcover. He is concerned with building that roadway at this time. Render does not believe the road should be built until it leads somewhere. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17.199S (#5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Render felt a cul-de-sac would negatively affect the subdivision as it would only serve three properties. He noted that the property is less than 300' from a public launch and is concerned with the use of a cul-de-sac by boat trailers and public access users, increase in traffic, increase in paved area, and additional hardcover. The meeting was opened to public comments. Daniel Reagan said he lives two lots in from the comer on North Shore Drive. He voiced concern with the road extension. Reagan believes fire trucks should be more environmentally fiiendly and made of a siae that corresponds to the typical roadways. Lindquist noted that the Commission has no control over the size of fire trucks. He informediReagan that the standard width of right-of-way for public and private roads is 50’. Gaffi-on added that the road itself would be 28' wide, which is typical in mral areas. Reagan was informed that the easement is currently 8 ’ and the applicant proposes to add 42' to the 8'. Reagan questioned how this would affect the 1/2 acre requirement. GaflBron informed him that the 42' would be taken from the new subdivision and would not affect current property owners. The 8' easement has been in place for about 30 years and includes the sewer line. Reagan said he is also concerned with the flood plain and additional drainage from new development. Lindquist noted that this is considered in the review process. Gerald Ray, 3442 North Shore Drive, said his house is accessed by the end of a private driveway. Ray said his property would be impacted by the continuation of the roadway by loss of his 3-car garage. He did not support the road extension. Dave Lindbergh, 3440 North Shore Drive, said he would also lose part of his property if the rc ad is continued. He indicated that his property fronts CoRd 51. If the road is continued, his children would be limited where they could play. He suggested homeowners plow their driveways wider to provide access for emergency equipment. He does not support the road extension. There were no other public comments. McMillan noted that the new plan calls for a T-shaped blacktopped area, instead of^e cul-de-sac. Gaffiron said the applicant is attempting to strike a compromise by providing for the future without affecting the existing neighbors. The T-shape is about 50' long. Gronberg said the T shape has been approved by other cities for use as a fire truck turnaround. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting HELD ON FEBRUARY 17,1998 (#5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) that the road is extended. Lindquist noted the need to determme whether a T or cul-de- sac should be built. Render informed McMUlan that he would ask for an additional 17’ to credit hardcover m return for providing the dedicated roadway. Gaflfron informed McMillan that the typical setbacks would be required. recommendation for a 28' wide roadway. appUcant ?f one was buUt. Smith suggested a shared dnveway be aUowed for two lots. She recommended two driveways instead of the cul-de-sac. Render clarified that the 28’ wide private road would extend only to where the turnaround Ua l/^ratdsH rommissioners aereed. sac app would be located. Commissioners agreed. Berg aweed with Smith in prefemng no cul-de-sac. Gaf&on asked if the stwed toveway would be between lots 2 and 3. Render said the shared dnveway would be located between lots I and 2 for future access. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Apphcation #2 j39 wth the undentanding that the 50 ’ right-of-way would extend the romplete lengt h he property through the granting of 42' from the property owner ra addition to the c^ent 8 of easement. The road would be a 28'shared private road vnth a paved T tui^oimd. The applicant would be allowed a credit of a IT strip of land for hardcover allotment. ftrnnhera asked if the road could be platted as a 25’ outlot with an additional 17 eiet m. Undquist said it would have to be 50' platted through 42' from property owner and 8' from other properties. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRELIM P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Pupation were noted. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION m m • • • •ivtcc 1UNVJ nz.i^u \ji> rcotvu/uv. i i /, i»o m fi2?40 P.ob^rt \V*sd? - Continu^d^ The Applicant was present. Gafifron reported that the subdivision was originally reviewed as a sketch plan. The property is located in the LK-1L>1, irJL acre single tamily zoning distnct. ihe proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots, one lakeshore lot wth a single family residence and one non-lakeshore, non-riparian, with duplex. The code requires 1/2 acre. The duplex would require a conditional use permit. A duplex is allowed on the property as the property is within 200' of the B-2 Commercial District to the west. The proposal includes a 50' platted road corridor to serve these properties and three existing homes to the north as well as the garage of the home on the comer. A 30* wide outlot would serve the backlot, which requires 150% of lot area and setback standards. This requires the lakeshore lot to be 3/4 acres in size, which it is. GafiBron indicated that by crediting the 75-250' hardcover in the 250-500’ setback, the property would meet the intent of the hardcover regulation. Gaffron reviewed the lot standard requirements. He noted Lot 2 is technically a front lot. The duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, and as such, would be a factor to account for in determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access. Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex if the front lot line is defined as the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. This would eliminate the need for a variance. The side and rear yards are conforming. Gaffron noted that the code calls for no more than two residences being served via an access outlot but the plan calls for three units served by Outlot B. Gaffron indicated a solution would be to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. Outlot A is being platted as a private road. Staff believes it is reasonable to require a 24' paved road be constmcted the length of Outlot A and connect from the end of the lot to the County road to the north. Lot 1 meets the requirements for a backlot as noted in the information packet on page 2. Gaffron said Hennepin County Public Works has suggested in their comments that a triangular piece of right-of-way be dedicated to deal with the slope and sight distance concern along North Shore Drive. This presents a problem because dedicated right-of- way is subtracted from the calculation of lot area. The result would be a lot less than the required 1/2 acre and necessitate a variance. Gaffron reported that a grading and drainage plan has not yet been submitted. He also noted that the MCWD suggests a payment towards ponding in lieu of constructing a pond on the property. The City Engineer, however, suggests a pond be constmcted. If this occurs, the lakeshore lot would then be less than the required 3/4 acres. in• RUN DATE tVZE/yf ■ATCN HENNErXN COUNTY PROfERTY IHrORHATlON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT HO. PXASS4R1 PACE 1 AOOR OWNER NAME TANPAVER NAHE/AOOR PROP'AI OWNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SO OS-IIT-ES 15 tOlO •12RS TONKAWA RO THONAS H SNXTN I WIFE TNONAS N SNXTN 1205 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE NN ‘55S5A SB BO-llT-RS A2 0003 05544 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OP NXHNESOTA ONR - REAL ESTATE NOT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST BOO LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL NN 55155 5B 08-117-25 42 0007 01355 ■ TONKAWA RD JAMES 0 RENDER JAMES D RENDER 5120 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD EDINA NN 55450 58 08-117-23 43 0014 03400 NORTH SHORE DR 0 J YARNES JR I R L YARNES KENATH R 8 DONNA J STEIN 5400 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55501 58 08-117-25 43 0010 03440 NORTH SHORE DR DAVID J LXNDBER6 DAVID J LINDBERO 5440 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55301 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 58 08-117-25 45 002z 05444 NORTH SHORE DR WILLIAM D ROBINSON W D ROBINSON 5444 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55501 38 08-L17-23 42 0001 01220 TONKAWA RD F E 6UTT0RNS0N/C J 8 DWIGHT F E GUTTORNSON/C J 8 UWXCHT 1220 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55354 38 08-117-23 42 0005 03430 NORTH SHORE OR S J 5 A C TRAWICK STEVEN 8 ALICIA TRAWICK 20 DEEPWOOD RD BEDFORD NY 10504 58 08-117-23 42 0008 01315 TONKAWA RD JANES D RENDER JANES D RENDER 5120 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD EDINA NN 55430 38 08-117-23 45 0017 03410 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL F REGAN 8 WIFE DANIEL F REGAN 3410 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA NN 55501 38 ‘ 08-117-23 43 0020 03442 NORTH SHORE DR GERALD J RAY ETAL GERALD J RAY 5442 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55301 38 08-117-23 43 0023 03450 BIRCH LA E R ENGLER 8 8 EN6LER EDWARD R 8 BONNIE ENGLER 5450 BIRCH LA WAYZATA NN 55301 38 08-117-23 42 0002 03308 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE NGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL NN 55155 38 08-117-23 42 0004 01355 TONKAWA RD JANES D RENDER JANES D RENDER 5120 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD EDINA NN 55430 38 08-117-23 42 0000 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED JANES D RENDER JANES D RENDER 5120 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD EDINA NN 55430 10^ 30 08-117-23 43 0018 03420 NORTH SHORE DR A A KIVUS ET AL W/L EST AMBROSE A 8 ALICE J KIVUS 3420 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55301 f:• • i ; ' • A’•• -f ‘. J 38 08-117-25 43 0021 03450 NORTH SHORE DR WILLIAM C ODOEN WILLIAM C ODOEN 3450 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55301 D?--IS 30 08-117-23 43 0024 03448 NORTH SHORE DR J 8 N ERLER JANES 8 NARY ERLER 3448 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55301 r . • * I1 RUN DATE E9/2E/99 ■ATCN 991 HENNEPIN COUNTV PROPERTY XNFORHATXON SYSTEM . PROPERTY OMNERS LIST PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TANPAVER • NANE/AODR SO 99-117-2S AS 992S 9SA50 NORTH SHORE DR A K EVANS INK EVANS * ANY K I NAQNX R EVANS SASO NORTH SNORE OR VAYZATA MN SSS91 PROP AOOR OHNER NANE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR SO 99-X17-2S AS 9920 990SO ADDRESS UNASSIONEO HENNEPIN FORFEXTEO LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 DON 00 CRYSTAL RAY MN .SSS2S REPORT NO. PXASSA91 PACE 2 SO 90-117-2S AS 9920 9SA09 NORTH SHORE DR RONALD TRUMAN CLOUD RONALD TRUHAN CLOUD SA09 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA HN BSS91 SO 90-117-2S AS 9927 9SA09 RXRCH LA 0 S I D K XNSVALSON DOUOLAS I DEDORAH XNOVALSON SA09 IXRCN U HAYZATA MN SSS91 TOTAL BATCH 991 99922 X cERriry that the facts represented are an accurate and true REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY nFPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KN0HLE06E AND BLUlF. DATE L TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 13,1999 SUBJECT: #2536 Industrial District Ordinance Amendment Staff is requesting the Ordinance Amendment be tabled until next month. The Ordinance amendment will involve review of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning district as well as enhance the ordinance by developing performance standards for new construction. I have attached a copy of Section 10.50 for your review. § 10.50 SEC. 10.50.I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "I" Industrial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Processing, Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as listed hereafter: 1. Apparel. 2. Artificial limbs. 3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be subject to a conditional use permit. 4. Bakery, commercial. 5. Bicycles and toys. 6. Boats and marine products. 7. Bus. truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. 8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 1 1 . Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engraving and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. Laundries, commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 2 1 . Musical instruments. 22. Novelties. 23. Paper products. 24. Pharmaceutical products. 25. Products made of glass, cellophane,leather, plastic, wood. 26. Shoes and footwear. ORONO CC 352 (4-1-84) § 10.50 27. Sporting equipment. 28. Television, radio and appliances. 29. Tools, hardware and small metal products. 30. Warehousing. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. A. Within any'T' District, no structure or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Accessory structures. 2. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. 3. Heliports as an accessory use for that property. 4. Motor fuel stations. 5. Open sales lots. 6. Outside storage. 7. Public service structures. 8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or freight houses. 9. Research laboratories. 10. Residence necessary for security and safety in relation to a permitted use or conditional use. 11. Restaurants (Class I) which are located in and mainly servicing the personnel employed in that structure. 12. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.51. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B.--Antenna Stnieture. One independent ant enna stnietufc, with antenna Of combination of ant enna attached thereto, subordinat e'to tmd servicing the principal use or stnietufc on the sam e lot and customaril y incidental thereto that is net atta ched to an other struetufe provided the height of the a ntenna structufc decs not exceed 65 feet and the a ntenna stnieture is set ba ck from a ny lot tine a distan ce at least equal to the total height of the ant enna stmeture. (Source! Ordina nce No. 177; Effective Dat e? 6-S-75) Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONO CC 353 (4-1-84) § 10.50 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "I" Industrial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1 District. Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres. B. Building Area. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants. C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60% will be permitted. D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. E. Building Setback and Yards. 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated as limited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectors, minor or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building setback from that street of not less than 75 feet. 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer than 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and the rear wall has no openings, buildings or structures may be constructed to within 10 feet of a rear property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property line than a distance equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than 100 feet. ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84) § 10.50 F. Building Design and Construction, In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteiation or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: 1. All exterior wall 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 fi^ed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, glass, prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic; provided that if any wall of the building or structure faces a street or abuts an "R" District, then that wall shall have at least one-third of its surface of materials other than prefinished metal and the remaining walls shall have at least one-fifth of their surfaces of materials other than prefinished metal; or, (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 shall be 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. G. Off-Street Parking. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, off-street parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. Parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and landscaped, and shall be maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. No parking area shall occupy any required setback except on lots, tracts, or parcels having m o or more street frontages. On lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages, 50% of the required setback fi-om one of the streets, designated as a thoroughfare, collector, minor, or secondary street and not adjoining a residential district, may be occupied for parking purposes only; provided, however, that parking shall not be located within the required setback area in front of the building. No parking shall be located closer than ten feet to a side or rear lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any building. Each parking space shall have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty feet exclusive of aisles and maneuvering space. All parking areas containing more than six spaces which ORONO CC 355 (4-1-84) § 10.50 face either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen planting approved by the Council may be substituted for the required wall or fence. H. Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-founhs ton capacity or railroad cars, shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Those facilities, hereby designated as "loading facilities", shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. Amount Required. Loading facilities of sufficient number to provide for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory use. The exact number required will depend on the nature of the principal and accessory use and the type of transport service used, but in no event shall there be less than one truck transport loading facility for each 50,000 square feet of building floor area or major fraction thereof. 2. Design. A loading facility includes the dock to or from which the transport vehicle is being unloaded or loaded and the berth for the vehicle while it is being loaded or unloaded, and the maneuvering areas needed to maneuver the vehicle into or out of its berth. All docks shall be located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use and they sh. ll be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a vehicle during the time it is standing in the berth. All berths shall be screened from view from the property's street frontages by a solid wall of not less than ten feet in height. Such wails shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot. At least one and not less than 50% of the required number of truck transport loading berths shall be not less than 50 feet in length, 14 feet in width and 15 feet in heignt. All truck transport berths and maneuvering areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material properly drained and mainta.ned in a sightly and well-kept condition. 3. Location. Loading berths shall not be located on a street frontage unless located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use. Where located on a street frontage, they shall be completely enclosed. No berth shall be located wdthin the required side or rear yards. All berths shall be physically separated from areas used for off-street parking except for connecting driveways or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be located within ten feet of a side or rear property line. I. Storage. In addition to other resuictions of this Chapter, all raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more than three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permitted parking areas. ORONO CC 356 (4-1-84) § 10.50 J. Landscaping. All open areas of any site, lot, tract or parcel shall be graded to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with the planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building penr.it was issued. It shall be the owners' responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained. K. 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. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 SEC. 10.51. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1 . Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish provisions for the granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an over-all design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as provided hereafter. Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. The owner or owners of anv tract of land within an "I" District may submit to the Council for approval a plan for the development and use of such a tract of land for a Planned Industrial District for commercial or other uses permitted in the district within which the land is located by making an application for a conditional use permit authorizing completion of the development in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein amended. Subd. 3. Size Required. The tract of land for which a development is proposed and a permit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres. Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall be served by the City water and sewer system when available and fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plan approved by the Fire Ch'ef as to type and location. ORONO CC 357 (4-1-84) TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commi‘:sion Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 13, 1999 SUBJECT: #2537 Adult Use Ordinance The City of Orono has adopted a moratorium on adult uses that is to expire on November 12,1999. In order to be prepared for any requests after the moratorium has expired it is imperative the City has an adult use ordinance in place. Adult businesses are protected by the First Amendment as a freedom of expression. An ordinance will ensure the City that any requests for adult oriented businesses can be regulated by hours of operation, signage, parking and location. Summary of Draft Ordinance Other communities have recently adopted ordinances relating to adult uses. The prop>osed ordinance for your consideration incorporates similar components typically addressed and interpreted in other adult use ordinances with our ordinance. Most adult use ordinances separate adult uses into two categories. Principal uses and Accessory uses. Principal adult uses relate to on-site consumption wliere the sole or a dominant activity is located on the premises of the adult business. Accessory adult uses w. uid include primarily off-site consumption with total retail space dedicated for adult uses being 10% or less of the retail space, and not to exceed 150 square feet. Principal uses would be allowed in the I, Industrial District, and accessory uses would be allowed in the I and B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, Business Districts where the primary use of the business is a permitted or conditional use. The B-2 district is for marina use. All our marinas are immediately adjacent to residential properties. The intent is to allow adult uses in concentrated commercial and industrial areas not to negatively impact residential properties and neighborhoods. Protecting residential areas, schools, day care facilities, churches, libraries, parks and other public places as well as places where a high concentration of children would be present is another purpose of the ordinance. Locations adult uses are permitted - Principal. Adult uses principal would be conditional use and shall be located at least 250 feet from the closest point of »he building or actual leased space of the adult use principal to the property line of: 1. 2. 3. 4. D. 6. A licensed day care center Public or private educational facility (K-12) A public library A public park An on-sale liquor establishment Churches and church related facilities Aduh Use Ordinance U2537 IQ/18/99 Pjge I A distance of at least 1000 feet of separation is required between any other adult uses and any residential properties, unless separated from such residential properties by a railroad right-of-way or a State Highway. Adult Uses - Accessory 1.The use shall comprise no more than 10% of the floor area of the establishment in which it is located, or not greater than 150 s.f. 2. 3. Comprise no more than 20% of the gross receipts of the entire business operation. Not involved or include any activity except the sale or rental of merchandise. No accessory adult use shall be allowed within 1000 feet of another adult use or within 250 feet of the following activities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A licensed day care center Public or private educational facility (K-12) A public library A public park An on-sale liquor establishment Churches and church related facilities Residential property Staff has completed a study of the land area in the City to determine the impact of the proposed ordinance. Only the Industrial District would allow principal adult uses. Attached are maps identifying areas that are potentially available for adult uses. Zoning District Total Acreage Acreage for Adult Uses Percentage of Lar.d Area I, Industrial 44 acres 16.9 acres 38.4% B-1*27.5 acres 4.56 acres 16.6% B-2**10.5 acres 0 0% B-3*2.5 acres 0 0% B-4*16 acres 1.26 acres 7.9% B-5*6 acres 0 0% B-6*12 acres 1 3.9 acres 32.5% * Accessory Use only ** Adult Uses are not permitted Adult Use Ordinance WJJ7 10/18/99 Page! The City of Orono is 10,200 acres in size with the majority of the land area zoned for residential use. The total land area that would be available for adult uses (principal or accessory) is 26.62 acres (0.26%). Only 118.5 acres is zoned for Industrial or Commercial uses (1.16%). The total percentage of commercial and industrial land potentially available for adult uses is (22.5%). Staff is requesting the Planning Commission act on the ordinance to allow adoption by the City Council prior to the 30 month moratorium expiration date of November 12, 1999. The purpose of the ordinance is not in relation to a request for an adult business in the City. No requests for adult uses are proposed in Orono at this time. Issues for Discussion 1.Principal uses are only allowed within the indusuial district. Accessory uses are allowed in all "B" districts, except B-2, and the "I" district. The B-4 and B-6 districts do not list any permitted or conditional uses that would be considered as retail, should an accessory adult use be permitted within the districts. 2.The Ordinance would allow permitted signage for the district to be used for a business with an adult use. Should more restrictive standards apply? 3. Are there any additional comments regarding the ordinance, or changes? Attachments A B C D E F G H I City Attorney Memo (October 8, 1999) Draft Ordinance Navarre Area Map Highway 12 Map Industrial District Map Ordinance Summaries from Minnetonka and Wa>'zata Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of Adult Business Take Force Report on Sexually-Oriented Businesses Sections 10.40, 10.41, 10.42, 10.43,10.44,10.45 and 10.50 Adult Use Ordinance §253^ ia'18/99 Page} • ?RCM (?R:U0. o'99 16:45 3T. 16:44 N’O. S7600442o2 ? 2 miN5>HAW & CUL.1511K15U1N W-Et JAfniAY TOWM iumiiuos: sovm ninth stiiet MCOSAPOUS. MINNESCTA lUM «aiti uu tUIFA.t: (IU14.UW MEMOKANDUM TO;Citj' Council City Manager FROM Thomns J. Barrett. City Attorney RE:Adult Use Ordinance DATE:October 8, 1999 W« have reviewed the draft Adult Use Ordinance prepared by Krii Jenson based on her review of pertinent studies and adult use ordinances adopted by other area routucoahties. In reviewing the draft ordinance, we also have considered studies concerning the secondary effects of adult businesses, as well as controlling and persuasive case law which, collective y, establishes the peraussible scope and boundaries of nmnicipal regulation of adult uses. A revised version of the draft ordinance is ettached for your cotutider«ion. We have tned to incorporate what wc consider to be essential componenu that are mandated or. in our opinion, advi^le under current law, es well as less fundamental revisions that are de.sig^ to feme y the somewhat circular nature of the regulatory scheme proposed in the original draft. In »ldiiion to those changes, we have the foUowing general comments. Under United States Supreme Court ptecedent. adult businesses genetaUy are enuUed to Amendment protecUon because they involve the exercise of the fundamental right to free of e.xpression. That right is constrained, in the context of adult businesses, by tte govemmenfs right to prohibit obscenity (as def.n«l by statute in ^ ^ principle that commercial speech or expression, including e.xpresston that mvo ves L„.L marcrials or content, is cnUtled to a lesser degree of Firs. Amendment protection than 1 lM/22184735 UVWOO FROM l*A«/ iv* V 7/ . V • ”v '•••• .*•.“ .«V. ^ J*. *. •, IS iuuiviuutti m>n-commcrciai expression. Accoramgiy, raumcipaimes may regulate me time, place, and manner of sexually-oriented expression like tliat offered by adult businesses if there is a valid govciimicntal interest in doing so and the regulatory scheme is narrowly tailored to achieve such valid objectives. A city may not, whether by purpose or effect, completely ban or exclude sexually-oriented speech, other than obscenity. To be valid, government regulation of non-obsceoe sexually-oriented materials and expression must be (1) "content-neutral," meaning that a city cannot regulate the content of the speech or expression involved; (2) narrowly-tailored to advance a substantial government interest, which the courts have determined includes preventing the unwanted secondary effects of adult businesses; and (3> must allow reasonable alternative avenues of communication, meaning that adult businesses cannot be e.xcluded completely ftom a city but may be restricted from locating within specified distances of certain uses. The focus of any government regulation of adult businesses must be on the secondary effects they will have on surrounding uses and areas, and not on their content — i.e., the mere fact that they are adult businesses featuring se.xually-orleoted materials. If a City Council reasonably believes that the types of adult businesses it is proposing to regulate will produce such unwanted secondary effects, it will be allowed "a reasonable opportunity to c.xperiment with solutions" to protect the community from such impacts. In terms of adequate alternative avenues of communication, the United States Supreme Court has upheld an ordinance that allowed adult businesses to locate only within 3% of the total area of a city. Other courts in other cities have measured alternative avenues of communicauon available to adult businesses by the number of separate business sites that became available once the regulation went into effect and/or the proportion of commercially- zoned land (generally including business, commercial, and industrial districts) within which an adult business could operate. As drafted tlie ordinance proposed for Orono targets the unwanted secondary effects that, based on studies, other cities have found to be caused by the presence of adult businesses. Nevertheless, for clarity, wc have attempted to make the City's purpose in that regard more explicit, both in the ordinance text and in the proposed findings on which its adoption might be based. We have also added language that declares the City CouocU's specific intent not to interfere with the exercise of First Amendment rights. Before the City Council acts on the proposed Amendment, City staff must complete its study of the alternative avenues of communication that will be available if the ordinance is adopted, in terms of the proportion of space within the city's commercial districts or the city as a whole where an adult business could locate. The draft Ordinance would impose distance resiricUons between adult businesses and certain vulnerable uses, such as day care centers, Z2V22184735 KM/99 . FROM.(FRI)IO. S*90 16:47 -3T. 16:44 NO. 3760044232 ? 4 awuOuia, iiuiimca. ciw., «ia wcii da djmmg duuu Dullnesses, me issue is wnecner, oy virtue ot the various distance restrictions, too much property within Orono has been cAcluUed to afford adult businesses constitutionally adequate opportunities to locate and operate in Orono. Finally, other Orono ordinances may he affected by the proposed adult use ordinance, and those effects should be examined and addressed in close correlation with the proposed ordinance. For example, the City Council may wish to consider amending its sign ordinance to control and regulate signage for adult businesses, based on the concept that explicit or inappropriate advertising may create the same types of secondary effects that the businesses themselves generate. Aliio, the City Council may wish to consider licensing adult businesses in addition to zoning them appropriately. Licensing schemes can be tricky to implement and enforce, however, especially in the civil rights area, and may present more risk than reward to tlie City. U8/221S4735 10/8/99 FROM IFRDIO. 3‘95 16:47 ;?T. 16:44 NO. S760044232 F 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA, amending city CODE CHAPTER_____, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION___RELATING TO ADULT USES. WHEREAS, the City recognizes the sanctity and fundameniaj nature of free speech; and WHEREAS, the City docs not intend to regulate or ban speech based on content; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and relies on the State Attorney General's "Rcjwn of the Attorney General ’s Working Group on Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses," dated June 6, 1989, which details the effects and impacts of sc.'cually-oriented business; and WHEREAS, the City also has reviewed and relics on the "Task Force Report on Sexually-Oriented Businesses," authored by the City of Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, and Shakopee. Minnesota, which considered relevant studies fruni six cities; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono is similar to the cities in the Attorney General's study and the cities involved m preparing the above Task Force Report, as well as the cities whose studies were considered therein, and the City will experience the same secondary effects ft’om adult businesses as did those cities; and WHEREAS, adult businesses have an impact on the neighborhoods surrounding them which is distinct from the impact caused by other uses; and WHEREAS, residential neighborhoods located within close proximity to adult businesses experience increased crime rates (sex-related crimes, in particular), lowered property values, increased transiency, and decreased stability' or ownership; and WHEREAS, the adverse impacts which adult businesses have on surrounding areas diminish as the distance from the adult use increases; and WHEREAS, studies of other cities have shown that among crimes which tend to increase either within or in the near vicinity of adult businesses are rapes, prostitution, child molestation, indecent exposure, and other lewd and lascivious behavior; and WHEREAS, the control and regulation of adult businesses require intensive police and public health efforts by the City and its contractors and consultants, and that the concentrated use of such services detracts from and reduces the level of services available to the rest of the 32S/21ia4647 FROM IFRl 1 1 0. S' 99 16:43 'ST. 16:44 NO. S7600442S2 : 6 coaununity and tteteby dindnishea d-e abUity of the Qty to promote the geoeral health, safety, and welfare of the coaununity; and WHEREAS adult businesses aie not appropriate in or near locations “ W such as day care canters, parks, schools, recreatton areas, hbrar.es. arid churches; andenurenes; ana residen properties when located in proximity to adult businesses, an WHEREAS, the diverse impacts of adult uses are exacerbated when the uses are located near each other; and WHEREAS, the presence of Uquor est^lishme^ ^ediare vicinity of «iult uses also compounds the adverse Impacts on 0.c neighborhood, and WHEREAS adult businesses can increase the risk of exposure to coitunu^Alc discases^^t^’bui not limited to Acquired Immune DeHcency Syndronm (AIDS). which there is currently no cure; and for mere w w.— WHEREAS, the risk of public health and safety ptoblenu can be significmttly reduced oy ciueful regulation of adult businesses. MfeWiiFS^THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO. MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS: SjajpjU - Th« City code Chapter __ is hereby mnendM by wlding a new Secuon which shall read as follows. SEC. SEXUALLY ORJtNTED BUSINESSES. Subd. 1: PuTPOie. In order to proicu Uic City’s found^nwe^^. in light of the haiinful welfare. busLs« and unwanted swndary eff«K ^ businesses. Only those businesses may ptopetries and the City .sre intendiotended to be 228/121 lU/8.^5 FROM (Fnl)l:>. S’99 16:4* FT. 16:44 XO. S760044232 F 7 Subd. 2:Definitions. A. 1. "Adult Use” shall mean and include every type and variety of bookstore, adult motion picture ilicatcr, adult motion picture sales/rental operation, adult mini-motion picture theater, massage parlor, steam room/bathhousc/sauna facility, compamonship establishment, rap/conversaUon parlor, adult hcalih/sport club, cabaret, adult gift or novelty business, motion picture arcade, adult modeling studio, adult hotcl/motcl, body painting studio, and any other premises, enterprise, establishment, business, operation, or place that is open to some or all members of the public, at, in. on, or from which materials, entertainment, or services are presented, displayed, depicted, described, distributed, sold, or rented that constitute or contain an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities, and shall include each and every Specified Adult Business. Any activity or material that is classified as obscene under Minnesota Statutes SecUon 617.241, as the same may hereafter be anaended, does not constitute an adult use and are specifically prohibited. ^dult Use - Principal. An Adult Use in, on, or from which the sole or a dominant activity involves the presentation, display, depiction, description, distribution, sale, or rental of goods, services, entertainment, or materials Aat constitute or cot)Uin an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. Adult Use - Accessory. An Adult Use for which the presentation, display, depiction, description, distribution, sale, or rental of goods, services, entertainment, or materials that constitute or contain an emph^is on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities is not a dominant activity. An Adult Use - Accessory typically docs not involve or include any activity except the sale or rental of merchandise. Adult Use - Exempt. An Adult Use wherein the presentation, display, depiction, description, distribution, sale, or rental of goods, services, entertainment, or materials that constitute or contain an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activ'ities is conducted only on a diminutive scale, such that it is extremely incidental to any dominant activity and, individually or in combination, occupies or comprises less than five (5) square feet of the total floor, wall, and shelf area of the Adult Use. Adult Uses - Exempt shall not include or involve any activity except the sale or rental of merchandise, and no external or internal advertising of any adult or sexually- oriented merchandise shall be permitted. For purposes of this Section, the term "dominant activity" shaU mean any activity or activities that, individually or in combination, provide at least twenty percent (207r) of the gross receipts of the Adult Use’s entire business operation at that site, or occupy or comprise either ten percent (105F) or more of the tou 2. 3. 4. 228/22184647 J0/8-7V • FROM. .(FRI)IO. S'99 16:49 '2T. 16:44 NO. S7600442S2 ? floor, wall, and shelf area within the site or 130 square feet or more of floor, wall, and shelf area witliin the site. B. "Protected Use" shaU mean and include the following; licensed day care centers; public or private educational facilities classified as elementary, junior high, or senior high schools: public libraries; public paiks; on-sale liquor establishments; churches and church-ralutsd f2cluii<ss; and r^sidf^ntial properties or uses. C. "Specified Anatomical Area" shall mean and include the following: 1. Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or female brcast(s) below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and 2. Human male genitals in a discern by turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. C. "Specified Sexual Activity" shall mean and include the following; 1. Actual or simulated sexual intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, oral- anal copulation, bestiality, direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or the use of excretory f metions in the context of a sexual relatioaship, and any of the following sexually-oriented acts or conduct; anilingus. buggery, coprophagy^ coprophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, necrophilia, pederasty, pedophilia, piqueriamr- sapphism, zoocrasty; or 2. Clearly depicted human genitals in the state of se.xual stimulation, arousal or tumescence; or 3. Use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulations, coitus or masturbation; or 4. Fondling or touching nude human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breast; or 5. Situations involved a person or persons, any of whom arc nude, clad in undergarments or in sexually revealing costumes, and who arc engaged in activities involving the flagellation, torture, fettering, binding, or other physical restraint of any such persons; or 6. Erotic or lewd touching, fondling or other sexually-oriented conduct with an animal by a human being, or FROM D. (FRI)IO. S’99 16:49 5T. 1:::44 NO. S7.j0044232 ? 9 7. Human excretion, urination, menstruation, vaginal or anal irrigation "Specified Adult Business” shall mean and include the following; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Adult Rortk^tore. A business or commercial enterprise that provides for barter, rental, or sale items consisting of printed matter, pictures, sUdes, records, audio tape, videotape. iiioUon picture film, or other visual or aural media, from which minors are excluded by reason of age or where a substantial or significant portion of such items are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. ^dult Gift or bi^voUv Business. A business or commercial enterprise that has as a principal activity the sale of devices, implements, equipment, or novelties that are designed, marketed, used, or sold for the primary purpose of stimulating human genitals otherwise providing sexual sdmulauon. Adult Health Club or Adult Spoits Club A buRincss or commercial enterprise that is named, signed, advertised, or promoted as a faciUty or club providing health- or sports- related goods, services, or equipment, from which mmors are excluded by reason of age or that is disUnguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. AiluU t.otffl Motel. A business or commercial enterprise that provides rooms. facUities. or lodging on a short-term basis and wherein material or _______i nr ntfinrudcn fnfldft AVAllai roonts, tacuiues, or loaging uu * —- --------— entertainment is presented, displayed, provided, or otherwise made available that is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. Adult Mini.Mnfinn Picture Theater . A business or commercial enterprise operaUng in. on. or from a building or portion thereof that has a legal capacity of less than 50 persons, from which minors arc excluded by reason of age or that is used for presenting visual media or materials that arc distinguished or rharaclcrizcd by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. vwv.iing Studio. A business or commercial enterprise die primary or to such customers, Specified Anatomical Areas of one or mote mMels or subjects, or one or mote models or subjects who are engaging in Specified Sexual Activities. 228/22184647 •FROM .I. n fc J I V* J i . V • > V V* l. ; V • .^ V » V V . 4 V t i i . 7. 8. 9. 10. n. 12. 13. 14. Adult Motion Picture Arcade. Any place to which the public is permitted or invited wherein coin-, slug-, electronically-, or mechanically-controlled or operated sdll or motion picture machines, projeoters, or other image-producing devices arc provided or maintained to show images to five or fewer |«rsons per nuichine at any one time, and where the images so displayed arc distinguwhed or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Speciticd Sexual Activities. Adult Motion PicjureJTbeater. A business or commercial enterprise operating in, on, or from a building orportion thereof that has a legal capacity of 50 or more persons, from which minors are excluded by r(^on of age or that is used for orcsendn* visual media or materials that are distinguished or characterized by M emph^is on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activiucs. ■Rft^v Paintinfl Studio. A business, or commercial enterprise that provides the service of applying^aint or other substance, whether transparent or non transparent. to or on any Specified Anatomical Area of any person. Cabaret. A business or commercial enterprise that provides dancing or other live entertainment, from which minors arc excluded by reason of age or where such emenaimnem is distinguished or characietized by “ <>“ ™ presentation, display, depiction, or desenpuon of SpeciHed Anatomicsu Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. romnaninn F.stablishmeilt. A business or commercial enterprise that provides the serriec of enga^ng in or listening to conversation, talk or discussion between an owner, employee, or agent of the enterpnse end a customer, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. ronversation/Rao Parlor. A business or commercial cnierprisc that provides L service of eogagins in or listening to conversation. which minors are excluded by reason of age or where such sertuce is distingeished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. Parlor A massage parlor or health club which restricts minors by which provides the services of massage, if such service is distin^ished or characterized by en emphasis on Specified Anaioimcal Areas or Specified Sc.xual Activities. t=.«m Room or Bsihhouse FacilitY.. A business or intetprise tot provides one or more steam or heat bathmg too^ or sauna or Steam room facilities, where the services provided are distinguished or 228/22184W7 »U/3rJ9 FROM kr.il)i.- V yj 16: c:. 10 : h*! .;/0'J<.>44Zv^ » .. characterized by an emphasis on specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Actividcs, or from which minors are excluded by reason of age. Subd. S: Regulations A.Uses - Principal 1. All Adult Uses - Principal shall require a Conditional Use Permit. AU Adult Uses - Priocipal shall be located within the I-Industrial Distriet. ill AA.it Uses . Principal shall be located at least the following spectfirf 2. 3. of a Protected Use or other Ad\dt Use, Orono or an adjoining community: a.A distance of at least 250 feet from the following: Licensed day care centers (ill Puburo'’r private educational facilities classified as an elementaiy. junior higb. or senior high schools. (iii) Public libraries. (iv) Public parks. (v) On-salc liquor establishments. (vi) Churches and church-related facilities. b.A distance of at least 1000 feet from the following: ^sidenfi^ properties, unless separated from su^ residential 4. prep^cs^by 7r'ailro^ right-of-way or a State Highway. No Adult Use - Principal shall locate in any building which is also utilized for 5. any Protected Use. At the time appUcadou ft. ^rnr^olr 3 fira' and boUding m^atitms that apply to the site and building. 6.St'^ta u3 irovTfe*ni parking space 21S/221W647 KVMW .“ROM B (FRDIO. 16:51 ST. 16:44 N'O. •750044232 ? 12 a. for each employee on duty, plus parking tor customers according ,o following schedule: Modon Picture Thcaten one space pet seat actually provided or the maximum seating capacity of the theater. Motion Picture arcade: five spaces per machine. All other Adult Uses - Principal: one space per fifteen (15) ^ -at »K*t is ooen to or used by the public or customers of b. c.of floor area that is open to Adult Use - Principal. 7.Signage shall be as provided in Section Sign Ordinance. ^^IIU Uses - AcccssoK 1. All Adult uses - Accessory shaU require a Conditional Use Permit. 2.Add Adult Uses - Accessory shall be located witWn the [To be determined based on area calcuUUons.] District. 3. distances, measured radi y use - Accessory to the property located in Orono or an adjoining conunumty. A distance of at least 250 feet ftoro the foUowing: 1. Kesidcntiol properties. 3 PubUror ^vate cducaUonal “ elementary, junior high, or senior high schools. 4. Public libraries. 5, Public parks. A On-sale liquor establishments. i lurches and church-related faculties. b.A disiattce of at lc«>t 1000 f«t ftom the foUowing: Other Adult Uses. 4. No Adult use - Accessory shall locate in any boUding which is also utUiaed for any Piotccted Use. 22S/221S4647 lO/S/W FROM 5. 7. 8. (FRl)lO. S’99 16:^. ST. 16:44 NO. S760044232 ? IS Adult Uses - Accessory shall restrict and prohibit access lo minors by the physical separauon from areas of general access of items that are disiin^ished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. a.Movie Rentals. Display areas for movies that are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities shall be restricted from general view and shall be located within a separate room, the access or entrance to which is in clear view and under control of the persons responsible for the operation or controlled in some other effective manner which meets with the approval of the Zoning Administrator. b.Magazines. Maaazines that are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sc.xual Acuvmcs. shall not be accessible to minors and shall be covered with a wrapper or other means to prevent display of any material Other than the publication title. c.Other adult materials or services. Adult Uses - Accessory offering or providing items that are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Acdviucs and that are not specifically cited above shall comply with the intent of this section, subject to the final approval of the City CouncU. Adult Uses - Accessory shall be prohibited from external advertising and signing of items that are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. At the Ume of application for the Conditional Use Permit. »ny P^^JPf/ty that is to be occupied by an Adult Use - Accessory must comply with all the cimcnt zoning, health, fire, and building regulations that apply to the site and building 22V221M647 KVB<VV City of Wavzata The City of Wayzata distinguishes between "principal" and "accessory" adult uses. Principal uses would use adult products (magazines, videos, etc. or a club) as the primary product. Accessory uses would be a video rental store that would have a private room for adult videos only. A. Locations adult uses are permitted -- Principal Adult uses principal shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from the closest point of the building or actual leased space of the adult use principal to the property line of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Residentially zoned property A licensed day care center A public or private educational facility (K-12) A public library A public park An on-sale liquor establishment 250 feet to another adult use No two adult uses shall be located in the same building. B. Signage - Adult Use Principal Sign messages shall be generic in nature and shall only identify the type of business which is being conducted; and shall not contain material classified as advertising; and shall comply with the requirements of size and number for the district in which they are located. C. Liquor - Adult Use Principal No establishments with Adult Uses as a principal use shall allow liquor on the premises, nor shall the use be located within 200 feet of an on-sale establishment. D. Adult Uses ~ Accessory 1.The use shall comprise no more than 10% of the floor area of the establishment in which it is located. 2. Comprise no more than 20% of the gross receipts of the entire business operation. 3. Not involved or include any activity except the sale or rental of merchandise. Movie rentals shall be located where display areas shall be restricted from public view, and an employee shall monitor the entrance. ✓ Magazines classified or qualifying as adult uses shall not be accessible to minors and shall be covered with a wrapper or other means to prevent display of any material other than the title. Other uses-accessory shall comply with the intent of the situations noted above. E. Signage and Advertising - Adult Use — Accessory Prohibited from internal and external advertising and signage of adult materials and products. City of Minnetonka The City of Minnetonka distinguishes between two types of adult uses. 1.High Impact Business — Any business with materials or entertainment which are principally related to sexual stimulation or gratification other than a limited impact business. 2.Limited Impact Business - Items are sold for off premises use only. All items must be displayed n a separate area to which all persons must at least 18 years old to enter. The separate area may not exceed 20% or 300 s.f. of the total retail space. Some items may be placed outside of the isolated area, but must be accessible only to employees and sealed with an opaque cover. A. Permitted Locations for High Impact Businesses: 1. Any non-residential zone as long as it is a permitted use or a Conditional Use. 2. B-1, B-2, B-3,1-1, PUD, and PID on land designated for a non-residential use. 3. High Impact Uses are not allowed within 250' of the following uses: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Residential uses Day Care Facilities Schools Library Park Playground State and Federal Wildlife Preserves Religious Institution Other Public Recreational Facilities Any Establishment Selling or Holding a Liquor License Another High Impact Business B. Signage All Signage on high impact businesses shall be flat wall signs. No free standing, on roof, flashing, moving elements, or electronically or mechanically changing messages. No merchandise or photos of products shall be visible from the exterior of the building. No signs shall be placed in any window or opaque covering. The City does not want to create the image of a vacant or blighted building. The only other signage allowed would be a 1 s.f. "Adults Only" sign and hours of operation on the main entrance. •• 4 - •n • • REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S WORKING GROUP ON THE REGULATION OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES June 6,1989 jrrr;.^ i HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III Attorney General State of Minnesota • » REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S WORKING GROUP ON THE REGULATION OFaSEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSIN£SSEiS*“^®'‘^*''i i, ■ -.-sUCrt "STL...• '.r.• i.'iKir*"'•? iiOlcrir** *1'c.?*:* %T^ •••> • • • J* •• ^ : :. , June 6,1989 .. .*. da*.i •. v-JL-CJ-* .i." .-riM ,ri‘v • : Vi.*.* •JCI I . • ^ • J HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III Attorney General State of Minnesota r • MEMBERS OF THE ^ attorney GENERAL’S WORKING GROUP ON THE REGUUTION OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES Ann Burkhart Associate Professor University of Minnesota LawSchrol Minneapolis, Minnesota . . •« < •• • ? / ^ i IR/Bloomington, Minnesota HononbiaTanyU.Dmipmy .... Minnesota House of Representatives • IR/New Ulm, Minnesota • Thorrtaa L Fatal Lindquist & Vennum Minneapolis, Minnesota *• • • . It .•-». • - . - '^. I • John Laux Minneapolis Chief of Police Minneapolis, Minnesota Sharon SaylaaBanon^ Coundiwonian Minneapolis, Mlnn^otaO HonorabhKalhlaanVaaansa Minnesota House of Representatives DFUSt Paul, Minnesota wmamwaaon Councilman St Paul, Minnesota •' J TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. ^ SUMMARY.......................................................................................... g IMPACTS OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES....................... 6 Minneapolis Study................................................................................ SL Paul................... y • • • Indianapolis..........................____......__................................. • PhoAnhf ..•••* Los Angeles ___________________ .|q Concentration of Sexually Oriented Businesses Neighborhood Case Study « io Testimony .............................................................................. .|2 SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZED CRIME________ 14 PROSECUTORIAL AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES........................... 20 OBSCENfTY PROSECUTION.................................................................. 21 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 24 OTHER LEGAL REMEDIES ................................................................... 25 RICO/FORFETTURE______________________________________ 25 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... 28 NUISANCE INJUNCTIONS ................................................................... 28 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... 30 ZONING ............................................................................... 30 Supreme Court Dedslons..................................................................... 31 i -L r . t Standards and Need for Legal Zoning....................... Documentation to Support Zoning Ordinances.............................. 3^ Avaflabflity of Locations for Sexually Oriented Businesses ....................... 37 Distance Requirements ..................................................................... 39 Requiring Existing Business^ to Comply with New Zoning_____ ^ RECOMMENDATIONS.......................... LICENSING AND OTHER REGULATIONS....................... REQOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION j br:r;s:^0 •* • • §m m • ^ ••# • • *•«••• ••• •• •« • •• •••«««ee •• * ••# • •• •* •••• ••• • * *•* .-!»• ..... • . HV!t«?Ca5rM,^PC CV*A^r.?^'7«na>^ * - •... ...........................'^“.vPA^-ifSTjA v'^.“-rA.'ur.7f •••-^\ .ri ••' ... • • *. ■ •.•... . . ••* .».....«•*. • * *♦•*. ...... A ••*•. ....a • »• •* •• ••• • • •*(••••••«•....•.•• ....•••«•«*■•• ...•••• .•.#•.*• ••. • . • •• ♦ ... ..... • ... .* *>. . . • « e • •e* •• • ••• •• I I ~i 1 mriiTiYiii iHn .III •IL INTRODUCTION Many communities in Minnesota have raised concerns about the impact of sexually oriented businesses on their quality of life. It has been suggested that sexually oriented businesses serve as a magnet to draw prostitution and other crimes Into a vulnerable neighborhood. Community groups have also voiced the concern that sexually oriented businesses can have an adverse effect on property values and impede neighborhood revitalization. It has been suggested that spillover effects of the businesses can lead to sexual harassment of residents and scatter unwanted evidence of sexual liaisons in the paths of children and the yards of neighbors. Although many communities have sought to regulate sexually oriented businesses, these efforts have often been controversial and equally often unsuccessful. Much community sentiment against sexually oriented businesses is an outgrowth of ho^ity to sexually explicit forms of expression. Any successful strategy to combat sexually oriented businesses must take Into account the constitutional rights to free speech which limit available remedies. Only those pornographic materials which are detennined to be “obscene” have no constitutional protection. As explained later in more detaii, only that pornography which, according to community standards and taken as a whole, “appeals to the prurient interest” (as opposed to an interest in healthy sexuality), describes or depicts sexual conduct In a “patently offensive way” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” can be prohibited or prosecuted. Miller v. California. 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). • Other pornography and the businesses which purvey it can only be regulated where a harm is demonstrated and the remedy is sufficiently tailored to prevent that harm without burdening Rrst Amendment rights. In order to reduce or eliminate the impacts of sexually oriented businesses, each community must find the balance between the dangers of pornography and the constitutional rights to free speech. Each community must have evidence of harm. Each community must know the range of; legal tools which can be used to combat the adverse impacts of pornography and sexually oriented businesses. •1. oas or zoning and law enforcement and inciudpH =Hrr~— t»n m* *«*«««rrrtj=.“.!?4 csrj?r racketeofing statute - « ^rteiture <jr se«illy «p,tt “ “““ «<vocate prohibition of all oriented >'...!—-p- jhis rJ If* fegulation as a pretext to eliminate all sexually conveys a m^ge Commercial oonvUTf ^ an afifont to human dignity, wmmeraal pornography promotes the misuse of vulnerable people and can be us^ businesses I^Tt^wertorllirfl^ '*'“^‘** organized crime neighborhoods and draw involvement of -2* Communities are not powerless to combat these probiema Bu» h. effective in defending itself from pornography each community musT^ ewdence and within me law. The report of mis Working Group isTsi^^d m 1« local communities in developing an appropriate and effeiLe defense. The first section of me report discusses evidence mat sexualiv oriantart busines^, and me materials from which mey profit, have an adtfersa impact on ma ^omd^cornmunities. ft provides relevant evidence which local communities can h. ^ feasonable regulation of sexually oriented be^ sexiially oriented and organized crime. Concerns about these broader effects of sex2J ^^messes underlie the Working Group’s recommendations St bS sec^ sectibn of mis report describes strategies far regulating sexualiv P^sPc^mg obscenity. The report preS the S . IS!*”~ ^ Domooiaohv vuh«« oomrnunitfes who are struggling against the blight of Officers and City Officials are concerned about SUMMARY BusiiIS^^ZaS.Tf* 0"-ooted then^ Tot ® recommendations to assist communities in protecting from the adverse effects of sexually oriented businesses. Some or all of -3- these recommendaHons may be needed in any given community. Each communttv rcL'vSd%Tmtl'rrng"’"" ^ 1. City and county attorneys ’ offlcas In the Twin Cities metropolitan area should designate a prosecutor to pursue obscenity prosecutions and support that prosecutor with specialized training. 2. The Legislature should consider funding a pilot program to ^ demonstrate the efficacy of obscenity prosecution and should encourage the pooling of resources between urban and suburban prosecutor offices by making such cooperation a condition for recelvino any such grant funds. ",... ••V 4 3. The Attorney General should provide Informational resources fbi^ city and county attorneys who prosecute obscenity crimes. • 5: - .V- 4. Obscenity prosecutions should begin with cases Involving those matertala which most flagrantly offend community standards. > 5. The Legislature should amend the present forfeiture statute to Include as grounds for forfeiture all felonies and gross misdemeanors pertaining to solicitation, Inducement, promotion or receiving profit from prostitution and operation of a **dlsor^erty house." 8. The Legislature should consider the potential for a RiCO-llke statute with an obscenity predicate. 7. Prosecutors should use the public nuisance statute to enjoin operations of sexually oriented businesses which repeatedly violate laws pertaining to prostitution, gambling or operating a disorderly house. ’ • . - *?•. • • • 8. Communities should document findings of adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses prior to enacting zoning regulations to control these uses so that such regulations can be upheld If challenged In court 9. To reduce the adverse effects of sexually oriented businesses, communities should adopt zoning regulations which set distance requirements between sexually oriented businesses and sensitive uses, Including but not limited to residential areas, schools, child care facilities, churches and parks. 10. To reduce adverse Impacts from concentration of these • •< * .“••1 businesses, communities should adopt zoning ordinances which setj;i5i ;» distances between sexually oriented businesses and between sexually oriented businesses and liquor establishments, and should consider restricting sexually briemed businesses to one use per building. 11. Communities should require existing businesses to comply with new zoning or other regulation of sexually oriented businesses within a reasonable time so that prior uses will conform to new laws. 12. Prior to enacting licensing regulations, communities should • document findings of adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented..; businesses and the relationship between these effects and proposed regulations so that such regulations can be upheld If challenged In court 13. Communities should adopt regulations which reduce the likelihood of criminal activity related to sexually oriented businesses. Including but not limited to open booth ordinances and ordinances which authorize e denial or revocation of licenses when the licensee has committed m- offenses relevant to the operation of the business. -5- • • 14. Communftlot should fdopt regulations which reduce exposure of the community and minors to the blighting appearance of sexually oriented businesses, Including but not limited to regulations of signage and exterior design of such businesses, and should enforce state law requiring sealed wrappers and opaque covers on sexually orlemed material. IMPACTS OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSSS The Working Group reviewed evidence .Vom studies conducted in Minneapolis and St Paul and In other cities throughout the country. These studies, taken together, provide compelling evidence that sexually oriented businesses are with high crime rates and depr^ion of property values. In addition, the Working Group heard tesbmony that the character of a neighborhood can dramatically change when there is a concentration of sexually oriented businesses adjacent to residemial property. Mlnneaoolls Studv ■■■ ^ II I In 1980, on direction from the Minneapolis City Council, the Minneapolis Crime Prevention Center examined the effects of sex-oriented and alcohol-oriented adult entertainment upon property values’ and crime rates. This study used both simple regression and multiple regression statistii^ analysis to evaluate whether there was a causal relationship between these businesses and neighborhood blight The study concluded that there was a dose association between sexually oriented businesses, high crime rates and low housing values in a neighborhood. When the data was reexamined using control variables such as the mean Income in the neighborhood to determine whether the association proved causation. It was undear whether sexually oriented businesses caused a dedine in property values. The Minneapolis study conduded that sexually oriented businesses concentrate In areas whldi are relatively deteriorated and, at most, they may weakly contribute to the continued depression of property values. However, the Minneapolis study found a much stronger relationship between sexually oriented businesses and crime rates. A crime index was constructed including robbery, burglary, rape and assault. The rate of crime in areas near sexually oriented businesses was then compared to crime rates in other areas. The study drew the following conclusions: 1. The effects of sexually oriented businesses on the crime rate index is positive and significant regardless of which control variable Is us^. 2. Sexually oriented businesses continue to be associated with higher crime rates, even when the control variables' Impacts are considered simultaneously. .V According to the stadsticai analysis conducted in the Miruieapollb.^ study, the addition of one sexually briented business to a census tract area will cauM an frKrease in the overall crime rale index in that area by 9.15 crimes per thousand people per year even if all other social factors remain unchanged. St Paul In 1978, the St Paul Division of Planning and the Minnesota Crime Control Planning board conducted a study of the relationship between sex^oriented and alcohd-oriented adult entertainment businesses and neighborhood blight This study looked at crime rates per thousand and median housing values over tl^ as indices of neighborhood deterioratioa The study combined sex-oriented and alcohol-oriented businesses, so Its conclusions are only suggestive of the effects of sexually oriented businesses alone. Nevertheless, the study reached the following important conclusions: 1. There is a statistically significart correlation between the location of adult businesses and neighborhood deterioration. •7- I I I I I I I 2. Adult entertainment establishments tend to locate in somewhat deteriorated areas. busin^^-n th** ‘*«9'’>0'’ation of an area tallows location of an adult 4. There is a signHtaantJy hi^er crime rate associated wHh two such businesses in an area than is associated with only one adult h'.«i"^.r 5. Housing values are also significantly lower in an area where there are three aduK businesses than they are in an area with only one such b-islness. Similar Mndusiorw about *ie adverse taipaa of sexually oriented businesses on the communi^ were re^ Wstudles conductea irt cities across the nattaa. , -j .. . ^ Jndlinaoolts ■ ■ " Indianapolis researched the relationship between sexually or^ businesses and property values. The study was based on data from a random sample of 20 percent of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. !•- Tha Study found the following; r . 1. The appraisers overwhelminQfy (80%) felt that an ai located In a neighborhood would have a negative Impact property values within one block of the site. 2. The real estate experts also overwhelmingly (71%) believed that there would be a detrimental effect on commercial property values within the same one block radius. I a - ...... 3. This negative Impact dissipates as the distance from the site Increases, so that most appraisers believed that by three blocks away from an adult bookstore, its impact on property values would be minimal. Indianapolis also studied the relationship between crime rates and sexually oriented bookstores, cabarets, theaters, arcades and massage parlors. A 1984 study entitled "Adult Entertainment Businesses in Indianapolis' found that areas with sexually oriented businesses had higher crime rates than similar areas with no sexually oriented businesses. 1. Major crimes, such as criminal homicide, rape, robbery, assault burglary, and larceny, occurred at a rate that was 23 percent higher in those areas which had sexually oriented businesses. 2. The sex-related crime Including rape. Indecent exposure, and child molestation, was found to be 77 percent higher in those areas with sexually ' oriented businesses. Phoenix The Planning Department of Phoenix. Arizona published a study in 1979 entitled "Relation of Criminal Activity and Adult Businesses.* This study showed that arrests for sexual crimes and the location of sexually oriented busfoesses were dfredly related. The study compared three areas with sexually oriented businesses with three control areas whicl'^ had similar demographic and land use characteristics, but no sexually oriented establishments. The study found that. 1. Property crimes were 43 percent higher in those areas which contained a sexually oriented business. 2. The sex crime rate was 500 percent higher In those areas with sexually oriented businesses. -9- J 3. The study area with the greatest concentration of sexually oriented businesses had a sex crimes rate over 11 times as large as a similar area having no sexually oriented businesses. Los Anoeles A study released by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1984 supports a relationship between sexually oriented businesses and rising crime rates. This study Is less definitive, since It was not designed to use similar areas as a control. The study indicated that there were 11 sexually oriented adult establishments In the Hollywood, Callfomia. area In 1969. By 1975, the number had grown to 88. During the same time period, reported incidents of “Part r crime (I*®*# homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny and vehicle theft) Increased 7.6 percent in tne Hollywood area while the rest of Los Angeles had a 4.2 percent Increase. “Part ir arrests (l.e. forgery, prostitution, narcotics, liquor law violations, and gambling) Increased 3.4 percent In the rest of Los Angeles, but 45.4 percent in the Hollywood area. Concentration of Sexually Oriented Businesses Neighborhood Casa Study In SL Paul, there is one neighborhood which has an especially heavy concentration of sexually oriented businesses. The blocks adjacent to the Intersection of University Avenue and Dale Street have more than 20 percent of the city’s adult uses (4 out of 19), including ail of St Paul's sexually oriented bookstores and movie theaters. The neighborhood, as a whole, shows signs of significant distress, Including the highest unemployment rates in the city, the highest percentage of famflies below the poverty line in the city, the lowest median family Income and the lowest percentage of high school and college graduates. (See 40-Acre Study on Adult Entertainment St Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development, Division of Planning, 1987 at p. 19.) It would be difficult to attribute these problems in any simple way to sexually oriented businesses. 10- However, it is likely that there is a relationship between the eoncantratlon of sexually oriented businesses and neighborhood crime rates. The St Paul Police Department has determined that St Paul's street crostitution is concentrated in a "street prostitution zone ’ immediately adjacent to the intersection where the sexually oriented businesses are located. Police statistics for 1986 show that, of 279 prostitution arrests for which specific locations could be identified, 70 percent (195) were within foe "street prostitution zone.’ Moreover, ail of foe locations with 10 or more arrests for prostitution were within this zone. The location of sexually oriented businesses has-also created a perception in the community that this is an unsafe and undesirable part of foe ci^^ fo 1983. West^ State Bank, which is currently located across foe street from an adult bookstore, hired a research firm to survey area residents regarding their preferred location for a foeir percepticns of d'lfferent locations. A sample of 305 people ® tocali^ and asked. "Are there any of these locations where you would not feel safe conducting your banking business?" No more than 4 per cant of foe respondents said they would feel unsafe banl^at other locatibns in foe city. But 36 percent said they would feel unsafe banking at Dele and University, foe comer where foe sexually oriented businesses are concentrated. The working Group reviewed foe 1987 40-Acre Study on Aduft prepared by foe Division of Planning in St Paul's Department of P^^ ^ Economic Development This study summarized testfoiony presented to the Wanning Commission regarding neighborhood problems: Residents in the University/Dale area report frequent sex-related harassment by motorists and pedestrians in the neighborhood. Although it cannot be proved that the harassers are patrons of adult businesses, it is reasonable to suspect such a connection. Moreover, neighborhood residents su^^mit^ evidence to the Planning Commission in the form of discarded pornographic IHerature allegedly found in the streets, sidewalks, bushes and alleys near adult businesses. Such IHerature is sexually very explicit, even on the cover. -11- and under the present circumstances becomes available to minors even though its sale to minors is prohibited. Testimony The Working Group heard testimony that a concentration of sexually oriented businesses has serious impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood. The Working Group heard that pornographic materials are left in adjacent lots. One person reported to the police that he had found 50 pieces of pornographic material in a church parking lot near a sexually oriented business. Neighbors report finding used condoms on their lawns and sidewalks and that sex acts with prostitutes occur on streets and alleys in plain view of fSamilies and children. The Working Group heard testimony that arrest rates understate the level of crime associated with sexually oriented businesses. Many' robberies and thefts from "Johns* and many assaults upon prostitutes are never reported to the police. Prostitution also results In harassment of neighborhood residents. Young girls on their way to school or young women on their way to work are often propositioned by Johns. The Rick theater caters to homosexual trade, and male prostitution has been noted in the area Neighborhood boys and men are also accosted on the street A police officer testified that one resident had informed him that he found used condoms in his yard all the time. Both his teenage son and daughter had been solicited on their way to school and to work. The Working Group heard testimony that in the Frogtown neighborhood, Immediately north of the University-Dale intersection in St Paul, there has been a change over time In the quality of life since the sexually oriented businesses moved into the area The Working Group heard that the neighborhood used to be primanly middle dass, did not have a high crime rate and did not have prostitution. St Paul police officers testified that they believed the sexually oriented businesses caused neighborhood problems, particularly the increase in prostitution and other crime rates. Property values were suffering, since the presence of high crime rates made the area •12* less desirable to people who would have the ability and inclination to improve their homes. The Working Group made some inquiry to determine to what extent smaller cities outside the Twin Cities Metropolitan area suffered adverse impacts of sexually oriented businesses. The Working Group was informed by the chiefs of police of Northfield and Owatonna that neither city had adult bookstores or similar sexually oriented businesses. Police chiefs in Rochester and Winona stated that sexually oriented businesses In their communities operate in non-residential areas. In addition, there is no "concentration" problem. • In Rochester, there are two facilities in a shopping mall and a single bookstore in a depressed commercial/business neighborhood. The Winona store Is located in a downtown business area The police chiefs stated that they had no evidence of Increased crime rates in the area adjacent to these facilitiea' They had no information as to the effect which these businesses might have on local property values. m • I Information presented to the Working Group indicates that community impacts of sexually oriented businesses are primarily a function of two variables, proximity to residential areas and concentration. Property values are directly affected within a small radius of the location of a sexually oriented business. Concentration may compound depression of properly values and may lead to an increase in crime sufficient to change the quality of life and perceived desirability of property in a neighborhood. The evidence suggests that the irripacts cf sexually oriented businesses are exacerbated when they are located near each other. Police officers testified to the Working Group, that "vice breeds vice." When sexually oriented businesses have multiple uses (i.e. theater, bookstore, nude dancing, peep booths), one building can have the impact of several separate businesses. The Working Group heard testimony that concentration of sexually oriented businesses creates a "war zone" which serves as a magnet for people from other areas who "know" where to find prostitutes and sexual entertainment The presence of bars in the immediate vicinity of sexually oriented businesses also compounds impacts upon the neighborhood. -13* The Attorney General's Working Group believes that regulatory strategies designed to reduce the concentration of sexually oriented businesses, insulate residential areas from them, and reduce the likelihood of associated criminal activity would constitute a rational response to evidence of the impacts which these businesses have upon local communities. SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZED CRIME Infiltration of organized crime Into sexually oriented businesses reinforces the need for prosecution of obscenity and requires specifie regulatory or law enforcement tools. The Working Group attempted to assess both the present and potential relationship between organized crime and sexually oriented businesses. • • The Working Group heard testimony from a witness who had been prosecutirij obscenity cases for the past thirteen years that many sexually oriented businesses have* out-of-town absentee, owners. If the manager of a local business is prosecuted on an obscenity charge, his testimony may make it possible to pierce the corporate veil and Identify the true owners. ___ * • • ♦ The Working Group heard testimony that an organized crime entity may operate somewhat like a franchisor. In order to stay in bus; less, the local manager of a sexually oriented business may have to pay fees to organized crime. The makers and wholesalers of pornographic materials are also likely to be involved with organized crime. % • The Working Group conducted additional research to assess the relationship between sexually oriented businesses and organized crime. The Working Group was informed by prosecutors of obscenity that there were many ways in which organized crime errtities could derive a benefit from sexually oriented businesses. There is a large profit margin In pornography. The presence of coin-operated peep booths provides an opportunity to launder money. Cash obtained from illegal activities, such as prostitution or narcotics, can be explained as the income of peep booths. Cash Income can also escape taxation, in violation of law. 14- Although it is clear that organized crime is involved to some degree in the oomography industry, various sources reach different conclusions as to the depth and extent cf this involvement Part of the difference in assessment is based on diHerences ^ the way the term "organized crime' is defined. Authorities who restrict their definition of organized crime to the highiy organized ethnic hierarchy known as La ^ Nostra (LCN) tend to find fewer links than those who define the term to include er organized criminal enterprises. Where there has been intensive law enforcement and prosecution, it is more likely that linkage between sexually oriented businesses and organized crime figures will be evident The working Group has adopted the definition of organized crime contained in Minnesota's Report of the Legislative Commission on Organized Crime (1975). The Working Group s concerned about the relation between sexually oriented businesses and any "organized criminal conspiracy of two or more persons that is tenuous in nature, involves activity generally crossing jurisdictional lines and results in ihird-p^ profit' The threat from organized crime includes, but is not limited to involvemen national crime enterprises such as LCN. Recent federal hdidmenls of James G. Hafiz in Indiana for petjunfl/ and.of Harry V. Mohrey in Michigan for tax evasion suggest a possible conneeUon organized crime and a Minnesota pornography business. Hafiz, a Minnesota resWert who is an agent of Beverly Theater. Inc., the company which operated the ftua Theater in St Paul.2/ has been linked to Mohney, a major pomographer Michigan. The indtatments allege that .Mohney caused the ktoo^n of t^ comiLiy which operated the Faust that a corporation owned by Mohney paid to improvements to the Faust and that Mohney Is. in fact the oriented businesses, including the Faust gee United States v. Hati^ n i • IP 88-102-CR (S.D. Ind.. Sept 15. 1988); United States v. Mohrtey. Indictment No. 88-50062 (ED. Mich. Sept 9.1988)). 1/ Hafiz was acquitted of the perjury charges. St Paul Pioneer Press, Jan. 11,1989, p. " 10A. 2/ The City of St. Paul bought out the Faust for $l .8 million, closing the entertainment ^ complex on March 7,19M. -15- Mohney. in turn, has been linked with national organized crime enterprises. A1977 report of the United States Justice Department stated: It is believed that Harry V. Mohney of Durand, Michigan, is one of the largest dealers in pornography in the United States ... He is alleged to have a close association with the LCN. Colombo and the LCN DeCavalcante, both of which are very influential in pornography in the eastern United States. In Michigan, Mohney is known to hire individuals with organized crime associations to manage his businesses. His businesses and corporations consist of 60 known adult bookstores, massage parlors, art theaters, adult drive-in movies, go^o type lounges and pornographic warehouses in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa. Ohio and California He is involved in the financing and produ^on of pornographic movies, magazines, books and newspapers. He also directs the importation and distribution erf his own and other pornographic publications to retail and wholesale outlets throughout the United States and Canada ... He has a working relationship with DeCavalcante ’s represents* Robert DiBerwdo" and has met vrith VHo Giacalone and Joseph Zerilli of the LCN Detroit He has to cater to both to operate in Michigan. U.S. Justice Dep ’t Organized Crime Involvement in Pornography, reprinted in the Attorn^ General ’s Comm’n on Pornography (hereinafter "Pornography Commission"), 2 Final Report at 1229-30 (1986). Organized crime has the potential to infiltrate Minnesota ’s pornography industry. Evidence on a national level highlights the vulnerabHity of sexually oriented businesses to criminal control. A number of sources have reported that there is a connection between organized crime and the pornography industry. The Pornography Commission reported that the Washington, D.C., Metropolilan Police Department "determined that traditional organized crime was substantially involved in and did essentially control much of the major pornography distribution hi the United States during the years 1977 and 1970." 2 Final Report at 1044-45. The Washington, D.C., study "further concluded that the combination of the large amounts of money involved, the incredibly low priority obscenity enforcement had within police departments and prosecutors ’ offices in an area where manpower intensive -16- ^ t •V ;?. antiai for sueeass and the imposition of minimal fines and no investigations were essential for success, a endeavor loriail time upon random convictions resulted m a low nsk aM g po^ed crime figures who became involved in pornography. Id, at f045.The FBI concluded in 1978: Information obtaified . ‘^lew tdividuals with direa pornography business in the , known as the organized crime Snnections ^ “^'"'spSly La • V'establishment in the United **** v bureau indicates that pornography Information received *«m Mure^ Saw Nos^in the UnKed States behind is (a maior) income m^er does not physically gambling and nar^cs. ^ maiorfty of pornography business m the United States, it Is ^ thwe people to operate involved in the crime tor the privilege of 7^nniTfld Crime ffyelooment In Pomograetet. 6 (19 ))• . j..j . ■ A orief .utvey of 59 PB. ftold three^uarters of those offi^ could " ^ pornography. Several offices did. were involved in the manufacture or associates of organized crime. |d however, report some Involvement by members and associates g at1046-*7. m Commission: In my opinion, based ^ retoTe^d -17- • • fashion with organized cnme either the mafia or some other facet of non< mafia never-the-less highly organized crime. Id. at 1047-48. Thomas Bohling of the Chicago Police Department Organized Crime Division, Vice Control Section, told the Pornography Commission that "it is the belief of state, federal and local law enforcement that the pornography industry is controlled by organized crime families. If they do not own the business outright, they most certainly extract street tax from independent smut peddlers.' ]d. at 1048 (emphasis in original). The Pornography Commission stated that it had been advised by Los Angeles' Police Chief Daryl F. Gates that "organized crime famflles from Chicago, New Yorir, New Jersey and Rorida are openly controlling and directing the major pornography operations in Los Angeles.” Id. The Pornography Commission was told by Jimmy Fratianno, describ^ by the Commission as a member of LCN, "that large profits have kept organized crime heavily S- involved In the obscenity Industry." jd. at 1052. Fratianno testified that ."95% of ttie- •’ families are involved in one way or another in pornography. ... h’s too big. They just won’t let it go.' Id. at 1052-53. ‘ % The Pornography Commission concluded that "organized crime in its traditional LCN forms and other forms exerts substantial influence and control over the obscenitjf * 1 industry. Though a number of significant producers and distributors are not members of LCN families, all major producers and distributors of obscene material are highly organized and carry out illegal activities with a great deal of sophisfication.” Jd. at 1053. The Pornography Commission reported that Michael George Thevis, reportedly one of the largest pomographers in the United States during the 1970’s was convicted in 1979 of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) violations including murder, arson and extortion. The Commission also reported examples of other crimes associated with the pornography industry, Including prostitution and other sexual -18* ______ abusd, narcotics distribution, money laundering and tax violations, copyright violations and fraud. Id. at 1056-65. Although the Pornography Commission report has been criticized for relying on the testimony of unreliable informants in drawing its conclusions finding links between pornography and organized crime (See Scott, Book Reviews, 78 J. Crim. L & Criminology 1145, 1158-59 (1988)), its conclusions find additional support in recent state studies. The California Department of Justice recently reported that: California ’s primacy in the adult videctape industry is of law enforcement concern because the pornography business has been prone to organized crime involvement Immense profits can be realized through pornography operations, and until recently, making and distributing pornography involved a relatively low risk of prosecution. But more aggressive law enforcement efforts and turmoil within the pornography Isusiness has destabilized the smooth flow of easy money for some of its major operations .... As long as control over pornography distribution is contested, and organized crime f gures continue their involvement in the business, the pornography industry will remain of interest to law enforcement officials statewide. Bureau of Organized Crime and Criminal Intelligence, Department of Justice, State of Callfomia. Organized Oime in Califomia 1987: Annual Report to the Califomia Legislature at 59-62 (1988). The Pennsylvania Crime Commission similarly determined in a 1980 report that most pornography stores examined were affiliated or owned by one of three men who had ties with “nationally known pornography figures who are members or associated of organized crime families." Pennsylvania Crime Commission, A Decade of Organized Crime: 1980 Report at 119. For example, Reuben Sturman, a leading pornography Industry figure based In Cleveland, was reported by the FBI in 1978 to have built his empire with the assistance of LCN member DiBemardo. Federal Bureau of Investigation Report Regarding the -19- r •. Extent of Organize d Crime Involvement in Pomooraohy (1978). Sturman, who reportedly controls half of the $8 billion United States pornography industry, was recently indicted by a federal grand jury in Las Vegas for racketeering violations and by a federal grand jury in Cleveland for income tax evasion and tax fraud. Newsweek. August 8,1988. p. 3. Evidence of the vulnerability of sexually oriented businesses to organized crime involvement underscores the importance of criminal prosecution of these businesses when they engage in illegal activities, including distribution of obscenity and support of prostitution. Prosecution can increase the risk and reduce the profit margin of conducting illegal activities. It may also disclose organized crime association with local pornography businesses and increase the costs of criminal enterprise in Minnesota. In addition to prosecution, forfeituro of property used In the illegal activities related to sexually oriented businesses can cut deeply Into profits. Regulation to permit license revocation for conviction of subsequent crimes may also expose and increase control over criminal enterprises related to sexually oriented businesses. PROSECUTORIAL AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES The regulation of many sexually oriented businesses, like other businesses dealing in activity with an expressive component* is drcuniscribed by the Rrst Amendment of the United States Constitutlon.3/ Nonetheless, the First Amendment does not impose a bam*er to the prosecution of obscenity, which is not protected by the Fast Amendment, or to reasonable regulation of sexually oriented businesses if the 3/ The Rrst Amendment provides: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, often the basis for challenges to regulation of sexualy oriented businesses, restricts state as well as federal actions. See, e^g.. Rske v. Kansas . 274 U.S. 380,47 S. Ct. 655 (1927). •20- regulation is not designed to suppress the content of expressive activity and is sufficiently tailored to accomplish the regulatory purpose. The Working Group believes that communities have more prosecutorial and regulatory opportunities than they may currently recognize. The purpose of this section of the Report is to identify and recommend enforcement and regulatory opportunities. Of course, each community must decide on its own how to balance its limited resources and the wide variety of competing demands for such resources. I. OBSCENITY PROSECUTION Obscene material Is not protected by the Rrst Amendment Miller v. CaUfomia. 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct 2607 (1973). The sale or distribution of obscene material in Minnesota is a criminal offense. The penalty was recerrtiy Increased to up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine for a first offense, and up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine for a second or subsequent offense within five years. Minn. Stat § 617.241, subd. 3 (1988).^ • • • The Working Group believes that Minnesota ’s obscenity statutes are adequate to prosecute and penalize the sale and distribution of obscene materials. However, historically, widespread obscenity prosecution has not occurred. The Working Group believes this is not because the sale or distribution of obscene publications In Minnesota is rare, but because prosecutors have been reluctant to bring obscenity charges, because of limited resources, difficulties faced when prosecuting obscenity, and because obscenity has historically been considered a victimless crime. 4/ The prior penalty was a fine only - up to $10,000 for a first offense and up to $20,000 for a second or subsequent offense. Minn. Stat { 617.241. subd. 3 (19^. Obscenity arrests are so infrequent that incidents invofwkj possible violatfons of section 617.241 are not separately compiled by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Comprehension. See Bureau of Criminal Aporehension. 1967 Minnesota Annual Report on Crime. Missino Children and Bureau or cnminai Aoorenension Activities. •21- i • * ipon.«uusoditM ««Knani,“*'«•« Of neighborhoods in which they are located « there is no prosecution of obscenitv iam> m h ^ discussed previously, when prosecutioh of obsca«iK, . J ^ believes that «*«* >nvolvin8 Chadren. violence or bestiality.Should assume a higher priority for law enforcement officials. addressed by adequate”tr^'ing'^'*'2ste^*^tn ol^ity can be obscene, a prosecutor must proL ^ '"«erlal is •• standardsvvoi^ftTd^fte*worit*SB^'^"®hcommunity •'»*Interest in sex; ®PP«a's to the prurient . . manner and*** **'* '"'***' conduct ... in a patently offensive >-') politi.^?or^“X: '*** drtfetic. -W.2 »?ayia'a;s: s,rS2s? swal materials to Mnsu?t?i?Si5S^tlhI?MS or dlstributSn^ - !!«^^y t^issrap^^ SM " -exual vIolefSr >»l«lonship t?StiS*l^ tfjat 9QAuaiiy vioiei Of Mxu^ Violence .. wmmre an act on Pornography, •22- To be sure, prosecutors face a number of hazards in prosecuting obscenity. They include inadequate training in this specialized area of law. attempts by defense attorneys to remove jurors who find pornography offensive, the offering into evidence of polls and sunreys through expert testimony to prove tolerant community standards, efforts to guide jurors with jury instructions favorable to the defense, and discouragement with unsuccessful prosecutions. But the hazards can be overcome. Alan E. Sears, former executive director of the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography has stated: Prosecutors can successfully obtain obscenity convictions in virtually any jurisdiction in the United States. In order to obtain a conviction, it is Incumbent upon a prosecutor to prepare well, know the law, not f^l Into the "one case syndrome* trap, obtain a representative jury through proper voir dire, keep the focus of the trial on the unlawful conduct of the defendant, and .. , i. . obtain legally sound instructions. Sears, "How To Lose A Pornography Case,* The COL Reporter (n.d.). •• • The Working Group heard testimony from prosecutors >who have purged obscenity cases nationally regarding effective ’ways to prosecute obscenity cases. Materials can be bought or rented, rather than seized under warrant In the absence of survey data, community standards can be left to the wisdom of the jury. In that case, experts should be prepared to. testify if the defense attempts to make a statistical case that the material is not obscene. Prosecution of obscenity is also likely to bo most affective if initial prosecutiorts focus on materials which are patSntly offensive to the' community, such as those irrvolving children, violence or beastiality. The experience of other cities has demonstrated that vigorous and sustained anforcement of obscenity statutes can sharply reduce or virtually eliminate sexually oriented businesses. Cincinnati, Omaha, Atlanta, Charlotte, Indianapolis and Fbrt Lauderdale were cited to the Working Group as examples of cities which have •23- successful. programs of obscenity prosecution.6/ The Working Group encourages prosecutors to take advantage of increasing training opportunities and other assistance for obscenity prosecutions and to reassess the desirability of increased enforcement The Working Group is pleased to note that county attorneys and law enforcement groups in Minnesota have recently held forums and seminars on obscenity law enforcement and prosecution. The U.S. Justice Department ’s National Obscenity Enforcement Unit offers assistance to local prosecutors, including sample pleadings, indictments, search warrants, motions, responses and trial memcranda.7/ RECOMMENDATIONS 1. City and county attomeya ’ offices In the TV/In Cities metropolitan I,! area should designate a prosecutor to pursue obscenity prosecutions and support that prosecutor with specialized training. . 2. The Legislature should consider funding a pilot program to demonstrate the efficacy of obscenity prosecution and should encourage the pooling of resources between urban and suburban prosecuting offices by making such cooperation a condition of receiving any such grant funds.• • §/ Memorandum to Jim Bellus, executive assistant to St Paul Mayor George Latimer ( After more than 10 years of levying he^ fines and making arrests. Atlanta has won national renown as *the city that deaned up pornography.^). 7/ TTie ^dress of the National Obscenity Enforcement Unit is U.S. Justice Departnient, 10th & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Room 2216, Washington. D.C. 20530. teleph^e number Is 202<€33*S780. Assistance is also available from Citizens for Decency ttaugh L^. Inc., 2845 E'Camelback Rd., Suite 740, Phoenix, AZ 85018. It IS me publisher of • The Preparation and Trial of an Obscenity Case: A Guide for me Prosecuting Attorney." Its telephone number is 602-381-1322. The Nationai Obscenity Law Center, another private organization, is located at 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 236, New York, N.Y. 10115. It publishes an Obscenitv Law Bulletin and Handbook on the Prosecution of Obscenity Cases.''” Its telephcne number is 212-870-3216. •24* 3. The Attorney General should provide Informational resources for city and county attorneys who prosecute obscenity crimes. 4. Obscenity prosecutions should concentrate on cases that most flagrantly offend community standards. 11. OTHER LEGAL REMEDIES A. RICQ/FQRPEITURE In addition to traditional criminal prosecutions, use of RICO statutes and criminal and civil forfeiture actions may also prove to be successful against obscenity offenders.: . By attacking the criminal organization and the profits of Qlegai activity, such actions cari;,-^ provide a strong disincentive to the e^biishment and operation of sexually oriented ^,-4^ businesses. For example, the feder^ government and a number of the twenty-eight states which have enacted racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) :c statutes include obscenity offenses as predicate crimes. Generally speaking, to violate a RICO statute, a person must acquire or ‘maintain an interest in or control of an • • enterprise, or must conduct the aff^rs of an enterprise through a “pattern of criminal activity.* That pattern of criminal activity may indude obscenity violations, which In turn can expose violators to increased fines and penalties as well as forfeiture of all property . acquired or used in the course of a RICO, violation. These statutes generally enable prosecutors to obtain either criminal or civil forfeiture orders to seize assets and may also be used to obtain injunctive relief to divest repeat offenders of financial interests in ... sexually oriented businesses. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (West Supp. 1988). RICO statutes may be particularly effective in dismantling businesses dominated by organized crime, but they may be applied against other targets as well. The Working Group believes that Minnesota should enact a RlCO-iike statute that would encompass increased penalties for using a “pattern* of criminal obscenity acts to conduct the affairs of a business entity. Provisions authorizing the seizure of assets for obscenity violations should be considered, but the limitations imposed by the First Amendment must be taken into account. -25- • • It has been argued that a RICO or forfeiture statute based on obscenity crime violations threatens to "chill protected speech" because it would permit prosecutors to seize non-obscene materials from distributors convicted of violating the obscenity statute. American Civil Uberties Union, Pollutino The Censorship Debate: A Summary And_ Critique Of The Final Report Of The Attorney General ’s Commissinn rin Pornography at 116-117 (1966}, However, a narrow majority of the United States Supreme Court recently held that there is no constitutional bar to a state ’s Inclusion of substantive obscenity violations among the predicate offenses for its RICO statute. Sapoenfield v. Indiana. 57 U.S.LW. 4180, 4183-4184 (February 21,1989). The Court recognized that "any form of criminal obscenity statute applicable to a bookseller will induce some tendency to self-censorship and have some inhibitory effect on the dissemination of material not obscene.* Id. at 41M. But the Court ruled that, *the mere assertion of some possible self-censorship resulting from a statute Is not enough to render an anti-obscehity I^ V® unconstitutional under our precedenL* Id. The Court specifically upheld RICO '*'^ provisions which increase penalties where there is a pattern of multiple violations of obscenity laws. However, In a companion case, the Court also Invalidated a pretrial seizure of a*'’ ^ bookstore and its contents after only a preliminary finding of "probable cause" to believe that a RICO violation had occurred. Fort Wavne Books. Inc, y. Indiana. 57 * • U.S.LW. 4180, 4184-4185 (Februaiy 21, 1989). The Court explained there Is a ' • rebuttable presumption that expressive materials are protected by the First T" Amendment That presumption is not rebutted until the claimed justification for seizure of materials, the elements of a RICO violation, are proved in an adversary prbceeding Id. at 4185. The Court did not specifically reach the fundamental question of whether seizure of the assets of a sexually oriented business such as a bookstore is constitutionally permissible once a RICO violation is proved. The Court explained: [F]or the purposes of disposing of this case, we assume without deciding that bookstores and their contents are forfeitable (like other property *••> •26- i; J such as a bank account or yacht) when it is proved that these items are property actually used in, or derived from, a pattern of violations of the state's obscenity laws. Id. at 4135. The Working Group believes that a RICO statute which provided for seizure of the contents of a sexually oriented business upon proof of RICO violations would have the potential to significantly curtail the distribution of obscene materials. Although Minnesota does not have a RICO statute, it does have a forfeiture statute permitting the seizure of money and property which are the proceeds of designated felony offenses. Minn. Stat. § 609.5312 (1988). But, this statute does not permit seizure of property related to commission of the offenses most likely to be associated with sexually oriented businesses. Obscenity cnmes are not among the offenses which justify forfeiture. Although solicitation or inducement of a person under age 13 (Minn. Stat S 609.322, subd. 1) or between the ages of 16 and 18 to practice prostitution (Minn. Stat § 609.322, subd. 2) are included among the offenses which could Justify seizure of property, many crimes Involving prostitution are outside the reach of the present Minnesota forfeiture law. • The followiiTg crimes are not included among the crimes which can justify seizure of property and profits: solicitation, inducement or promotion of a person between the ages of 13 and 16 to practice prostitution (Minn. Stat § 609.322, subd. 1A); solicitation, irfoucement or promotion of a person 18 years of ago or older to practice prostitution (Minn. Stat § 609.322, subd. 3); receiving profit derived from prostitution (Minn. Stat § 609.323); owning, operating or managing a ''disorderly house,* in which conduct/' habitually occurs in violation of laws pertaining to liquor, gambling, controlled -* substances or prostitution (Minn. Stat § 609.33). Although its reach would be rriuch more limited, the legislature should also consider providing for forfeiture of property used to commit an obscenity offense or which represents the proceeds of obscenity offenses. Under the holding in Fort Wavne *. Books. Inc. V. Indiana, such forfeiture could not take place, if at all, until it was proved . that the underlying obscenity crimes had been committed. •27- ^ere are no comparable constitutional issues raised by enacting or enforcement 0 orfeiture statutes based on violations of prostitution, gambling, or liquor taws The legislature may require sexually oriented businesses which violate these laws to forfeit their profits. The Working Group believes that such an expansion of forfeiture laws would give prosecutors greater leverage to control the operation of those businesses which pose the greatest danger to the community. RECOMMENDATIQMS 1. The legislature should amend the present forfeiture statute to Include as grounds for forfeiture all felonies and gross misdemeanors pertaining to solicitation, Inducement, promotion or receiving profit from prostitution and operation of a ''disorderly house." • • • • • . .tC 2. The legislature should consider the potential for a RICO-llke statute with an obscenity predicate. • • • B- NUISANCE IM-lUNCnaMjS Minnesota law enforcement authorities may obtain an Injunotion and dose down ’ Olsons when a faoilily constitutes a pubiic nuisance. A public nuisance exists when ’ 'aws pertaining to prostHutioa gambUng or kaepitn « dually house.* The Minnesota public nuisance law permits a court to ordr building to be dosed tor one year. Minn. Stat {f 617S0-.87 (1988). • • • I-“1''^ injunctions to dose down sexuaiiy oriented businesses which repeatediy violate 1^ pertaining to prosecution, gambling or disorderly conduct are potentlaliy ^rtol regulatory devices. The fact that a buDdtog In which prosecution or other '' offenses occur houses a sexually oriented business does not shield the tadlily from ' jV^loation of nuisance law based on such offenses. Arcara v. aourr Bnnw 1.1/. 473 "=■ U.S. 697, 106 S. Cl 3172 (1966) (First Amendment does not shield adult bookstore' £ -28- from application of New York State nuisance law designed in part to dose places of prostitution). Although the Working Group believes that nuisance injunctions with an obscenity predicate would be effective in controlling sexually oriented businesses, such previsions would probably be unconstitutional under current U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Six Supreme Court justices joined in the Arcara result, but two of them - Justices O’Connor and Stevens - concurred with these words of caution: If, however, a city were to use a nuisance statute as a pretext for dosing down a book store because it sold indecent books or because of the perceived secondary effects of having a purveyor of such books in the neighborhood, the case would dearly implicate Rrst Amendment concerr^ and require arralysis' under the appropriate First Amendment standard of review. Because there is no suggestion in the record or opinion below of such pretextual use of the New York nuisance provision in this case, I concur in the Court's opinion and judgment Arcara. suora. 478 U.S. at 708,106 S. Ct at 3178. In an earlier case, Vance v. Universal Amusement 445 U.S. 308, 100 S. Ct 1156 (1980), the Court ruled unconstitutional a Texas public nuisance statute authorizing the dosing of a building for a year if the building is used "habitually]” for the "commercial exhibition of obscene material.” Id. at 310 n.2,100 S. Ct at 1158 n.2. The Court’s recent holdings in SaDoenfield and Fort Wayne Books, Inc, give no.^. indication that the Court would now look more favorably upon an injunction to dose down a facility which sold obscene materials. The Court assumed without deciding that forfeiture of bookstore assets could be constitutionai in a RICO case. But In making this assumption, the Court distinguished forfeiture of assets under RICO from a general restraint on presumptively protected speech. The court approved the reasoning of the Indiana Supreme Court that, "The remedy of forfeiture is intended hot to restrain the future distribution of presumptively protected speech but rather to disgorge assets acquired through racketeering activity.” Fort Wayne Books. Inc, at 4185. The Court assumed that RICO provisions could be upheld on the basis that -29- •! 'i t ; r ■» ' TT t*-' IT, t nfc - “adding obscenity-law violations to the list of RICO predicate crimes was not a mere ruse to sidestep the Rrst Amendment" Id. Without the relationship to proceeds of crime, a remedy which closed a facility for obscenity violations would be far less likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Prosecutors should use the public nuisance statute to enjoin operations of sexually oriented businesses which repeatedly violate laws pertaining to prostitution, gambling or operating a disorderly house. *-• •• •• •• •• «. III. ZONING • •• • ♦‘V: Zoning ordinances can be adopted to regulate the location of sexually oriented businesses without vidating the First Amendment Such ordinances can be designed to disperse or concentrate sexually oriented business, to keep thdh ^ designated distances from specific buildings or areas, such as churches, schools and mldentlal neighborhoods or to restrict buildings to a single sexually oriented usage. Because zoning is an important regulatory tool when property enacted, the Working Group believes a careful explanation of the law and a review of potential problems in drafting zoning ordinances may be helplUl to communities cortsidering zoning to regulate sexually oriented businesses. ^3 •• -30- A. Supreme Court Docisions The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of municipal adult entertainment zoning regulations in Youno v. American Mini Theaters. Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440 (1976), and City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters. Inc.. 475 U.S. 41,106 S.Ct 926 (1986).8/ In Young, the Court upheld the validity of Detroit ordinances prohibiting the operation of theaters showing sexually explicit "adult movies." within 1,000 feet of any two other adult establishments .9/ The ordinances authorized a waiver of the 1.000-foot • restriction if a proposed use would not be contrary to the public interest and/or other factors wore satisfied. Young, supra. 427 U.S. at 54 n.7, 96 S.Ct at 2444 n.7. The ordinances were supported by urban planners and real estate experts who testified th^ concentration of adult-typo establishments "tends to attract an undesirable quantity and quality of transients, adversely affects property values, causes an increase in Clime, especially prostitution, and encourages residents and businesses to move elsewhere.’ at 55, 96 S.Ct at 2445. A "myriad" of locations were left available for adult establishments outside the forbidden 1.000-foot distance zone, and no existing establishiTients were affected, jd. at 71 n.35,96 S.Ct at 2453 n.35. Writing for a plurality of four, Justice Stevens upheld the zoning ordinance as a.... reasonable regulation of the place where adult films may be shown because (1) there . was a factual basis for the city’s conclusion that the ordinance would prevent blight; (2) . the ordinance was directed at preventing "secondary effects* of adult-establishment concentration rather than protecting citizens'from unwanted "offensive ’ speech; (3) the y.-. ordinance did not greatly restrict access to lawful speech, and (4) "the city must te allowed a reasonable opportunity to experiment with soluticns to admittedly serious problems.’ ]d. at 63 n.18,71 nn.34,35,96 S. Ct at 2448-49 n.18, 2452-53 nn.34,35. 8/ The only reported Minnesota court case reviewing an adult entert^ment zonlrra ' ordinanw i^itv of St. Paul v. Carlone. 419 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. Ct App. 1988) (upholding facial constitutionaiity of St l^aul ordinance). 9/ The ordinances also prohibited the location of an adult theatere vnthin 500 fort of a ~ residential area, but this provision was Invalidated by the district court, and tnrt . • decision was not appealed. Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.. 427 U.S. 50, 5Z n.2. 96 S.Ct. 2440. 2444 n.2 (1976). -31- Justice Stevens did not expressly describe the standard he had used, but it was clear that the plurality would afford non-obscene sexually explicit speech lesser First Amendment protection than other categories of speech. However, four dissenters and one concurring justice concluded that the degree of protection afforded speech by the First Amendment does not vary with the sodal value ascribed to that speech. In his concurring opinion, Justice Powell stated that the four-part test of United States v. O’Brien. 391 U.S. 367, 377, 88 S.CL 1673, 1679 (1968), should apply. Powell explained: Under that test, a governmental regulation is sufficiently justified, despite its Incidental impact upon First Amendment interests, “If it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial govefiimental interest; if the governmental interest is urvelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the inddental restriction on ... First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest* 427 U.S. at 79-80,96 S.Ct at 2457 (citation omitted), (Powell, J., concurring). . -t ;roc •jrB.• •• . m - Perhaps because Justice Stevens' plurality opinion did not offer a dearly articulated standard of review, post-Young courts often applied the O'Brien test advocated by Justice Powell In his concurring opinion. Many ordinances regulating sexually oriented businesses were invalidated under the 0'Biien test See R.M. Stein, ^ Regulation of Adult Businesses Through Zoning After Renton. 18 Pac. LJ. 351, 360 (1987) ("consistently invalidated*); SA Bender, Regulating Pornography Through. Zoning: Can We'Oean Uo'Honolulu? 8 U. Haw. L Rev. 75,105 (1986) (ordinances . upheld In only about half the cases). Applying Young, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a zoning ordinance adopted by the city of Minneapolis. Alexander v. City of Minneapolis , 698 F.2d 936 (8th Clr. 1983). In Alexander, the challenged ordinance had three major restrictions on sexually oriented businesses: distancing from specified uses, prevention of concentration and amortization. It prohibited a sexually oriented business from operating within 500 feet of districts zoned for residential or office-residences, a church. -32- stat9*licensed day care facility and certain public schools. It forbade an adults*oniy facility from operating within 500 feet of any other adults-only facility. Finally, the ordinance required existing sexually oriented entertainment establishments to conform to its provisions by moving to a new location, if necessary, within four years. The Eighth Circuit ruled that the Minneapolis ordinance created restrictions too severe to be upheld under the Young decision. It would have required all five of the city’s sexually oriented theaters and jaetween seven and nine of the city’s ten sexually oriented bookstores to relocate and would have required these facilities to compete with another 18 adult-type establishments (saunas, massage parlors and "rap" parlors) for a maximum of 12 relocation sites. The effective result of enfbrdng the ordinance would be a substantial reduction In the number of adult bookstores and theaters,.and no new adult bookstores or theaters would be able to open, the Court concluded. Alexander, suora. 698 F.2d at 938. . . In Renton, suora. the United States Supreme Court adopted a clearer standard under which regulation of sexually oriented businesses could be tested and upheld. The Court upheld an ordinance prohibiting adult movie theaters from locating within -..f 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park or ^ school. r Justice Rehnquist, writing for a Court majority that included Justices Stevens and Powell, stated that the Renton ordinance did not ban adult theaters altogether and that, therefore, it was "property analyzed as a fbnm of time, place and manner regulatioa* Id. at 46. 106 S.CL at 928. When time, place and manner regulations are "content- • neutral" and not enacted "for the purpose of restricting speech on the basis of Its content," they are "acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental Interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication," Rehnquist staled. Id. He found the Renton ordinance to be content- neutral because it was not aimed at the content of films shown at adult theaters. Rather, the city’s "predominate concerns" were with the secondary effects of the theaters. Id. at 47, 106 S.Ct at 929 (emphasis in originaO. Once a time, place or manner regulation is determined to be content-neutral, "[t]he appropriate inquiry... b . whether the ... ordinance is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and •33- allows for reasonable avenues of communication," Rehnquist wrote for the Court Id. at 50.106 S.Ct at 930. The Supreme Court found that Renton ’s "interest in preserving the quality of urban life" is a "vital" governmental interest The substantiality of that interest was in no way diminished by the fact that Renton "relied heavily" on studies of the secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments by Seattle and the experiences of other cities. Rehnquist added. Id. at 51,106 S.Ct at 930^1. The First Amendment does not require a city, before enacting such an ordinance, to conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that already generated by other cities, so long as whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses. That was the case here. Nor is our holding affected by the fact that Seattle ultimately chose a different method of aduit theater zoning than that chosen by Renton, since Seattle ’s choice of a different reme^;to combat the secondary effects of adult theaters does not call into question either Seattle's identification of those secondary effects or the relevance of Seattle ’s experience to Renton. .*• • . % Id. at 51*52,106 S.Ct at 931. • Rehnquisfs inquiry then addressed the means chosen to further Renton's substantial interest and inquired into whether the Renton ordinance was suffidently "narrowly tailored." •• His comments on Renton's means to* further its substantial interest suggest M munfcipalities have a wide latitude In enacting content-neutral ordinances aimed at the secondary effects of adult-entertainment establishments. He quoted the Young ~ plurality for the proposition that •' It is not our function to appraise the wisdom of [the city's] decision to require adult theaters to be separated rather than concentrated in the same areas. . . . [T]he city must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems. |d. at 52,106 S.Ct at 931 (quoting Young, supra. 427 U.S. at 71,96 S.Ct at 2453).'-.•nr -34- As to the “narrowly tailored" requirement, Rehnquist found that the Renton ordinance only affected theaters producing unwanted secondary effects and. therefore, was satisfactory. Id. The second prong of Renton ’s “time, place, manner" inquiry - the availability of alternative avenues of communication - was satisfied by the dlstrict court’s finding that 520 acres of. land, or more than five percent of Renton, were left available for adult- entertainment uses, even though some of that developed area was already occupied and the undeveloped land was not available for sale or lease. A majority of the Court found: That [adult theater owners] must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, does not give rise to a First Amendment violation.... In our view, the First Amendment requires only that Renton refrain from effectively denying [adult theater o^ers] a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city, and the ordinance before us easily meets this requirement jd.at54,106S.Ctat932. Standards and Weed for Legal Zoning Unlike ’Ybyng, the Renton case spells out the standards by which zoning of sexually oriented businesses should be tested. Renton and several lower court decisions rendered In its wake suggest that the two most critical areas by which the ordinances will be judged are 1) whether there is evidence that ordinances were enacted to address secondary impacts on the community, and 2) whether there are enough locations still available for sexually oriented businesses so that zoning is not Just a pretext to eliminate pornographic speech.i^ 10/ ^ 11 recent post-Renton adult-entertainment zoning decisions by federal courts, five inv^idated oroinances, three upheld ordinances and three ordered a remand to district court for further proceedinas. Zoning ordinances were struck in Avalon Cinema Corp, v. Thompson . 667 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1987)( city council failed to offer (Footnote 10 (Continued on Next Page) -35- This section first describes some of the legal considerations which comm.inn- mi^t keep in mind in drafting zoning ordinances for sexuafly oriented business^ ^«vLed by the word Group, of types of zoning which can be enacted to reduce the secondarv nffa. i- t sexually oriented businesses. secondary effects of Poeumantatlon to Suotiort y»nlno Ordinann.« Hs rirf l!!i^"r'* be restricted on the basis of sexually orient^ b'T^®"‘‘ment The justificaUon for regulating sexually onented businesses is based on procrf that the zoning is needed to reZj secondary effects of the businesses on the community. Since Renton, a number of adult entertainment zoning ordinances haus 'hn^.r ^^lated for tnaure Of the erecting body to documern the nirr^ OW e«« Inwfldwd a Krtnfl OfdinaoM bicioM inw* ™ • • • e • ** ^°?Si!SS Previous Page) Berrwdino ^he result); Tollis. Inc, v. San of Maivlflnd. ^CaEona.'767 Vsiate ' ~198mr^^ 198?): FW/PBS.In^ v':cii:;;<nai^ ED. Mich. 1906), alffd wiCTIl^i ,!iT!j5 *^'‘rp ioio Henton. supra* niiHa har nrrinnmmM ’ ^ i lA Tor reconsioeratjon in lioht rrfmgpr:.a^a"“^b^ o^di^ nf w!^ •: availability). ^ (remand, in part, lor determination of lane! •36- nias Baltimore Bqulwsrrt . sues. 684 F. Supp., at 895; see also Tollie « s.„ Bernad,^ County. 827 F.2d 1329. i333 (9th C^. 1987) (ordinan^colS^^J^;^ single Sluing o1 adult movie in zoned area; invalidated tor failure to present e^S^M of secondary effects of single showing); butsee Thames Enterprises SS).’”’ bTiegisiL Of secSidary effeS ^ * is not necessary tor each municipality to conduct research other cHies. The Renton court held that ^ence of the need tor zoning of sexually oriented businesses can be provided by studies from other cities “so long as whatever evidence the dty rette uoon^ «eso« *“ that the dty addressee.: a.^51? Ss^De^^ opponents and tinsideitloh'or shj^tV Detroit. Boston. Dallas and Los Angeles suffident evidence of legitimate f summarizes evidence from various dues'- Following asntsa,-^is bitted that local communities will make use of this evidence in the course Of assembling support for reasonable regulation of sexually oriented businesses. P of Locations ter SAviiaii £• oretfl^nf^hr'T® businesses is merely a oriented business. Renton, supra 475 U.S. at 54. toe S. ct «mm? unra^^^h!"^ !w *^*®*^*^** unduly restricted if adult entertairvnent zones are no sat am ^ f""* i ^ '*’* number of locations is unreasonably few. There is no set amount of land or number of locations constitutionally required. The Renton -37- 475 U.S. at 53, 106 S.a at 9^1 y* ™ ^ SufRcie^ locations sufficient. 427 U.S. at 72 n.35. ® city's central businws^tl!]''” °L ’ ^ “’e Minneapolis (Alexander^No aSToa ^ ^-V than IX of la ^a could be “^«ay22.1989)^ Christy V. Cin, * ^P*® ®«“^ opportunities- for relocation exist): deteTOinatiOT of ^wS^Tre^Mn («"«ndlng for a i^ons sufUrtt): /uLdirSr !Tm1 ®“®™^ 1983) (pra -Renton: - 698 »'•« 936. 939 n.7 (6th Cfo. sufficient). as tor at least 28 existing adult establishments roif: relati^ ^ ^ T^"* “®*® • (insufficient if relocation site SUES, slip op. at 22-23_>, Beveraoe Systems. Inn 794 F.2d 1520 1526 fii^rr *"***^ lotemationai sites should be determined bv n>h ”** (sttSSesling number of ' establishments in *“ "®®P*' of adu« theaters t,! , warehouses, and railroad tracks lae^^ Patchwork of swamjis. fistaWlshments ’). * «ck[ing] access roads and retail not currently for sale or'lesLe^/Mr'^ establishments is already occupied or U.S. at53-M. ic« aa r^efr°"? (reasonable relocation opDon..ni.y »•'> oP- at 22-23 no requirement that it be economirati m ^ to locate in the areas permitted by law.'' '^®®®‘*® *®»^'7 ‘>ri«'«ed business •38- 3. Distance Reaulrementa Another factor that may be examined by some courts is the distance requirement established by an adult entertainment zoning ordinance. In SDJ. Inc, v. Houston . 837 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1988), the Court was asked to Invalidate a 750-fbot distancing requirement on the ground that the city had not proved that 750 feet, as opposed to some other distance, was necessary to serve the city's Interest The Court found that an adult entertainment zoning ordinance is "sufficiently well tailored if it effectively promotes the government's stated interest ” and declined to "second-guess* the city coundl. Houston, suora. 837 F.2d at 1276. Courte have sustained both requirements that sexually oriented businesses be located at specified distances from each other, see Youno. suora.* (upholding distance requirement of 1000 feet between sexually oriented businesses), and requirements that sexually orierrted businesses be located at fixed distances from other sensitive uses, see Rerrton. suora. (upholding distarwe requirement of 1000 feet between sexually oriented businesses and residential zones, singie-or-muttiple femily dwellings,• • churches, parks or schools). The Working Group heard testimony that when an ordinance establishes distances between sexually oriented uses, an additional regulation may be needed to prevent operators of these businesses to defeat the .intent of the regulation by concentrating sexually oriented businesses of various types under one roof, as in a sexually oriented mini-mall. The city of St Paid has adopted an ordinance preventing more than one adult use (e.g., sexually oriented theater, bookstore, massage parlor) from locating within a single building. A similar ordinance was upheld in the North Carolina case of Hart Book Stores. Ina v. Edmisten. 612 F. 2d 821 (4th CIr. 1979), cert denied. 447 U.S. 929 (1980). The experience with multiple-use sexually oriented businesses at the University- Dele Intersection suggests that these businesses have a greater potential for causing neighborhood problems than do single-use sexually oriemed businesses. Following Renton. It is suggested that lawmakers document the adverse effects which the -39- '’“*^**** Extstlno Busineaaea to Comply with New Zonlm ^ P«>'*tons. an existing business is allowed to remain at Hs present location, even though it is a non-conforming use, for a limfted period. ^ “ Vi 1 '•‘V*** The Minnesota Supreme Court has expla'ned the theory this way: ___theory behind this legislative device is that the usaftji iHb ^ r^nfbrrninQ use corresponds roughly to the airiortizattonD^^ ^ ^®P^ of his property until the end of Its^iS^* life in nx^poly position granted during the amorti^ maS ttteomti^ providM the owner with compensation for the loss of some specked rarely corresponds^e^lSto any particular structure constituting the nonconforming use. ye Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Villaqa of Minnatonm. 162 N.W^ 206.213 (Mina • ^ ■ m •< P«>visions applied to sexually oriented businesses have been said to be J«»^uphrtd.- ^masv.CIlY of Danas, 648 F. Supp. 1061.1071 (N.D. ----’ —lEPS, Ina V. city of PallM, 637 F,2d 1298 (5th CIr. 1988) (dtino eases). ' '" aeeoJX**^MJ^ f® ^ ®®®“°" ^ sSnilicant»ec^ in^cts upon communities related to the location of sexually oriented These ^pacts are intensified when sexually oriented businesses are <x^ m residenhal areas or near other sensitive uses and when sexually oriented bw^wssM are conoentrated near each other or near alcohol oriented businesses. The sa^rf *^*™* “ “»se described kt the first on of this report and anecdotal evidence from neighborhood residents and police' *V.- » -40- officers should be used to support the need for zoning ordinances which address these problems. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Communities shouid document findings of. adverse secondary effects of sexuaily oriented businesses prior to enacting zoning regulations to control these uses so that such regulations oan be upheld if challenged In court 2. To reduce the adverse effects of sexually oriented.,, businesses, communities should adopt zoning regulations to set distance requlreinents between sexually oriented businesses .and^ senaltfve uses, Including but not limited to residential areas, schools, n s". child care facilities, churches and parks. 3. To reduce adverse Impacts from concentration ..of sexually oriented businesses, communities should adopt zoning ordinances • which set distance requirements between liquor establishments and > sexually oriented businesses and between sexually oriented businesses and should consider restricting sexually oriented businesses to one im per building. 4. Communities should require existing businesses to comply with new zoning or other regulation pertaining to sexually oriente d businesses wKhln a reasonable time so that prior uses will conform to new laws. • • IV. UCENSING AND OTHER REGULATIONS •; Licensing and other regulations may also be used to reduce the adverse effects of . sexuaily oriented businesses. The critical requirements which communities must keep -41- • • • •* ff , „ * regulations must be narrowly wafted to address adverse secondarv ecte. th^ must be reasonably related to reduwion of these effects and thev mu«V capable of objective application. If these standards can be met. licensino «W^ry provisions may play an important role in preventing uiiwanted LposJe to • • It Is dear that feflure to act upon a license application for a sexuallv orienferf gratlirifc^ ^ ^ regulauon. Without justilication. denial or l^ure to g Is a poor restraint in violation of the First Amendment Parltwav y,... a,« «. 7„787, * « • . • the ^eSTTSSS *^f "^Xon pictore toeator'lf unconstitutional as a prior restraint of free speech Alexander v citv 5rf c# d^.i N.W^d 370 (Minn. 1975). The Alexander cou^: ^ «rT ~ ^ Cohen v. CItv nf nai«<gi. eas F. Supp. lies, (1^ sa>« o'obscene material cannot Justiiy revocalidn of 0 ori Jrr"' communities to deny lioenses to sexuallv “-oted Of tier closely related to the operation of sexually oriented hi«in«j,9, ^ ®ourt reviewed a requirement that a license the enumerated crimes were held to be not sufficiently related to the purpose of the -42- adult entertainment licensing ordinance because the city had made no findings on their justification. The invalid enumerated offenses were controlled substances act violations, bribery, robbery, kidnapping and organized criminal activity. The court upheld requirements that the licensee not have been convicted of prostitution and sex- related offenses, jd. at 1074. if a community seeks to require that persons with a history of other crimes be denied licenses, clear findings must first be made which justify denial of licenses on that basis. The Dumas court also invalidated portions of the licensing ordinance permitting the police chief to deny a license if he finds that the applicant "is unable to operate oir •. • manage a sexually oriented business premises in a peaceful and law-abiding manner* or is not "presently fit to operate a sexually oriented business.* Neither provision satisfied the constitutional requirement that "any license requirement fbr an activity related to expression must contain narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide?rtr the licensing authority.* jd. at 1072. See also Alexander II. supra, slip op. at ISraA (unconstitutionally vague to define regulated bookstores as those selling "substantial ocre significant portion* of certain publications); 11126 Baltimore Boulevard, supra. 684^0 F. Supp. at 898-99 (striking ordinance allowing zoning officials to deny permit if aduitcw entertainment establishment is not "in harmony ” with zoning plan, does not.i:! "substantially impair* master plan, does not "adversely affect* health, safety and welfare and is not "detrimental* to neighborhood because such standards are "subject v to possible manipulation and arbitrary application ”).• ^ A number of courts have upheld ordinances requiring that viewing booths in adult theaters be open to discourage illegal and unsanitary sexual activity. See, e.o.. Doe City of Minneapolis. 693 F. Supp. 774 (D. Minn. 1988). Licensing provisions and ordinances forbidding massage parlors employees from administering massages to persons of the opposite sex have withstood equal protection and privacy and associational right challenges. See Clamoitt v. City of Ft Wayne . 682 F. Supp. 401, 407-408 (N.D. Ind. 1988) (equal protection); Wiooiness. Inc V. Fruchtman . 462 F. Supp. 681, 689-90 (S.D. N.Y. 1979). af^. 628 F.2d 1346 (2d Cir. 1980), cert deniad . 449 U.S. 842, 101 S.CL 122. However, some courts have found same-sex massage regulations to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of -43- 1964. See Stratton v. Drumm. 445 F. Supp. 1305. 1310-11 (D. Conn. 1978): Ciandolo y^Members of City Counen. 376 F. Supp. 719, 722-24 (E.D. Tenn. 1974); Joseph v. House, 353 F. Supp. 367, 374-75 (E.D. Va.). afTd sub nom. Joseph v. Blair. aq2 D.2d 575 (4th Cir.), cert denied. 416 U.S. 955, 94 S. Ct. 1968 (1974). Contra. Aldred v Puling. 538 F.2d 637 (4th CIr. 1976). ‘ Although the Working Group expressed strong concern about the operation of prostitution under the guise of massage parlors, this type of reguiation is not advisable because iegrtimate therapeutic massage establishments could find their operations curtaiied. Prostitution may be better controlled through prosecution and use of post conviction actions such as forfeiture or enjoining a public nuisance. . r.T;- • In 1985, a court upheld an ordinance making It unlawful to display for comnierdai purposes material "harmful to mirwrs* unless the material is in a sealed wrapper arrd,*tf *** the cover Is harmful to minors, has ah opaque cover. ^^Upoer Midwest Book^wy*^ ^s’n V. City of Minneapolis. 780 F.2d 1389 (8th Cir. 1985). Last year, the legist^ enacted a state law simUarty prohibiting display of sexually explicit material which Is harmful to minors unless items are kept in sealed wrapp^ and, where the coyer^lf*^^ would be harmful to minors,‘within opaque covers. Minn. Stat § 617.293 (1988). ** law has the potential to protect minors from exposure to sexually oriented m^riafs.'^ Communities also have considerable disaetion to regulate signage so that the exterior of sexually oriented businesses does not expose unwitting observers to sexually explicit ' messages. x.... RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Prior to enacting licensing regulations, communities should document findings of adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses and the relationship betwsen these effects and proposed regulations so that such regulations can be upheld If challenged In court • • •• • •« 2. Communities should adopt regulations which reduce the likelihood of criminal activity related to sexually oriented businesses, including but not limited to open booth ordinances and ordinances which authorize denial or revocation of licenses when the licensee has committed offenses relevant to the operation of the business. 3. Communities should adopt regulations which reduce exposure of the community and minors to the blighting appearance of sexually oriented businesses Including but not limited to regulations of signage and exterior design of such businesses and should enforce state law requiring sealed wrappers and opaque covers on sexually oriented material. CONCLUSION There are many actions which communities may take within the law to protect themselves from the adverse secondary effect^ rf sexually oriented businesses. Prosecution of obscenity crimes can play ihe rcla in decreasing the profitability of sexually oriented businesses and removing materials which violate convnunity standards from local outlets. Forfeiture and injunction to prevent public nuisance should be available where sexually oriented businesses are the site of sex*related crimes and violations of laws pertaining to- gambling, liquor or controlled substances. These actions will remove the most egregious establishments from communities. Zoning can reduce the likelihood that sexually oriented businesses will lead to neighborhood blight Licensing can sever the link between at least some cn*me figures and sexually oriented businesses. Regulation and enforcement can protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit materials. The Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses believes that prosecution, seizure of proftts. zoning and regulation of sexually oriented businesses should only be done in keeping with the constitutiortal -45- • • • • requirements of the First Amendment Rational reguiation can be fashioned to protect both our communities and our constitutional rights. • • .• • •»w. •t .•• •. k jl^ •j|, •• •- * • *•^ 1 - -•T**•■5 • •.*• » • •'i . ce*cnq o: wei fvrtjtw S7*tv} v'-«.n •rs' fimiv • • • -i c ’.-erq is: vr -** ^ vr^.T»>r*^ ^ • • • •• • •. •-• •• . •» -4 •• - ^ %•» % •• • ■ . ■ •• • ••~ . :•<? .K-• •• *• •• ** * -. V .•/•r• *m * • ’ "* r s>i '.- *. i ‘4*-;.’s*'^ ••• o’•• • ?*.••*- *:5 . -r; .f, t . • • •. *» •». .; r. :, • • iM '«.••• •• .*1 •# •*-- •. ^ •. •.*:-•/•I > •.. .•»;a-.'T • • • • *■ >• . : . • • -46- fciiiia II Mei~HMiiB~iiairnr 1 H TASK FORCE REI ON SEXUALLY-ORIENTED BUSINESSES Prepared By the Staffs of City of Minnetonka, MN City of St. Louis Park, MN City of Shakopee, MN March 1996 I. INTRODUCTION had varying reasons for its interest in the subject. s,. L.«i. p.*».pPP.-.PP. came into question as the result o» 9 • . challenging ordinance was adopted VeleTasesTealfwIJi ^dnances similar to the SOB'S. s, rsr.V ?pS.. »p ....... regulations. ,n the fall of 1994. St. Louis Park adopted interim ordinances gt Louis Park and Minnetonka City on SOBS -hile a study was ^ Hopk^s Managers met with the ^ j ^Iv and has not participated in this study. sssSpS??.. r s,I-™* ~ Study.OLUU y • The joint study consisted of three components which are summarized in this report: . . _________whichan examination of the broad legal parameters within whichan examincjuuM wi regulations may be adopted. a review of studies in other cities which sexually oriented business on surrounding neighborhoods, and preparation of proposed regulations, based on the experiences and Studies of other similarly situated cities. 1 secondary effects of SOBs. Secondary effects can include, among other things. Increased crime, decreased property values, traffic congestion, noise, litter, and vagrancy. 2. Substantial Government Interest The regulations must be narrowly tailored to advance a substantial governrnent interest The prevention or elimination of undesirable secondary effects of SOBS on citizens and neighborhoods is a substantial 90vernment interest. Before adopting an ordinance, a city does not need to show that SO s a caused or will cause such secondary effects within its own boundaries Instead, a city may rely on the evidence and experience of o^er 'f ^ evidence is reasonably believed to be relevant to its commumty. In addition, a city does not need to prove that a particular type of SOB would have the same adverse effects as the SOBs in the studies on which the city relied. So long as [the adult business ordinance! affects only categories of businesses reasonably believed to produce at least some of the unwanted secondary effects, [the cityl must be ® reasonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems.® 3. Alternative Avenues of Communication The regulations must allow reasonable alternative avenues of A city cannot foreclose all opportunity for an SOB “ “"IXce which boundaries The United States Supreme Court upheld an ordinance which allowed SOBs to locate within 5% of the total area in a city. decisions have used two different measurements for determin.ng that there sufficient area available for SOBs: a. the number of discrete sites available, often measured against the number of SOBs existing in the city, and b. the percentage of commercially-zoned land, rather than the entire city, on which an SOB could locate. A city does not have to show that the property is available for sale or rent, nor does the city have to location can be found in the market. Property will not be considered avartable. hoover! i? physical characteristics make it inaccessable or “ndevetopable or if legal restrictions such as zoning requirements or restrictive covenants make it unusable." Courts interpret the definition of obscenity narrowly because the regulation of obscenity directly regulates the content of speech. A city cannot enact ordinances which define obscenity more broadly. The Minnesota Legislature recognizes that children are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of sexually-oriented materials. As a result, Minnesota law creates another category of materials which is called "harmful to minors." These are any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse when it: 1. predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors; 2. is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to wh.^t is suitable material for minors; and 3. is utterly without redeeming social importance for minors. Minnesota law prohibits the sale or rental of such materials to children, and these materials cannot be displayed in any place where children are likely to be. Businesses may satisfy the law by placing opaque covers on the materials or by segregating them in a separate area with a sign prohibiting children from entering. ENDNOTES 1. Miller v. California, 413 U.S.15 (1973). 2. Young v. American Mini-Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 70-71 (1976); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 537, 562-563 (1980). 3. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46 (1986). 4. Id., at 50. 5. Id., at 50-52. 6. HQ Investments, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413, l<i18 (8th Cir. 1994). 7. City of Renton, supra at 53. 8. Topanga Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F.2d 1524, 1529-1531 (9th Cir. 1993); Woodall v. City of E! Paso, 950 F.2d 255, 258-261 (5th Cir. 1992). 6. 7. more than one SOB in close proximity to another SOB (concentration). The adverse impacts appear to lessen as the distance from the SOB increases (proximity). The larger the establishment, the greater the potential and magnitude of adverse impacts, if more than one kind of SOB activity is located in one building, the adverse impacts are likely to increase, with the same kind of effects as multiple SOB enterprises. Because of the secondary effects identified by these studies in cities similar to the task force cities, it is reasonable to impose narrowly tailored locational and operational restrictions on SOBs in the task force cities. The studies show that businesses with activity on-site have more negative secondary impacts than businesses which sell or distribute materials only for off-site use. As a result, the proposed regulations apply to any business with on-site activity, regardless of the percentage of the business which is sexually-oriented. Businesses with on-site activity include those with live entertainment, movie exhibitions, or peep shows. The proposed regulations designate these enterprises as “high impact businesses." Businesses which sell or distribute material only for off-site use, such as bookstores, video rental stores, and novelty stores, are more problematic. The studies of secondary impacts primarily examined on-site establishments. One type of off-site business was studied: adult bookstores. Cities do not have to show, however, thac the businesses to be regulated have exactly the same characteristics or adverse effects as the adult businesses examined in the studies. Cities may also regulate reasonably similar businesses. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the studies supported regulation of a video and bookstore which offered a mixture of non adult and adult materials and had no facilities for on-premise consumption, although no such business was actually examined. The courts allow cities to experiment with reasonable regulations. Because the studies are not as conclusive with respect to secondary effects from off site establishments, the task force sought a more flexible and understandable method of dealing with these businesses. The task force was aware of the state law which creates the category of materials called "harmful to minors." Merchants can comply with this law by covering the materials which are harmful to minors or by placing thern in a separate room inaccessible to minors. Materials which are "harmful to minors" under the state law appear to be essentially the same materials sought to be regulated under the proposed regulations dealing with SOBs. As a result, the proposed regulations follow this concept. The proposed regulations allow an off-site business to choose whether or not It wishes to be regulated in the same manner as a business with on-site activity. If the business wishes to deal in sexually-explicit materials. It can avoid the more restrictive regulations by either surrounding the materials with an opaque cover or placing them in an adults-only room no larger than 300 square feet. By doing so, the likelihood of secondary impacts and harm to minors is significantly reduced because the regulated materials are not in plain view. If the business elects this option, it will be regulated as a "limited impact business." If the business chooses to use a separate room larger than 300 square feet or has no separate room and does not cover the materials, it will be regulated as a "high impact business". The larger the quantity of materials and the more open they are, the more likely that the business will be perceived by the community as an adult establishment with the opportunity for the kinds of secondary effects noted in the various studies. Limited Impact Businesses: 1. Sexually oriented materials cannot be visible from outside the establishment. 2.No one under the age of 18 is allowed in the separate adults-only area or is allowed to have any contact with sexually oriented materials. 3. 4. Sexually-oriented materials must be sold in original packages. The business cannot have a liquor license, except an off-sale, nonintoxicating license. High Impact Businesses: 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. Sexually oriented materials or entertainment cannot be visible from outside the establishment. No one under the age of 18 is allowed in the establishment or is allowed to have any contact with sexually oriented materials. Sexually oriented materials must be sold in original packages There must be a sign on the main entrance announcing that minors are prohibited from entering. 5. The establishment cannot have a liquor license. The business cannot exceed 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. No person may touch any specified anatomical area of any other person. Live entertainment must be on a stage at least two feet above the audience floor. Each performer must remain six feet away from all members of the audience. No performer may solicit or accept tips. No partitions or booths are allowed, except for restrooms, storage rooms, and offices, unless one side is open to an adjacent public room. The inside area must be brightly lighted so that the area within the partitioned area or booth is clearly visible from the adjacent room. Seating or reclining is prohibited in a partitioned area or booth, except for restrooms, storage rooms, and offices. Only one person can be in the area at a time. V. CONCLUSION The task force members hope that the information provided in this report and study provides the Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, and Shakopee City Councils with sufficient information to consider and evaluate the subject and potential impacts of SOBs, including ^e experiences of other similarly situated communities. With this report as background, each city council must now decide the following: 1. Should SOB regulations be adopted for the city? 2. What secondary effects are the regulations intended to minimize or avoid? 3. 4. Which of the recommended regulations should be adopted? If location requirements are desired, which zoning districts should permit SOBs and what are the appropriate separation distances that will still provide SOBs a reasonable opportunity area to exist? 5.If operational standards are appropriate, should these be imposed through a licensing requirement, as performance standards in the zoning ordinance, or through the public nuisance ordinance? 6.if a licensing requirement is adopted, what will be the amount of the license fee? Respectfully Submitted, Minnetonka:Virginia Finlayson, Planning Technician Desyl Peterson, City Attorney St. Louis Park:Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney* Shakopee:Paul Bilotta, Community Development Director Karen Marty, City Attorney • Also Prior Lake City Attorney ILQ Inveatmcnts. Inc, v. City of Rochester. 25 F.3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994), cert, denied. 63 U.S.LW. 3413 (Nov. 28, 1994). FACTS: ISSUE: HOLDING: The owner of an adult bookstore sued the City of Rochester under a federal civil rights statute for declaratory and injunctive relief. After ILQ opened a bookstore and segregated forty percent (40%) of its floor space into an adults-only area selling sexually explicit books, magazines, and novelty items, the City notified ILQ that the store constituted an "adult bookstore" and an "adult establishment," which violated the City's zoning ordinance because it was located within 750 feet of a "youth facility." ILQ sued to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance on the grounds it violated ILQ's First Amendment and due process rights. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance on grounds ILQ was likely to succeed on the merits of a constitutional challenge to the ordinance because the definition of "adult bookstore" was vague and because the City unreasonably relied on other cities' studies to justify the ordinance and its application to the bookstore. Is ILQ likely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional challenge to the Rochester zoning ordinance? ILQ is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment and due process claim; the preliminary injunction should not have been granted. RATIONALE: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit first found that the adult use ordinance was content-neutral because, in adopting the ordinance, the City had targeted the anticipated impact of adult businesses on their surrounding communities rather that the content of the bookstore's merchandise. The court then examined the legislative history of the ordinance and found that it was designed to serve the substantial governmental interest of curbing unwanted secondary effects of adult businesses. The Eighth Circuit specifically rejected the district court's conclusion that the City was unreasonable in relying on other cities' studies because it did not specifically consider businesses similar to the bookstore in question, i.e., adult bookstores that offer both sexually explicit and non-sexually explicit materials and that allow only off- premises consumption of those materials. Rather, said the court, the studies Identified and measured adverse secondary effects linked to adult businesses generally (e.g., higher crime, neighborhood deterioration, lower property values, and an increase in transients), as well as adverse effects specifically attributable to adult bookstores, A-1 Ambassador Books & Video, fnc. v. City of Little Rock. Arkansas. 20 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1994). cert, denied. 63 U.S.L.W. 3221 (Oct. 3, 1994). FACTS; ISSUE: Operators of an adult bookstore and an adult arcade sued the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, challenging the constitutionality of the City's zoning ordinance, which restricted adult businesses to certain areas of the city. The City had considered reports from other cities detailing the negative secondary effects of adult businesses, then had drafted its ordinance to prohibit such businesses from operating with 750 feet of religious facilities, schools, residential zones, public parks, medical facilities, historical districts or places, and other adult businesses. The ordinance established a three-year amortization period for adult businesses existing in violation of the location and spacing restrictions. The plaintiffs challenged the City's motivations in adopting the ordinance based in part on a memo written by the City Attorney stating the intent to shut down the adult businesses. is the City's zoning ordinance unconstitutional, as a violation of the plaintiff's First Amendment or due process rights, or as a bill of attainder? HOLDING:The City's zoning ordinance is constitutional; it does not violate the First Amendment or deny plaintiff's due process, nor is it an unlawful bill of attainder. RATIONALE: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Little Rock ordinance did not violate the First Amendment because it did not prohibit adult businesses from operating altogether but merely limited their location, and because it targeted the secondary effects of such businesses rather than their content. The court refused to "look behind the legislative findings and policy statements to attempt to discern the hidden (as distinguished from the stated) purpose of the legislation," rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the City Attorney's stated intent to shut down adult businesses showed the ordinance was content-based. The court ruled that the ordinance permitted reasonable alternative avenues of communication, in that there were 97 available relocation sites for adult businesses, and it rejected plaintiffs' argument that the cost of relocation would b« prohibitive on grounds that, under the First Amendment and applicable case law, "the cost factor is unimportant." The plaintiffs' due process challenge also was rejected, on grounds that a business has no absolute right to continue operating at a particular location and the ordinance provided for a three-year amortization A-3 IHolmbero v. City of Ramsev. 12 F.3d 140 (8th Cir. 1993), cert, denied. 63 U.S.L.W. 3220 (Oct. 3, 1994). FACTS:Owner of adults-oniy store selling sexually explicit reading materials and sexual novelties, with on-premises coin-operated adult video machines, challenged the constitutionality of the City of Ramsey's adult use zoning ordinance, which required him to relocate his business. The City adopted an adult use ordinance based on the unwanted secondary effects of adult businesses, which designated two commercial zones where adult businesses could operate, as long as they were located at least 1,000 feet from certain other protected uses. Holmberg's business was located within one of the new zones but was located within 1,000 feet of several protected uses. Accordingly, Holmberg was required to relocate his business within a grace period. ISSUE:Is the City of Ramsey's adult use ordinance constitutional? HOLDING: The City's adult use ordinance is constitutional. RATIONALE: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the City's zoning ordinance was content-neutral, since nothing in the ordinance suggested that the City had adopted it to suppress the message of Holmberg's sexual materials. Next, the court found that the City adopted the ordinance based on studies in other cities showing that sexually-oriented businesses have an adverse impact on surrounding neighborhoods, which satisfied the requirement that the ordinance serve a substantial governmental interest because the City reasonably believed that such studies were relevant to its own problems. ' I Finally, the court found that the ordinance did not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication for Holmberg and his materials, because the ordinance allowed adult businesses access to thirty-five percent (35%) of the City's commercially-zoned land, both developed and undeveloped, much of which was located along major streets Intersecting the central highway and within sight of the highway. The court found no First Amendment violation, "merely because Holmberg must 'fend for (himself)' in the real estate market on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees." A-5 Bukaka. Inc, v. Countv of Benton. 852 F. Supp. 807 (D. Minn. 1993). FACTS:The operator of a live nude dancing restaurant (with no liquor license) sued the County of Benton under a federal civil rights statute to prevent enforcement against it of a development code requirement that the restaurant obtain a conditional use permit to operate. The County notified the restaurant that it could not operate without a CUP because it was a "recreational facility” under the Development Code, defined as "[alny facility, park, or other property intended to be used principally for recreational purposes[.]" Bukaka alleged that the Code violated its First Amendment rights and was overbroad. The County argued that the action was not ripe because Bukaka had never applied for a CUP, nor had it exhausted its administrative remedies by appealing the County's regulation of the restaurant. ISSUE:Should a preliminary injunction issue to protect Bukaka from enforcement of the Code's conditional use permit requirement? HOLDING: Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction granted . RATIONALE: The Court analyzed four factors to determine whether a preliminary injunction was warranted: (1) irreparable harm; (2) balance of the harms; (3) probability of success on the merits; and (4) whether the public interest favored an injunction. The Court found that Bukaka had demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm because the enforcement of the Code wou d chill free expression under the threat of government sanctions. After balancing the harms involved, the Court concluded that, while granting Bukaka a preliminary injunction would impair the County's ability to exercise its police powers through enforcing its zoning ordinance, the threat to Bukaka's First Amendment rights without an injunction was "serious and imminent" and justified injunctive relief. The Court ruled that Bukaka made an adequate showing of probable success on the merits because (a) the Code provided no alternative channels for communication because all "recreational facilities” required a CUP and could be located only in business districts; (b) the vague language of the Code gave County Commissioners unconstitutionally broad discretion; and (c) the Code contained no time limits within which the County must accept or deny a CUP application. Finally, the Court found that, although conflicting public interests were involved, the public interest would be best served by enjoining enforcement of the Code, because Bukaka had made a "strong showing" of likelihood of success on the merits. A - 7 unconstitutional the ordinances' prohibition of advertising because it banned protected speech, even though the speech wee not misleading and did not concern unlawful activity. A-9 city of St. Paul v. Carfone. 419 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). FACTS:The owner of a nude cabaret appealed a temporary ii.jtmotion that prohibited him from operating the establishment in vlolatior. of St. Paul's adult use ordinance. The St. Paul Code defined "adult uses" es uses that are not open to the public generally and that exclude persons under the age of 18 years by reason of age; the Code further required any adult use to obtain a conditional use permit to operate. Carlone argued his establishment was not an adult use because he freely admitted minors. He also argued that the adult use ordinance was facially unconstitutional and that the temporary injunction was overbroad. ISSUE:Did the trial court err in issuing a temporary Injunction restraining Carlone from operating his nude cabaret? HOLDING: The trial court did not abuse its discretion. RATIONALE: The Court of Appeals rejected Carlone's argument that his nude cabaret was not an adult use, since a 1987 statutory amendment making It unlawful to admit minors to such an establishment precluded Carlone from lawfully admitting minors to his establishment. The Court then analyzed the constitutionality of St. Paul's ordinance and implicitly concluded that it was a content-neutral zoning ordinance designed to combat undesirable secondary effects of adult businesses. The Court found that the zoning ordinance was designed to serve the substantial government interest of protecting the City's neighborhoods, and that reasonable alternative avenues of communication were provided because the zoning scheme did not prohibit adult uses, but merely required that they be adequately spaced to prevent potential harm to surrounding neighborhoods. Finally, the Court held that the temporary injunction was not overbroad because it did not prohibit Carlone from using his property In a productive manner, but merely precluded him from using the property as an adult use without obtaining a conditional use permit. A - 11 City of Fridley v. Fantasy House, Inc.. No. C5-91-8733 (Anoka County Dist. Ct. Aug. 17, 1993). FACTS: ISSUE: HOLDING: The City of Fridley brought a declaratory judgment action against Fantasy House for violating its adult use ordinance by operating an adult novelty store too close to a residential use district, a church, and a city park. The City passed its adult use ordinance several months after Fantasy House opened its store in a commercial district and began selling sexually-oriented materials. Is Fridley's adult use ordinance constitutional as applied to adult novelty stores? Although the bulk of the adult use ordinance is constitutional, the section that applied to adult novelty stores was unconstitutional. RATIONALE: The court ruled that the City had failed to show any actual adverse secondary effects from the operation of Fantasy House in Fridley, and also had failed to show that adult novelty businesses like Fantasy House tend to cause the same secondary effects caused by other types of adult businesses. The court distinguished businesses that provide on-site consumption of adult materials from those that do not, noting that the harmful secondary effects cited by the City as justification for its adult use ordinance (i.e., traffic congestion, unusual hours of operation, litter, noise, criminal activity, and greater incidence of sexual crimes) were of a type likely to be caused only by the provision of on site entertainment or services. Significantly, this case was decided before the Eighth Circuit's decision in ILQ Investment s. Inc, v. City of Rochester. The ccurt also addressed the constitutionality of regulations that use a percentage-of-merchandlse measure to determine whether a business is primarily an adult use. The court concluded that such restrictions put the government in the position of focusing on content rather than on secondary effects, since they require someone to make a determination about the content of merchandise before a business can be regulated. Finally, the Court suggested that the alternative avenues of communication available for adult businesses were inadequate. The City had claimed that four percent (4%) of Fridley's total land area was available for adult businesses, but the court found that claim to be misleading, in that some of those areas were not viable relocation sites. The Court did ngi conclude that four percent of the City's total land A- 13 APPENDIX B Summaries of Secondary Impact Studies 4 ' 4 ADULT USE STUDY: Indianapoi'i 4.Sex-related crimes occurred 4 times more frequently within residential study areas than commercial study areas. 5.Housing values in the study areas appreciated at only one-half the rate of the control rate and only one-third the rate of Center Township as a whole. o.75% of national appraisers who responded felt an adult bookstore within 1 block would have negative effect on the value of both residential (80%) and commercial (72%). Half of the respondents thought there would be an immediate depreciation in excess of 10%. 7.71% of appraisers felt that impact of adult bookstore fell off sharply at a distance of three blocks. EXISTING REGULATIONS:None. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. 2. Limit to community-wide commercial districts. Require a special exception (conditional use permit) with appropriate standards to buffer and protect adjacent property. 3. Distance of 500 feet from residential, school, church, park, historic area B-2 r.f— ADULT USE STUDY: Los Angeles in recruiting employees, difficulty in renting space and keeping desirable tenants, neighborhood appearance (litter & graffiti). 4. Based on a comparison of assessed valuations. It cannot be concluded that properties in areas with adult uses have been directly affected. EXISTING REGULATIONS: No zoning regulations RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Distance between each other: 1000 feet 2. Distance from residences, churches, schools, parks, and "the like": at least 500'. 3. Additional regulations for signs. i- K B-4 r ADULT ENTERTAINMENT STUDY SUMMARY CITY, DATE:New York City, 1994 TYPE OF STUDY: 1.Survey of existing studies from Islip, New York; Los Angeles; Indianapolis; Whittier, California; Austin, Texas; Phoenix; State of Minnesota; Times Square Business Improvement District 2. Compared six study areas with six control areas 3. Surveyed local residents and business owners, realtors, and police 4. Reviewed assessed value date and crime data TYPES OF BUSINESSES: Limited to (a) XXX video & bookstores, (b) adult live or movie theaters, and (c) topless or nude bars. Only those which identified themselves as "adult" through signs or other advertizing. Did not include a neighborhood video store that devotes a small area to tripIe-X videos. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS LOCATIONS: Three of the six study areas contained a single adult use. Lesser c oncentrations of adult uses than Times Square. In general commercial areas. FINDINGS: 1.Where there were higher concentrations of adult uses, there were significant negative secondary Impacts: substantially higher incidence of criminal activity in Times Square; rate of increase In assessed property values was slower for blocks where adult uses were located. 2.Couldn't substantiate increase in crime or decrease in property values where there was only one adult use. 3.Community business owners and residents believe that adult uses impact the community negatively, and they fear results of proliferation. Perception Is important because it can become reality. B - 6 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT STUDY SUMMARY CITY, DATE:Phoenix, 1979 TYPE OF STUDY: Compared 3 study areas to 3 control areas TYPES OF BUSINESSES: No definition given DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS LOCATIONS: Study Area 1:4 adult businesses less than 1000 feet away from each other & less than 500 feet from residential Study Area 2 & 3: 1 adult use each FINDINGS: 1. 40% more property crimes in study areas than control areas. 2.6 times the sex crime rate in study areas than in control areas. The majority of sex crimes are indecent exposure. Excluding indecent exposure, the sex crimes were still 3.5 times greater in Area 1 than its control area, and more than 1.5 times greater in Areas 2 and 3 than their control areas. 3.89% of the reported indecent exposure crimes in Study Area 1 were committed at the addresses of adult businesses. 4.Higher number of sex crimes where there is a concentration of adult businesses: 84 more sex crimes in Study Area 1 than Area 2 and 56 more than Area 3. 5. Higher number of sex crimes compared to control areas: 11 times as great in Area 1, 4 times in Area 2, and 3 times in Area 3. EXISTING REGULATIONS: 1. Distance between each other: 1000 feet 2. Distance between adult use and school or residential zone: 500 feet 3. Residential distance may be waived if 51 % of residents within 500 feet oo not object to the location. RECOMMENDATIONS: None B-8 I ADULT USE STUDY: Rochester, MN 9.Pornographic materials are exempt from the protections of the First Amendment and can be regulated through existing or pending criminal laws. 10.Adult entertainment regulations must be tailored to the specific needs of each community as determined through specific findings of o'" potential impacts affecting the public health, safety, or general welfare. 11.Existing local regulation of adult entertainment uses is limited in its scope, is generally incidental to other regulatory provisions, and has never been addressed as part of a comprehensive community plan to regulate such uses. EXISTING REGULATIONS: None RECOMMENDATIONS: See above B-10 ADULT USE STUDY; St. Paul 3.B-3 & 1-1 (outside of downtown): 1320 feet (2 blocks) from each other; 200 from residences B-4 & B-5 (downtown): 300 feet from each other; 100 from residences RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. 2. 7. Change definition to include anatomical areas/sexual activities and delete “adult only.“ Protected uses: houses of worship, day care, public libraries, schools, public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities, fire stations, hotels/motels, community residential facilities, and missions. Include hotels/motels because residential in nature and can become centers of prostitution. Include fire stations because used for bicycle registration and school field trips. Include missions because rehabilitative for problem populations. 3. Distance between adult uses (because negative impacts can go 3 blocks away): Downtown: 1320 (compared to current 300) Outside downtown: 2640 (compared to current 1320) 4. Distance from residential zones: Downtown: 800 (compared to current 200) Outside downtown: 400 (compared to current 100) 5. Distance from protected uses: Downtown: 200 (cf. current 100 which applies only to residential) Outside downtown: 400 (cf. no protected uses) 6. Limit to one type of adult use per building. To avoid concentrations which cause greater negative Impacts. Multi functional uses duplicates a situation of concentration of uses. Allow waiver to distance requirements If not contrary to public interest or injurious to adjacent properties, meets spirit and Intent of ordinance, not enlarge or encourage development of “skidrow “ area, not contrary to any program of neighborhood improvement. B- 12 fc tw Vir*r f/«- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CITY CODE CHAPTER____,___ ADDING A NEW SEC.____ , MINNESOTA, AMENDING , BY , RELATING TO SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES. WHEREAS, the City recognizes the sanctity and fundamental nature of free speech; and WHEREAS, the City does not intend to regulate or ban speech based on content; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the State Attorney General's "Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses" dated June 6, 1989, which details the effects and Impacts of sexually oriented businesses; and WHEREAS, the City also has reviewed and relies upon studies from six cities; and WHEREAS, the City of Is similar to the cities in the Attorney General's study and the studies of six cities, and will experience the same impacts from sexually oriented businesses; and WHEREAS, sexually oriented business have an impact on the neighborhoods surrounding them distinct from the impact caused by other uses; and WHEREAS, residential neighborhoods located within close proximi^ to sexually oriented businesses experience increased crime rates (sex-related crimes in particular), lowered property values. Increased transiency, and decreased stability or ownership; and WHEREAS, the adverse impacts which sexually oriented businesses have on surrounding areas diminish as the distance from the sexually oriented use increases; and WHEREAS, studies of other cities have shown that among the crimes which tend to increase either within or in the near vicinity of sexually oriented businesses are rapes, prostitution, child molestation, indecent exposure and other lewd and lascivious behavior; and C- 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. all sexually oriented materials must be provided for use or entertainment off the business premises only; all sexually oriented materials must be provided from a separate area to which persons under the age of 18 are prohibited access; the separate area may not exceed a maximum of 20% of the retail floor area of the establishment, or 300 square feet, whichever is less; no person outside the separate area shall be able to perceive or observe any sexually oriented materials at any time, including when someone is entering or exiting the separate area, shopping, or purchasing sexually oriented materials; a sign must be displayed on the entrance to the separate area, which shall read: "No person under the age of 18 is allowed In this area." The sign letters shall be a minimum of 2 Inches high; and the entry into the separate area shall be visible to an employee of the business at all times. B."High impact business" means any business with materials or entertainment which are principallv ’ related to sexual stimulation or gratification other than an limited impact business. Examples of a high impact business include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. a business where se.xuaily oriented materials are sold, bartered, distributee, leased, furnished, exhibited, or otherwise provided for use or entertainment on the business premises; a business where specified sexual activities (as defined herein) are explicitly verbally described or shown; a business where specified anatomical areas (as defined herein) are explicitly verbally described or shown; a business providing sexually oriented materials for off-site use or entertainment, which has a separate area but does not meet the size or other restrictions to qualify as an limited Impact businesses; and C - 3 Subd. 3. Prohibition. No person shall operate a sexually oriented business except In conformity with the provisions of this Section. Subd. 4. Location of a Limited Impact Business. An limited impact business may locate in any zone as a part of a permitted or conditionally permitted retail use. Subd. 5. Location of a Hioh Impact Business. A. B. A high impact business may locate only in the zone(s). No person shall operate a high impact business on property, any part of which is within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius of _______feet from any of the uses listed below. Distances shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard to Intervening structures or objects, between the closest points on the property lines of the two uses. This distance requirement applies to the following uses: 1. 2. 3. property developed or zoned for residential uses; property located in a major recreation zone; property frequented by children or designed as a family destination, such as a day care facility, school, library, park, playground, state or federal wildlife area or preserve, religious Institution, and other public recreational facility; 4.premises licensed under City Code Chapter beer and wine licensing; and , relating to liquor. 5. another high impact business. Subd. 6. Operation of Business. A. Both the owner of a sexually oriented business and the manager of the business shall be responsible for the conduct of their employees and for compliance with this Section. B. No owner or manager of a sexually oriented business shall employ a person under the age of 18. C. No owner, manager, or employee of a sexually oriented business shall have been convicted of violating this Section three or more times v/lthin 24 months. C- 5 G. F. Each business shall display a sign on its main entrance door which reads: "This business sells sexually oriented material or entertainment. Persons under the age of 18 are prohibited from entering." The sign letters shall be a minimum of 2 inches high. No business may have a license under Chapter ___of the City Code. and no alcoholic beverages may be consumed in the business. H. No business shall exceed 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. I. No patron, employee, or other person may physically contact any specified anatomical area of himself or herself, or of any other person, except that a live performer may touch himself or herself. J. Each live performer shall remain at all times a minimum distance of ten feet from ail members of the audience, and shall perform on a platform intended for that purpose, which shall be raised at least two feet from the level of the floor on which the audience is located. No performer may solicit or accept any pay, tip, or other item from any member of the audience. K. No business shall have any booths, stalls, or partitions unless such booths, stalls, or partitions have at least one side open to an adjacent public room so that the area inside is visible to persons in the adjacent public room. Such areas shall be lighted in such a manner that the ■ persons inside the booth, stall, or partition are clearly visible from the adjacent public room. Seating or reclining surfaces inside such areas are prohibited. No more than one person may occupy any partitioned area, booth, stall, or other similar area at one time. The restrictions of this paragraph do not apply to restrooms, storage rooms, or private offices of the owner, manager, or employees of the business, if such storage rooms or offices are used solely for running the business and no person other than the owner, manager, and employees is allowed in the storage rooms or offices. Subd. 11. Exceptions. This Section does not regulate the following: A. Any material with significant literary content or social commentary. B. A business where sexually oriented materials are sold, bartered, distributed, leased, furnished, or otherwise provided for off-site use or entertainment, if (1) the material harmful to minors on each item is blocked from view by an opaque cover as required under Minn. Stat. C-7 Attest:City Clerk Approved as to form:City Attorney Published in the , 1996. on the day of C-9 . r ‘>ii-Twnr t ivia'iiian:^ir H M t* ikirvpn SEC. 10.40. B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ''B-l" Retail Sales Business (District) is uuenaea lo 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 business 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 ^ reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-l" Retail Sales Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Retail and Service Businesses. The following neighborhood retail sales and service businesses supplying conunodities 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. Dmgs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. 7. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair. 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 332 (4-1-84) i----- § 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. Mumcipal 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 fimctions 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 Series 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 served their food at a counter in packages.prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is 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 "1 ” District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and .bject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and such other conditio is 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 Stnieture. Oneindependent-ontenna structure; witlrantcnna or combination of ant enna attach ed thereto, subordinate to orid-servieing the principal usc er structure on the same lot and eustema rily iae idental thcfcto that b not atta ched to anothcf at rueturc provided the height ef the ant enna stmeture does net exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure- is-set bock from any let line a distance at least equa l to the total height ef the ant enna structure; Soufcei Ordinan ce No. 177 Effeetivc-Dat et 6-5 -7S (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 anteimas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVRO's, and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antermas. 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. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with 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 maximum height of the anteima. 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. • f .! ORONO CC 335 (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. Accessory 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 fix>m 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 SLX 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 following standards: 1. All exterior wall 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 shall be 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 otlierwise must be in compliance wth 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 structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. ORONO CC 335-2 (4-1-84) aimmiaaaii § 10.41 SEC. 10.41. B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ''B-2" Lakeshore Business District was originally intended to provide areas where limited commercial businesses could be located to service boats used for recreational purposes on Lake Minnetonka. However, many of the operators of the lakeshore businesses have stripped the trees and vegetation from the shorelands and have expanded the operations so that now the "B-2" Lakeshore Business Districts adversely affect the lake water quality and the real estate values of adjoining properties. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide regiilation of these businesses in a manner that will insure protection of adjacent residential properties which have previously suffered from the unregulated expansion of commercial activities, while protecting and enhancing the quality of the lake and shoreland environment. Subd. 2. Definitions. A. "Marina Business" means engaging in one or more of the permitted, accessory or conditional uses allowed within the B-2 Lakeshore Business District. B. "Charter Boat" is a watercraft carrying passengers for hire on Lake Minnetonka and which is required to hold a Certificate of Registration from the LMCD. Subd. 3. License Required. Each marina business within the "B-2" Lakeshore Business District shall obtain an annual marina business license per the provisions of the Orono Municipal Code. Subd. 4. Application. All applications for a building permit within the "B-2" Lakeshore Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission and/or a specially appointed Lake Use Committee for review. Subd. 5. Permitted Uses. Within the "B-2" Lakeshore Business District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Rental of in-water boat slips. B. Sales of boats, motors, trailers and marine accessories. C. Repair and servicing of boats. D. On-land storage of boats, winter and summer. E. Marine fuel sales. F. Bait and fishing tackle sales. ORONO CC 336 (1-23-95) § 10.41 Subd. 6. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-2" Lakeshore Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Signs. Signs as regulated in this chapter. B. Boat head pumpout/ sanitary boat waste dumping facility. C. Fishing tournaments, subject to the "large assembly" license requirements of Section 5.25 and/or the "special event" permit requirements of Section 6.08. D. Sale of pre-packaged foods or food from vending machines. Prepackaged food includes only food which has been professionally prepared at a location other than on the premises and does not include "full-course meals" or any food preparation other than warming by use of an infra-red or micro-wave oven. Sale of food from vending machines is allowed. E. Dive shops. F. Clubhouse (assembly/lounge/kitchenette area for use by slip rental or "boat club" customers only). G. Lessons/teaching (sailing schools, etc.). H. Rental of boats. I. Sailboard sales/rental. J. Ice boating sales/rental/service and operations base. K. Ice fishing tackle sales. L. Cross-country ski sales/rental/servicc. Subd. 7. Conditional Uses. No conditional use permit shall be granted unless the property is found to be in compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements of this Section. All conditional use permit applications shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.09 of this chapter. Within any "B-2" Lakeshore Business District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Boat Clubs (time share). Applicant shall demonstrate that adequate parking is available on the site. ORONO CC 337 (1-23-95) § 10.41 B. Public boat launching, On-Demand (On-demand launching of customer- owned boats stored on the business site). Applicant shall demonstrate that adequate parking is available on the site. Approval shall be subject to LMCD permit for such use, but City shall not be obligated to approve such use if approved by LMCD when parking is inadequate. C. Public Boat Launching, Transient. (Launching ofboats via a ramp or other means for or by customers when such boats are not stored on the site). Applicant shall demonstrate that adequate car-trailer parking is available on the site. Hours of operation shall be at Council discretion. • D. Charter boat port of call. A charter boat port of call shall be defined as a location where a charter boat may pick up passengers other than the owner or operator or employees of the charter boat, whether or not the charter boat is normally berthed on the property. The City may place appropriate conditions on a charter boat port of call regarding minimum parking requirements, hours of operation, etc. as may be appropriate to protect public interest. Applicant shall demonstrate to Council that all such conditions are met E. One caretaker dwelling unit subject to conditions and limitations for such use that ma> be imposed by the City Council. Subd. 8. Parking Requirements. Within the "B-2 ” Lakeshore Business District the ofif-street parking facilities shall be sufficient to eliminate any traffic or parking congestion likely to be caused by the business conducted. The parking areas need not be paved, but shall be provided with appropriate stormwater runoff qualit>'/quantity controls as may be required in this chapter. The minimum parking requirements shall be as follows: A. Six parking spaces shall be provided for each ten boat slips on water or on land. B. At least eight ofif-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 feet, including warehousing, and all outside sales and storage areas related to the sales and service functions. C. If the proposed use is to include the launching of boats owned by the public for the day firom trailers (i.e. Public Boat Launching, Transient), ten additional auto-trailer parking spaces shall be provided for each ramp. D. If the proposed use is to include a charter boat port of call, one additional parking space for each 3 seats of gross charter capacity shall be provided, or a plan for off-site parking and shuttle service shall be provided to the City subject to Council approval. ORONO CC 338 (1-23-95) § 10.41 E. The required parking spaces may not be separated by a public roadway from the dock, a storage space, mooring space, floor space, or ramp they are designed to serve. F. Required off-street parking space may not be utilized for open storage of goods or for the storage of boats, except that during the winter storage season each year, the requi'red off-street parking may be used for winter storage of boats provided that 20% of the required parking spaces remain as a functional parking area. During the transition seasons (April 15 to May 31 and September 16 to November 15), adequate parking shall be maintained on the site, sufficient to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, but in no case shall parking be reduced to less than 20% of the required spaces. ..... G. Parking may not be allowed in any required yard or landscaping area. H. Employee parking spaces shall be in addition to the parking spaces required above. The number of employee parking spaces shall be designated on an ofQcial parking plan to be kept on file with the City. I. Where these minimum parking requirements prove to be inadequate for a given use, additional parking may be required in order to continue that use. Subd. 9. Yards. The minimum required yard areas for the district shall be landscaped and planted with evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees in accordance with a detailed landscape plan. Storage of boats, vehicles, equipment and materials shall not be allowed within any required yard. Subd. 10. Landscaping Areas. In addition to the landscaping required in the required yard areas for the district, the following landscaping areas shdl be landscaped in accordance with the following provisions: A. The minimum landscaping areas shall be as follows: 1. The lakeshore landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the entire lakeshore adjacent to the licensed marina operation and equal to 10% of the average lot depth, but in no case shall it be less than 10 feet nor more than 75 feet. Breaks in the landscaping area for access to the lake shall not exceed an aggregate width of 30 feet for each marina operation. 2. Side yard landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the side lot line and not within the lakeshore landscaping area or front yard landscaping area and shall not be less than 10 feet deep. ORONO CC 339 (1-23-95) § 10.41 m 3. Front yard landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the street or opposite the lakeshore landscaping area and shall not be less than 10 feet deep. Breaks in the landscaping area for access to the public road shall not e.xceed an aggregate width of 50 feet for each marina operation. B. The detailed landscape plan for each landscaping area shall provide for a natural woods area containing primarily evergreen and deciduous trees not less than six feet in height. Shrubs not less than two feet in height shall be interdispersed among the trees so as to eventually provide, at maturity, a natural screen that will not be less than 50% opaque during the summer months. No uses shall be allowed in the landscaping area except the required landscaping and access roads. A privacy fence may be required in addition to the natural landscaping which has been planted to meet the requirements of this district. The use of any fencing shall not satisfy the requirements of providing natural landscaping and solid visual screening. Any yard area requiring landscaping to meet the requirements of this district shall be planted with nursery stock, balled and bagged trees and shhibs. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition. C. All the required improvements in the landscaping will be completed prior to the date of issuance of an occupancy certificate or as otherwise provided by this Chapter, whichever date occurs first. D. All landscape areas shall be sufficiently delineated by berming, curbing, or other acceptable physical barrier so as to eliminate the encroachment of vehicle parking, winter and summer boat storage, and other materials or equipment storage into the required landscape areas. E. All groundcover in the required landscaping areas shall be natural living materials, such as grass or other planted groundcover. Decorative rockbeds and the like, whether or not lined with plastic, fabric or other weed inhibitors, shall constitute no more than 10% of the required landscape areas. 11. Additional Performance Standards. Within the "B-2" Lakeshore Business District any land use must meet the following performance standards; A. Suitable sanitary facilities connected to public sanitary sewer shall be provided on the premises for men and women, and further, suitable facilities shall be provided for the disposal of wastes accumulated in boats docked or serviced at the marina, including head pumpout facilities and a designated porta-potty dump station. B. Insofar as practicable, all means of access to the operation from any street shall be so located and designed as to avoid the routing of vehicles from the property over streets that primarily serve abutting residential areas. All access roads from the operation to any public ORONO CC 340 (1-23-95) ! i _____J § 10.41 paved roadway shall be paved for a distance of at least thirty feet adjacent to the public roadway to minimize dust and noise conditions. All access roads from the operation to any unpaved public roadway shall be treated to minimize dust conditions at least to the extent the unpaved public roadway is dust controlled. C. All lighting on the premises shall be shielded so that no direct glare can be seen from adjoining residences, from the lake or from the roadway. D. The hours for running engines or operating any boat engine for the purpose of charging batteries, running auxiliary equipment or testing shall be between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Noise shall be limited per the provisions of the Zoning Chapter. E. The maximum hours of operation for retail sales and service functions shall be 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., except as necessary to support normal (non-tournament) fishing activity or private (non-charter) use of the boats stored on the premises, unless other permission is specifically granted by the Council. F. Persons in charge shall at all times keep the docks, sea walls, and premises in a neat and orderly manner and free from trash, rubbish, repair parts, machinery, equipment and debris of all kinds. G. Persons in charge shall prohibit the dumping or throwing of garbage, paper, bottles, cans, refuse or debris into waterway. Persons in charge of mooring area shall provide garbage cans of sufficient size to hold garbage or refuse to be collected. Dumpsters shall be screened so as to not be visible off-site. H. No commercial docks or boat buoys shall extend further into the waters of any lake than is reasonably necessary to accommodate the docking and mooring of such craft as shall customarily and lawfully be used on the lake or so as to interfere with, obstruct, or tend to obstruct, or render dangerous for use or passage a body of water within the primary harbor limits of the City. The length of docks and location of buoys shall be regulated by the City Code. All such commercial docks and wharves shall be constructed and maintained of such materials and of such type of construction as will not render them unsafe or likely to endanger public enjoyment of the waters. The use of non-encased expanded-bead polystyrene foam as a dock flotation material has been prohibited elsewhere in the municipal code. Commercial docks shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. 1. If on-Iand boat storage facilities are provided, the boats shall be stored in such manner that they do not create a fire hazard. Any outside structures for purpose of storage of boats may not exceed 15 feet in height. On-land boat storage areas mny not be located in the required yards or landscaping areas. The premises shall at all times be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. ORONO CC 341 (1-23-95) i-. § 10.41 J. Any gasoline offered for sale or stored on the premises shall be placed in tanks or containers as may be required by the Council, and as required in Municipal Code Section 9.34. Such tanks or containers shall be stored in such a manner and location so as not to create a danger to the community. K. On-land boat density. 1. Summer boat density. The number ofboats stored on the premises for any and all reasons shall not exceed that number which can be safely stored in allowable locations while maintaining appropriate ingress, egress and emergency access to the site, as well as maintaining the required number of acceptable parking spaces. Boats shall not be stored in required auto parking spaces during the summer months (June 1 thru September 15). 2. Winter boat density/storage. The number ofboats stored on the premises for any and all reasons during the winter season (November 16 thru April 14) shall not exceed that number which can be safely stored in allowable locations while maintaining ingress, egress and emergency access to the site, as well as maintaining the required number of winter parking spaces. 3. A site plan designating the location of summer and winter boat storage shall be submitted for Council approval no later than three months after adoption of this section and shall require Council approval for any future revisions. Subd. 12. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. in height. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet B. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: I 1. Lot Area - 2 acres. 2. Lot Width Parallel to Lake - 200 feet. 3. Lot Width Perpendicular to Lakeshore - 200 feet. 4. Lakeshore Yard - 75 feet 5. Side Yard -10 feet 6. Front Yard Along Street - 30 feet Subd. 13. Setback, Hardcover and Tree Removal Regulations. All property in the B-2 Lakeshore Business District is subject to the requirements of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Shoreland Management. In addition, the following standards shall apply: A. Lakeshore Setback Regulations. The building setback from the shoreline shall be 75 feet. ORONO CC 342 (1-23-95) § 10.41 B. Setback to Residential. No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the boundary of an adjoining property line which property is used for residential purposes. C. Setback Along Streets. No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the right-of-way of any existing street, road or highway. D. Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations. Within 75 feet of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. E. Tree Removal Regulations. No trees within 75 feet of the shoreline with the diameter of six inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit firom the Council. Tree removal and other vegetation management shall be in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56. - Subd. 14. 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 any time a new use is applied for, whether through subdivision, variance, conditional use permit or building permit. Such plans shall be provided 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 stormwater runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Construction of facilities to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff may be required. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise, must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan, Shoreland Management Regulations, Flood Plain Management Regulations, and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions, and is further subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Subd. 15. Non-Conforming Use. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any non-conforming use of land not involving a structure and any non-conforming use involving a structure with an assessor’s fair market value on January 1,1975, of $3,000.00 shall be allowed to continue as a non-conforming use subject to the provisions as set forth in Section 10.03. Subd. 16. Variances. Variances may be granted to the provisions of this Chapter in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 10.08. ORONO CC 342-1 (1-23-95) § 10.41 Subd. 17. Variances For Required Landscaping Areas. The Council may grant a variance allowing a four year installation and planting period to meet the requirements of the landscaping and planting provisions hereof, to any applicant who; A. Submits a detailed landscape plan showing sufficient planting and landscaping in each of the four years in order to provide at the end of the four years a natural screen that will not be less than 50% opaque during the summer months and not less than 25% opaque in winter. B. Submits four year planting and landscaping plan vriiich shall provide that in year of the plan, at least 25% of the necessary landscaping and planting (as determined by the Council as of May 1, 1995) be planned, and completed for each required landscaping area according to the other provisions of this Chapter. The Council may vary this requirement in order to allow a higher percentage of the landscaping and planting in any required landscaping area and credit the applicant for the landscaping and planting which otherwise would be required in other landscaping areas. Subd. 18. Regulation of Structures Within the Lake. Adoption by Reference. The City hereby adopts by reference and makes a part of this Chapter as if fully set forth herein, the following: Chapter U of the LMCD Code as codified on May 27,1988 including sections 2.001 through 2.12 and subsequent amendments. The City expressly reserves the right to deny any variance to the provisions of Chapter II as amended, even though the same variance was granted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Subd. 19. Reference to Other Ordinances. Section 10.41 is expressly conditioned upon the effectiveness of the Ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District pertaining to marina regulations and if all or a portion of such Ordinances are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, no marina shall have a longer dock, more boat slips or more host buoys than what was permitted by the terms of that ordinance on the date it was declared invalid, or than was last approved by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, whichever is less. The City expressly reserves the power to be more restrictive in its regulation than the Lake Mmnetonka Conservation District Ordinances if the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Orono so requires. Source: Ordinance 132,2nd Series Adopted: January 23, 1995 ORONO CC 342-2 (1-23-95) § 10.42 SEC. 10.42. B-3 SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-3" Shopping Center Business District is intended to establish provisions for the designating of a district where a multiple building retail sales and service facility with integrated design and a coordinated physical plan, appropriately located, may be erected. Such district shall be developed as a unit according to an approved plan as provided below. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. The owner or owners of any tract of land in the "B-3" Shopping Center Business District may submit to the Council a plan for the use and development of all of such tract for the purposes of and meeting the requirements set forth in this Section. The proposed plan shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report. The Planning Commission shall transmit to the Council their findings and recommendation for consideration and action. Subd. 3. Single Control. In order that the purpose of this district may be realized, the land and buildings and appurtenant facilities shall be in single ownership or under management or supervision of a central authority. Subd. 4. Permitted Uses. Within the "B-3" Shopping Center Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the uses permitted in the "B-1" District. Subd. 5. Conditional Uses. Within any "B-3" Shopping Center Business District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Uses. One or more of the conditional uses as permitted and regulated in the "B-l" District, except for "Restaurants (Class II)". B. Shopping Center Identification Sign. Subd. 6. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-3" Shopping Center Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-l" District. Subd. 7. Area, Height, Yard, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres. B. Floor Area Ratio. A 28 FAR will be required so that the gross leasable area shall not exceed 28% of the total land area available. ORONO CC 343 (4-1-84) -usidHsatfaBidufiutfuaaa ouiiiaaiM § 10.42 C. Open Spaces. The physical design may include more than one building; however, should such building provide an open space betw'een two buildings, said space shall be not less than one-half the sum of the heights of the two buildings. D. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. E. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet. F. Side Yards. The nimimum side yard shall be five feet. Side yard adjacent to ”R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 20 feet. G. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 60 feet to any lot line; except when abutting or across the street from an ”R” District, no building shall be less than 100 feet from such lot line. H. Landscaping. The entire area shall be landscaped, occupied by buildings or structures or parking areas so treated as to control dust. Should the development be undertaken in stages, all of the area required to conform to that portion undertaken shall be developed to meet the preceding requirements. A minimum of 12% of the entire area shall be devoted to green space. I. Drives. The design shall include adequate internal circulation drives not less than 22 feet in width which are exclusive of the required parking area. J. Curb Cuts. The driveway curb cuts to the development shall not exceed 26 feet in width, 5 feet return curb radii, and be located not less than 60 feet from all intersecting streets. K. 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 and City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. L. Fencing. Wherever a "B-3 ” Shopping Center Business District abuts or is across the street from an "R" District, an adequate fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than sbe feet in height shall be erected. When adjacent to a street, it shall not be less than three feet nor more than four feet in height. ORONO CC 344 (4-1-84) § 10.42 M. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G. N. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.43. B-4 OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-4'' Office and Professional Business is intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general public. 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-4" Office and Professional District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-4" Office and Professional Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. B. Offices. Professional offices and offices of the general nature. C. Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only. D. Banks and Insurance Offices. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-4" Office and Professional Business District no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Nursing Homes, Hospitals. Nursing homes, hospitals, rest homes or retirement homes, provided the site shall contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated and that no building be located less than 35 feet from the side lot line. B. Schools. Private academies, schools, trade schools, colleges and universities for teaching. ORONO CC 345 (4-1-84) t : • i i I •d § 10.43 C. Research Centers. D. Veterinary Clinics or Kennels. Animal hospitals, clinic or kennels. E. Libraries. F. Museums. G. Galleries, Etc. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries and playhouses. • . . H. Restaurants (Class I). Restaurants which are located within and mainly servicing an office building providing there is no outside display or advertising of the restaurant use. I. Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B” or ”1" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the- "B" or'T' District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. J. Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electrical transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Source: Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-4" Office and Professional Business District the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1" District. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum ffont yard shall be 20 feet D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet and imless the rear yard has access from a public street or alley, a side driveway of 12 feet shall be provided to assure access. ORONO CC 346 (4-1-84) 5 I i § 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-4" Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R” District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. Subparagraph G. G. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, 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 structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) § 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5” Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real estate office. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-S" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. 3. Tailor shop. 4. Pressing and shoe shine shop. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) § 10.44 5. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. ------Home and garden equipment rental .■ Deleted via Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series Effective Date 10-28-96) 7. Veterinary clinic. 8. Kennels. 9. Coffee or bagel retail stores, subject to the following conditions: a. No more than 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail stores. b. No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exceed 2,000 s.f of gross floor area, A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall not exceed 4,000 s.f of gross floor area. c. The number ofincremental parking spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use shall be calculated using the zoning code parking requirement standard for restaurant uses. Applicant shall demonstrate that the total parking needs for the site will be met. d. An individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall be limited to a maximum of 45 seats. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall be limited to a maximum of 60 seats. Source: Ordinance 170,2nd Series Adopted: 3-23-98 B. 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 "1" 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 other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Source: Ordinance 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 1 ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) § 10.44 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood 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 of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. £. 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. 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 3 5 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. F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-5'' Limited Neighborhood 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 following standards: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precase concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or. ORONO CC 350 (4-1-84) §10.44 (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal- framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. (e) Other materials as may be 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 shall be 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 relations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 I. Height No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Source: Ordinance No. 188 Effective Date: 11-22-76 ORONO CC 351 (4-1-84) § 10.45 SEC. 10.45 B-6 fflGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. 1. Puipose. The purpose of the B-6 Highway Commercial District is to provide a commercial district specifically tailored to accomplish the commercial development objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Application. All applicants for a building permit in any ''B-6'' Highway Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District,-no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Offices (business and professional). B. Banks and financial institutions. C. Libraries. D. Motels, and hotels. E. Restaurants (Class I). Deleted via Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series Effective Date; 10-28-96 Subd. 4. Relationship with Chapter 10.53 Planned Unit Development. Other types of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned unit development process. Applications that include commercial uses within the Highway 12 Corridor shall assume the B-6 District as the underlying zoning district. Subd. 4.1. Conditional Uses. A. ^^thin any "B-6" Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Restaurants (Class I). 2. The following uses when such use includes a drive-thru condition: a. Offices (business and professional). b. Banks and fmancial institutions. c. Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. Source: Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series Effective date: 10-28-96 ORONO CC 351-1 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) § 10.45 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1" Business District. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements and exceptions contained in Section 10.52 of this Title. A. Lot Area: • •two acres B. Lot Width:100 ft. C. Setback - Principal Structure: Front 30 (35) ft. Side Interior 10(35) ft. Side Street 30 (35) ft. Rear 30 (35) ft. D. Setback - Accessory Structure Front 30 (35) ft. Side Interior 10(35) ft. Side Street 30 (35) ft. Rear 30 (35) ft. E. Setback - Parking Front 15 (20) ft. Side Interior 5 (10) ft. Street Side 10 (15) ft. Rear 10 (10) ft. • f I • i ! Setbacks in parentheses apply adjacent to all residential districts. *30 (35) feet or 1 1/2 times the building height whichever is greater in determining front setbacks for principal and accessory structure only. F. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council ORONO CC 351-2 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) § 10.45 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. G. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. H. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. The following minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting: Overstory Deciduous Trees 2-1/2 inches in diameter Ornamental Trees 1-1/2 inches in diameter Coniferous Trees 6 feet tall Major Shrub Plantings 5 gallons I. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible firom writhin the principal structure, or totally screened firom eye-level view firom public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accessory structures are proposed, they shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily served through swinging doors. J. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. K. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened fi'om contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the urincipal structure. L. External loading and service areas must be completely screened firom the ground level view firom contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. M. The light firom automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows. Source: Ordinance 67,2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 (Sections 10.46 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 351-3 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) . § 10.50 SEC. 10.50.I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "I" Industrial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Processing, Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as listed hereafter: 1. Apparel. 2. Artificial limbs. 3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be subject to a conditional use permit. 4. Bakery, commercial. 5. Bicycles and toys. 6. Boats and marine products. 7. Bus, truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. 8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and mill works, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 11 . Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engraving and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. Laundries, commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 21. Musical instruments. 22. Novelties. 23. Paper products. 24. Pharmaceutical products. 25. Products made of glass, cellophane,leather, plastic, wood. 26. Shoes and footwear. ORONO CC 352 (4-1-84) § 10.50 27. Sporting equipment. 28. Television, radio and appliances. 29. Tools, hardware and small metal products. 30. Warehousing. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. A. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses except by conditional use permit: ... 1. Accessory structures. 2. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. 3. Heliports as an accessory use for that property. 4. Motor fuel stations. 5. Open sales lots. 6. Outside storage. 7. Public service structures. 8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or freight houses. 9. Research laboratories. 10. Residence necessary for security and safety in relation to a permitted use or conditional use. 11. Restaurants (Class I) which are located in and mainly servicing the personnel employed in that structure. 12. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.51. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 D. Antenna Struetufc. One independent antenna stnieture, with antenna-of combination of antenna sitached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customahW incidental thereto that is not ottached t6 another stmeture provided the height ftf the nntewnn atnKn^y»^does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna stnieture is set back from any lot line a dhtanec at least equal to the total height of the antenna stmetufc. (Source! Ordinance No. 177; Effective Datet Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONO CC 353 (4-1-84) § 10.50 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any'T' Industrial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-l’" District. Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres. B. Building Area. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants. C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60% will be permitted. D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. E. Building Setback and Yards. 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated as 1: nited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectors, minor or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building setback fix)m that street of not less than 75 feet. 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer than 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and the rear wall has no openings, buildings or stmetures may be constructed to within 10 feet of a rear property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property line than a distance equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Where the district abuts or adjoins an ”R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than 100 feet. ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84) § 10.50 F. Building Design and Construction. The 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 following standards: 1. All e.xterior wall 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, glass, prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic; provided that if any wall of the building or structure faces a street or abuts an "R" District, then that wall shall have at least one-third of its surface of materials other than prefinished metal and the remaining walls shall have at least one-fifth of their surfaces of materials other than prefmished metal; or, (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuild ings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearzince. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the projjerty except as accessory to and during the construction of pemianent buildings. G. Off-Street Parking. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, off-street parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. Parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and landscaped, and shall be maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. No parking area shall occupy any required setback except on lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages. On lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages, 50% of the required setback from one of the streets, designated as a thoroughfare, collector, minor, or secondary street and not adjoining a residential district, may be occupied for parking purposes only; provided, however, that parking shall not be located within the required setback area in front of the building. No parking shall be located closer than ten feet to a side or rear lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any building. Each pmking space shall have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty feet exclusive of aisles and maneuvering space. All parking areas containing more than sbc spaces which ORONO CC 355 (4-1-84) I) § 10.50 face either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen planting approved by the Council may be substituted for the required wall or fence. H. Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-fourths ton capacity or railroad cars, shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Those facilities, hereby designated as "loading facilities", shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. Amount Required. Loading facilities of sufficient number to provide for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory use. The exact number required will depend on the nature of the principal and accessory use and the type of transport service used, but in no event shall there be less than one truck transport loading facility for each 50,000 square feet' building floor area or major fraction thereof. 2. Design. A loading facility includes the dock to or from which the transport vehicle is being unloaded or loaded and the berth for the vehicle while it is being loaded or unloaded, and the maneuvering areas needed to maneuver the vehicle into or out of its berth. All docks shall be located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use and they shall be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a vehicle during the ^ ii> s • iing in the berth. All berths shall be screened from view from the property's street i... ntojcj ••>1 a solid wall of not less than ten feet in height. Such walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot. At least one and not less than 50% of the required number of truck transport loading berths shall be not less than 50 feet in length, 14 feet in width and 15 feet in height. All truck transport berths and maneuvering areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material properly drained and maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. 3. Location. Loading berth.s shall not be located on a street frontage unless located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use. Where located on a street frontage, they shall be completely enclosed. No berth shall be located within the required side or rear yards. All berths shall be physically separated from areas used for off-street parking except for connecting driveways or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be located within ten feet of a side or rear property line. 1. Storage. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more than three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permitted parking areas. ORONO CC 356 (4-1-84) § 10.50 J. Landscaping. All open areas of any site, lot, tract or parcel shall be graded to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with the planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the owners' responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained. K. 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. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 SEC. 10.51. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish provisions for the granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an over-all design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as provided hereafter. Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. The owner or owners of any tract of land within an "I" District may submit to the Council for approval a plan for the development and use of such a tract of land for a Planned Industrial District for commercial or other uses permitted in the district within which the land is located by making an application for a conditional use permit authorizing completion of the development in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein amended. Subd. 3. Size Required. The tract of land for which a development is proposed and a permit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres. Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall be served by the City water and sewer system when available and fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plan approved by the Fire Chief as to type and location. ORONO CC 357 (4-1-84) 0^ % § 10.51 Subd. 5. Drainage. A surface drainage system shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. Subd. 6. Parking. The off-street parking spaces shall be painted on the surfaced area according to a plan which has received approval of the Planning Commission and the Council. Subd. 7. Roadways. Private roadways within the project shall have an improved surface of 24 feet or more in width and shall be so designed and constructed as to permit the City fire trucks to provide protection to each building. Parking on a 24 foot roadway is to be prohibited; parking shall be permitted on one side of a 30 foot roadway. Subd. 8. Variances. It is the intent of this Section, Industrial Unit Plan, to provide a means to allow substantial variance from the provisions of this Chapter including uses, setbacks, height, and similar regulations but not including parking requirements, off-street loading, necessary screening and the like. Variances may be granted for the industrial unit plans provided: A. Certain regulations contained in this Chapter do not realistically apply to the proposed development due to the unique nature of the proposed development; B. The variances, if granted, would be fully consistent with the general intent and purpose of this Chapter; C. The planned community unit would produce development and an enviroiunent of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this Chapter; D. The variances will not constitute a threat to the property values, safety, health, or general welfare of the owners or occupants of adjacent or nearby land nor be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the people of Orono; E. The proposed development is of such a unique nature as to require consideration under conditions of the industrial unit plan; and, F. It shall be determined that the variances are required for reasonable and practicable physical development according to a plan and are not required solely on the basis of financial considerations. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 (Sections 10.52 through 10.54, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 358 (4-1-84) I ‘ t I : . I ■ \ TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Member Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 8,1999 SUBJECT: #2528 David & Patricia Yorks 2825 Casco Point Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 Acre) 14,835 s.f. (.34 acres) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements: Within 75’-250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 3,919.76 s.f. (45.4»'o) where 4,701.76 s.f. (54.5%) exists, and 1,725.2 (25%) is allowed in the 75'-250' setback area. Application Summary: The applicant has proposed to remove old rotting steps on the rear of the residence. They will be replaced with maintenance free steps and a covered porch entry. The new steps and covered entry decreases the amount of hardcover in the 75'-25C setback area. Also, the applicant has removed landscape plastic on the west and south sides of the house decreasing the amount of hardcover in the 75-250' area. The applicant seeks approval of a variance for hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area where 4,701.76 s.f. (54.5%) exists, 3,919.76 s.f. (45.4%) is proposed and 1,725.2 s.f. (25%) is allowed. U2528 David/Patricia Yorks 2825 Casco Point Road Variance 10/8/99 page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IC (.5 acre)Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f.100* Existing 14,835 s.f.60’ Hardcover Calculations : Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0'-75'5,100 s.f.(0%) 0%260 s.f. (5.1%)260 s.f. (5.1%) No change 75’-250'8,626.45 s.f. 1,725.2 s.f. (25%) 4,601.76 s.f. (54.4%) 3,919.76 s.f. ! (45.4%) Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 14,835 s.f.Allowed: 2,225.25 s.f (15.0%) Existing: 2,215.8 s.f (14.8%) Proposed: 2,215.8 s.f (14.8%) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. #2528 David & Patricia Yorks 2825 Casco Point Road 10/8/99 Variances page-2 :t (I ■| - a: Tssues for Consideration: 1, The amount of hardcover will be decreased. Also, the applicant has removed all plastic under rock on the west and south sides of the house to decrease the hardcover amount. There is no more plastic that can be removed from landscaping. 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends approval of the variance for lakeshore hardcover in the 75'-250' setback. Attachments A .Application B Site Plan/Survey C Plat Map D Location Map E Hardcover Worksheets F Property Owner's List G Elevations/Landscape Plan H Permit Record H2528 David/Pairicia Yorks 2825 Casco Point Road Variance 10/8/99 page-5 i ■ nrialtf»a ■ 1-^11 ft Application # Date Received <y^ Amount Paid ,n- 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION T^'nJi ______ .LD.) W W/7 -• -St. - CCCP> i<^tio Site Address__ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_________________________________________ Attach legal description to appli<5ation if not included on required survey. ^ Date Prweity Acquired, I (do) <j^np^) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present useof property: residentiai ___pother (specify)_______ Zoning District: L^-lC____ .(month/year) Phone (home ) /^I7.- 4-~7 I *~1 QWjlp MJiQ PArCirJfit Phone (work ) b\Z- ^>40\ Pf7 gr^aA^>Citv: Zip: BS3'^\ APPLICANT Name__ _______ Adc ress: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: €90DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ SO. or:>o Describe request in detail: V\jn/L‘iiu VJl\W OMrJiO Ak (o MAtV/p^/v/v:^ IP Sh^i^eoessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area Lot Width tx^ardcover ___^Lot Coverage ^ I: Setback: Other (specify) Front Side Rear Average Lakeshoi HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventin compliance with Zoning Code requirements: V^:g.y Ijyf'.____________________!____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to he 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 8 Vi" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (i>rovide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true^d correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpoac^i^uwe^ga^n and verficati< Owner’s Signature Date V y"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 reriew 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. •■UV" ■' . .. ‘•V . w • / - A ■;i-• * ••• .C#^ •• ;■ •> •^4’ A • .•r 1' •• ■ •*. .V •• •:.-..•j • ■• .* of Sorrn’ . vr; :: /: for IkTid J« .-lorks . ^iKSCt- of Lot 117, Sprliig Htnaopin Conatgr, MisoMBOid .' ' ... • *. . V- *' ; V V i:. I. •. »v ' f» V Certiileate et Swmjt I hBrdlijr Mirttiy that t}^ v 1b a tmo ahd eorraet rt]^- (< \l\// aantatloa of a aorvaj of;t^- ' '.-^v ' boundartOB of Lot 117,' fiprlsg^ ::>^r Park. ‘ “* / ? '"'^ka hhon and that twaan aald.^t^^ aTasrajarani the ahoi» .9fciy|ir;)tfTmafa^ * of Lake Mlunatonila, and* of iha ^ Vi location of all boildisga .tbanoB., and all Ylalhlo Bnomd^ta trm or on Bald land, .dlnoa th« plat doea not gin* eoi^latarMi^^ natleal Infoziaatloa *en ‘ tha. hdmindi'^ of Bald lot, 'thli BTffTtqr has IsiRiiii baaad upon prarlbnslTwaxiat&ig jiiinxi- DBntatlon of thd lot. ' V Sealat 1” a 30' Data t 9-19-75 a t iron aarkar found o t' ZfOB aarloBr sat Cordon R.. CoflCln RagiTgoT^e^ land GtarriTor ud: Slimnsr *iODg Laka, KlnsaBota I TT • *-#• •••'Tit* D USOI u /irm • « SAaJMock/ Point \\- B PEERING ISLAND .* Crystal • • • Fagerness Point 1* BIOIV1JIIK Buo^ uVS' 7 Y 3^—on HCKSOHV V; 10 no . 'cRtS' 7 S- ,y l-RUBTU »j?Hmiiri T)______I caaoM !Sii|?M ^tsS7 ’Btack _■[«>/^1-owimon u Misis&r.. ') muucNoi. Spring Park A / >u ruD stio IICRTflO L£SUi. 5 NtBIMt II Mrmi ^ Muko«io MAMTOMrriS UOUMUB / Vh <^COOSE ISLAND ^SKOMUHt n son r'. I ^ y r,/^ • Carman \ . .1 ^ • SPRAY IlSL^ W ; .; ,;• U\/r>N SHADY ••. ISLAND ■ •* • •• • V * ••• ,.'..^oi0 * *, .• » HARDCOVER CALCULA SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* WORKSHEET 250-500' E EXll in HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House 40 Length Width X X X SOO-IOOO* nuo S.F. S.F. S.F. B S.F. Sc S.F. B • • 0 S.F. 18 S.F. .460 S.F. B S.F. 7JO S.F. =r \ “70 ST. -7-/Z-ST. B \^t4, 4 S.F. B S.F. S.F. ST. •S.F. B % B •% \n(x>S.F. .ST. B S.F. S S.F. 456. A S.F. ST. B .604.ST. 4it0 S.F. B S.F. .'lO S.F. B 1 no __S.F. S.F. .\(ky.,^r S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. S.F •S.F 45.4^■ % A B 50 f-Q .F. i: RUN DATE if/15/99 HEmEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LIST REPORT NO. PM35A0I PAGE 5 iATCN S92 PROP ADOR onncr nans TAXPAYER NANE/AMNI SS 2R-117-2S SI IQIA •••S8 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORO^/0 P O DOX AS CRYSTAL BAY MN 55325 SB 2B-117-23 SI 0055 02S71 CASCO POINT RD R E NOLFE R E NOLFE 2571 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0057 02035 CASCO POINT RD ROSEMARY C IVERSEN ROSEMARY IVERSEN 2835 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SB 20-117-23 S2 0005 02B2B CASCO POINT RD FRANK N KAYLOR FRANK KAYLOR 2B25 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0007 02B29 CASCO POINT RD B E PETERSON IMP PETERSON BRYCE E PETERSON AND MARY PAT PETERSON 2829 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0008 02825 CASCO POINT R] DAVID J YORKS i NIFE DAVID J YORKS 2825 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 L.. 3 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 32 0009 02821 CASCO POINT RD R E DEMSNAR 8 M M DEMSHAR RONALD I MARGARET DEMSHAR 2821 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0010 02817 CASCO POINT RD NESLEY C BYRNE NESLEY C BYRNE 2817 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0011 02815 CASCO POINT RD O 8 C SCANLON GENE 8 CATHERINE SCANLON 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP A1 ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 32 0017 02818 CASCO POINT RD TAMMY L NOODIS TAMMY L NOODIS 2818 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00010 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 KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE P. . ^•r 0)? M^ITACMH'C4rrour t>jtl4frikJ^ rACIAr MATt44C4» NM PCftC^ P^AC\A U4^0yma Ittn. CB94M. CmoAt, QnAaat,j^ -/ '■ r'- -r • 'T?5*f^VC6. &hJT»y ‘Rs»pa^j^ te/Jsviiti^hL ................ - ___________ ^ , 2'? |< MVW'tf'llf* «4 ■•TMCHiT ^ifnw4 e^moemai*^ CZmmO fe»K»nM<;AsTMAtrr it^r- CO CkOAR 5ICM*U; /“* .‘0 titf M erxyxxjo ^ • ' .'•, CQ ^cutSeSsT *^*^*^^ f«<4 «u9n»o -______ €^A^m fmiz, M#mJ •^V CCDAO. iaUUi.l»<if • CtLOAA ^10tU< e^lKCoiu ^I«I2 04ND S«IC«ft Cmm-wm ft, RHN0^ma^y ^ V \* ! is .. • — - ■ I I r ■> .T»4 ^D 'CQ 00 .*•wm 1 BaX A aiBSR® MCALM - !*••* LANOSCAPe PLAN POP: Yor^<RgsicCence 2S25 Casco Point Road Orono. VfN (5TTEff*bROsj Mark Kobilka July 1999 ¥ • 4 ADDRESS PERMIT RECORD 3SS /IdyOCA {^d-i/UjC |4 ' • •• •• Date Type of Permit HOCJ^ i- 7 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 11,1999 SUBJECT: #2529 Brent and Kathryn Bentrott 1453 Park Drive Variance Renewal Application Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Lot Area: (Existing)17,150 s.f. Summary of Request An application has been received for a variance renewal of an application set to expire on December 14,1999. The City Council approved on a vote of 4 to 1 variances for a side yard adjacent to street setback to permit a three season porch and to change the street side entrance and deck where the existing deck and entrance are located within the required 35' setback. The approved porch is located 3’ from the west property line. The side street setback is from a planed fire lane that the City does not intend to develop. The variances included a hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback to allow 9 s.f. (0.24%) hardcover to remain where 370 s.f. (9.97%) exists, and a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback to allow an increase in hardcover from 2,303 s.f. (23,12%) to 3,404 s.f. (34.18%) to permit a three season porch and a garage/driveway. The property owners have received building and land alteration permits from the City for the construction of the driveway and garage. The work has not been complete, but will be complete this fall. Because the land alteration only applied to the grading for the driveway it is not necessary to renew the conditional use permit portion of the application. H2S29 Brent and Kathry n Bentrott 1453 Park Drive 10/18/99 Page I Staff Recommendation To approve the variance renewal based on the site plan previously approved by the City Council per Resolution No. 4213. Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Application Resolution No. 4213/Site Plan (12/4/98) Staff Memo (12/9/98) City Council Minutes (12/14/98) approved 4 to 1 City Council Minutes (11/23/98) tabled Planning Commission Minutes (11/16/98) recommendation to deny 7 to 0 Planning Commission Minutes (10/19/98) tabled Planning Conunission Minutes (8/17/98) tabled Planning Commission Minutes (7/20/98) tabled Plat Map »2529 Brenl and Kalhryn Bentroii 1453 Park Drive lo/iam Page! h Application #_ Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $^50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION , . . Site Address Pc\r''h _____________________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.’l C7 - I i ~7 - ~ ---------------— Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ____________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X* residentid ___mother (specify)^--------------------------------- Zoning District: /_R ~ ( ________________________—-------------------------— t i \ .-s I APPLICANT^ , ^ ^ Name ^‘re^T ISe<.^-r/T^TT Address: Dr\\rC ~___ City:. OrA-\Q Phone (home l ^ 2. ^ ^ Phone (work )• # Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:_ City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST , Estimated Constm^n Cost $—^^ Describe request in detail: ,^■c^v^c^\ f-^^- ^ ^ — r pvrh(iir\ ^ l ^ ‘ (attach additional sheets if necessary) koe-MA- -fc-^i VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width ___Hardcover -----^Lot Coverage X Setback:Front X Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propwpr conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements! v ^ u-L<h. tU',->uXlU 6oiH.uVi^ 10'- I'S ?r'. let it CU^n rvUl'i+icv^ ii uiiU y-e,) CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.4 2JLS B A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (1&2) AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19-21 FILE NO. 2395 WHEREAS, Brent Bentrott and Kathr>*n Bentrott (hereinafter the "applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1453 Park Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 9, Block 15, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota," also that part of vacated Forest Boulevard as dedicated in the plat of "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota" which lies between the Northwesterly extensions across it of the Northeasterly line of Lot 9, Block 15, "Saga HUl Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota" and the straight portion of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 9, (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants I'ave applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1&2) to allow an existing deck to be remodeled into a t^ee- season porch to be located 3 ’ from the property line where 35’ is required; to allow the existing street side entrance and deck to be modified where said deck and entrance are located within 35 of the required side yard adjacent to street (Bluff Street); to allow the proposed 22’x26’ garage to be located 8’ from Bluff Street where 35’ is required; to allow 9 sq. ft. (.24%) hardcover m the 0-75’ setback where 370 sq. ft. (9.97%) is existing and none is allowed; to allow 3,404 sq. ft. (34.18%) hardcover in the 75-250’ setback where 2,303 sq. ft. (23.12%) is existing and 2,490 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. The applicants have also requested a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21, to cut and fill to raise the elevation of the property to create a building pad for the proposed 22’x26’ garage and suitable driveway with a slope of 10% or Page 1 of 8 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 O less which will require approximately 500 cubic yards of fill and grading within 5’ of the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. 7 3. 4. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2395. The property is located in the LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 20, August 17, October 19, and November 16, 1998. On November 16, 1998 the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed variances and conditional use permit for the garage finding that the use of Bluff Street and Park Drive was not consistent with City policy, the amount of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback excessive, and the proposed drainage plan may have a negative impact on the adjacent residence. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the side yard adjacent to street variances for the proposed improvements to the residence. The City Council reviewed this application on November 23 and December 14, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit based upon the following findings: A. The subject lot does not meet the LR-IB lot area or lot width requirements. B. The existing residence encroaches into the required 35 ’ side yard adjacent to street setback. C. Bluff Street is a platted, unopened street. Page 2 of 8 itK CSHO. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 2 1 ______ E. F. D. The existing garage is located 165’ from the residence and is located within the required street yard setback. The parking pad in front of the garage is located in t!ie Park Drive right-of-way. The amount of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback will be reduced from 370 sq. ft. (9.97%) to 9 sq. ft. (.24%). The topography of the zoning lot is steep which necessitates the proposed driveway to be located within Park Drive and a portion of Bluff Street to provide a 2% landing area at the street and in front of the garage and a slope of 10% or less for the driveway. G. The proposed culvert, grading, and land alteration as proposed in Exhibit A wUl direct water away from the structures to a low area on the zoning lot towards Lake Minnetonka. 5. The City Council finds that the facts and conditions applying to this application are peculiar to this zoning lot and do not generally apply to other property in the LR-IB Zoning District; that granting the variances would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a hazard to neighboring properties; and would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow 500 cubic yards of cut and fill and grading within 5’ of the property line will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Cede Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1&2) and for a conditional use permit to allow land alteration and grading, subject to the following conditions: Page 3 v»f 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 g •• n 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Applicants to obtain a land alteration permit from the City of Orono prior to commencement of this project. Applicants to adhere to the plans approved by the City Council per survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated July 3, 1998, most revised December 4, 1998 (Exhibit A). Applicants to sign a hold harmless agreement (Exhibit B). Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit withir> one year of the date of Council ’s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (December 14, 1999). Vioh . .1 of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 8 • • 4 2 r EXHIBITB HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT Brent and Kathryn Bentrott, 1453 Park Drive, shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and employees of the City may suffer to for which it may be held liable, arising debts or obligations in consequence of his performance of the following improvements: Retaining walls and driveway in Bluff Street. Driveway and curbs in Park Drive. No permanent easement, or property rights are being granted by the City of Orono as a result of these improvements being located on the City right-of-way. The City of Orono reserves the right to order the removal of improvements located on the right-of-way at any time. In the event that the improvements are not removed, in a timely manner, upon a directive from removal from the City, the City will remove the improvements and will assess the owner for the costs of removal. By Brent and Kathryn Bentrott, their employees, agents or subcontractors, whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Brent Bentrott Kathryn BentBentrbtt STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss. ) On this day of A. , ■ <•,-/, 1999 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared/t known to me to be the persons descril^ in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. ft ( CWOLEAHASEMAN NCWfiYFL'EUC-Mi’.t.ESOTA HENNEPIN CCUMTY —^ N’yCrcir'sricnSr/tsJ-1.31.20!!') 5; NOTARY PUBLIC Page 8 of8 60 day limit: 1/20/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 9,1998 ITEM NO. Department ApproTal: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title Ciiy Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zccing Item Descripti• • • Lot Area: Background: Application: #2395 Brent and Kathryn Bentrott 1453 Park Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 17.150 sq. ft. (.39 acres) This application was reviewed at the November 23rd City Council meeting. On a 4-1 vote, the City Council directed continuation of the application pending the applicant's surveyor providing a drainage plan and map that met the City Engineer's concerns regarding drainage. The application is for variances and a conditional use permit to allow improvements to the existing residence and to allow for removal of the existing garage and construction of a new garage and driveway that would use a portion of unopened Bluff Street and Park Drive. Variances required include: 1.A side yard adjacent to street variance to change the existing deck on the west side of the residence to a three season porch and to change the street side entrance and deck where the existing deck and entrance is located within the required 35' setback and the proposed three season porch is 3' from the west property line. 2.A hardcover variance in the O'-75' setback to allow 9 sq. ft. (.24%) of hardcover to remain where 370 sq. ft.(9.97%) is currently located. ! 60 day limit: 1/20/99 3. 4. A hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback to allow an increase in hardcover from 2,303 sq. ft. (23.12%) to 3,404 sq. ft. (34.18%) to allow for the construction of an new garage and driveway. A side yard adjacent to street setback to allow the proposed 22' x 26' garage to be located 8* from the west property line where 35' is required. A conditional use permit is required for land alteration involving approximately 500 cubic yards of cut and fill and to grade within 5' of the east property line. A hold harmless agreement is also required to construct a driveway within the City's right-of-way and for the retaining walls currently located on Bluff Street (EXHIBIT B attached to resolution). PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDA'nON: Planning staff recommended denial of the conditional use permit for land alteration and grading because of the significant change to the zoning lot, proximity of the garage and driveway to the adjacent residence, use of Park Drive right-of-way and Bluff Street, and drainage issues. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On November 16, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to deny the conditional use permit for land alteration, side yard adjacent to street and hardcover variances in the 75'-250' setback for the proposed garage. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the side yard adjacent to street variances for the proposed improvements to the residence. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or adopt the attached resolution granting variances for all of the requested variances for side yard adjacent to street for the three season porch and entrance improvements to the residence and hardcover in the 0'-75' and 75'-250' setbacks and further, granting the conditional use permit for land alteration for 500 cubic yards of cut and fill and grading within 5' of the east property line. Attachments Resolution with Exhibits A and B A Drainage map B Drainage calculations C Hardcover worksheets for Exhibit A survey D Gronberg's letter re:*slopes ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14,1998 D. ^^^(#6) #2395, BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4213 The applicant was present. Van Zomeren stated this application was reviewed at the November 23rd City Council meeting and it was continued for the applicant’s surveyor to provide a drainage plan and map that met the City Engineer’s concerns regarding drainage. The application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading for a driveway to be constructed on the property at a 10% slope and for the driveway entrance to be located on one-half of unopened, but platted Bluff Street to serve a new garage located 8’ off the property line which would require a side yard adjacent to street variance and variances for improvements to the house. When die Planning Commission considered this application in November, they recommended approval of the variances for the house. They did not recommend the conditional use permit for grading and land alteration. The current plan would require approximately 500 cubic yards of fill to raise the elevation to provide a suitable building pad for the new garage. The previous plan had a culvert that was more closely located to the neighbor’s house. The current plan improves drainage by moving the culvert farther away from the property line and directing drainage to the natural drainage way that exists on the property. Greg Gappa and Tom Kellogg have reviewed the plan from a drainage perspective and believe that the current plan would take care of the runoff. A hold harmless agreement has been sent to the applicant. The applicant had no additional comments. Jabbour asked if the next door neighbor was contacted and kept up to date on the changes to the plan. Van Zomeren responded that both neighbors were contacted and she did not receive any negative comments from them. Jabbour asked the City Attorney if he had researched allowing the applicant to use the unopened, but platted property. Barrett responded that he is satisfied the City can allow the applicant to use that half of the property. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Application #2395,1453 Park Drive, and adopt Resolution No. 4213 granting variances for side yard adjacent to street for the three season porch and entrance improvements to the residence and hardcover in the 0 ’-75* and 75’-250’ setbacks and further, granting the conditional use permit for land alteration for 500 cubic yards of cut and fill and grading w ithin 5’ of the east property line. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten opposed. Page 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23.1998 E (#2 DARE Volunteers, continued) Mayor Jabbour thanked Mike Carlson and Matthew Hagen on behalf of the City Council and the City of Orono for their participation in this fine program. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - PETER WELLES. REPRESENTATIVE None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS • DALE LINDQUIST, REPRESENTATIVE Lindquist stated he was here to answer any questions of the Council members that might arise during the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#4) #2395, BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - APPROVAL RESOLUTION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Brent Bentrott was present. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant applied in June, 1998, for multiple variances to make changes to their existing residence and relocate their garage. Vanous plans have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, and it was determined that a conditional use permit would be needed because grading changes were proposed within Five feet of the property lines and between 500 and 800 cubic yards of fill was proposed to allow for the garage to be rebuilt closer to the residence. At the October meeting the Planning Commission had requested that the Applicant submit revised plans, which have been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their October and November meeting. The most recent plan calls for remodeling of the deck on the west side of the existing residence into a three-season porch, which requires a side yard adjacent to street variance. The Applicant is also requesting a change to the southwest comer and entrance to the residence which requires a side yard adjacent to street variance. The Applicant is also proposing in this most recent plan to build a new garage closer to their residence which requires vanances for a side yard adjacent to street and hardcover in the 75-250' setback. A conditional use permit to alter the existing topography with 500 cubic yards of fill and to grade within five feet of the property line is required. The Applicant is also proposing to use a portion of unopened Bluff Street and Park Drive for a driveway. Van Zomeren noted that it is difficult to situate a driveway on this property due to the existing topography, noting that a ten percent grade or less is recommended for driveways and less than eight percent Is preferred with 3:1 slopes for maintenance. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the side yard adjacent to street variances for the proposed improvements to the residence to change the deck Into a three season porch and to allow the Improvements to the south facade of the residence, subject to removal of hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Page 2 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23,1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) The Planning Commission had recommended denial of the conditional use permit for grading and land alteration to relocate the garage and to deny the side yard adjacent to street setback for the garage and the use of Bluff Street and Park Drive for a driveway to the proposed garage. Van Zomeren noted she received the survey Friday morning from the Applicant. Bentrott had no comment. Mayor Jabbour commented in his opinion this application has not been handled very efTiciently. and that City Staff should inforni applicants that they will not accept any new information after V. “cnesday. Jabbour noted that the City Council is being presented with some of this information for t>'.i first time at tonight's meeting. Moorse remarked that ownership of Bluff Street may need to be addressed. Ma^ or Jabbour stated that the Supreme Court had ruled a while ago that City Councils could not vacate fire lanes, noting that he does not foresee vacating Bluff Street now or in the future. Goetten noted that the Planning Commission nad told the Applicant that it was doubtful that Bluff Street would be vacated to allow for private use. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether there were any problems with what has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Peterson stated no. Kelley inquired who constructed the retaining walls on the property. Bentrott stated the previous owner had constructed the retaining wails. Mayor Jabbour stated the question for the City Council to determine is whether the upper portion of Bluff Street should be opened up for private use. Goetten stated in her opinion Bluff Street should not be opened up due to the precedent that it might set. Mayor Jabbour stated he was in agreement with Goetten. Van Zomeren commented that the present plan proposes additional retaining walls, noting that hardcover has not been calculated on that portion. Van Zomeren stated that drainage and grading will need to be reviewed based on whether or not Bluff Street is vacated and the conditional use permit is approved. Kelley inquired whether the proposed garage will be built. Bentrott stated they are proposing to construct the new garage halfway to the back of the house. The new garage will be similar to what currently exists only in a different location. Kelley stated in his opinion this application comes down to whether there is a hardship that exists for relocating the garage. Mayor Jabbour commented that the present situation of backing out onto the roadway is a dangerous situation. Page 3 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23.1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) Kelley inquired whether this is the plan that the Applicant would like the City Council to act on. Gronberg stated the first plan submitted by the Applicant was a better plan engineering-wise but they have attempt' .d to revise the plan to accommodate the wishes of the Planning Commission. Kelley noted that City Staff has not had an opportunity to review the proposed grading and drainage. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether the City Council would be in favor of opening up Bluff Street for private use, noting that he personally does not have a problem with the vacation. Jabbour inquired whether that would be a permitted use under Orono’s ordinances. Barrett stated in his view the use of the alley or driveway is consistent with the easement, noting that Bluff Street is a legal platted road. Barrett remarked that the other issue is who owns the underlying fee for Bluff Street and that a third party may need to consent to the private use if that underlying fee is owned by a third party. Mayor Jabbour remarked that if the City Council is in agreement with allowing Bluff Street to be used, then it will need to be determined whether there is a third party involved. Bentrott commented that this plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer. Mayor Jabbour noted that the fee owner will need to be determined and that the City Council cannot give permission to drive on neighbor's land. Jabbour stated that it appears to be the consensus of the City Council to allow the Applicant to use Bluff Street. Dale Lindquist, Planning Commission, stated that it was their understanding that Bluff Street would not be opened up. Moorse noted that the grading and drainage still needs to be addressed and could perhaps be made a condition. Kellogg stated that Item #3 needs to be addressed further, noting that he has a concern with the amount of water that will flow through the culvert as well as the affect the grading would have on the adjoining property. Kelley stated that the drainage impact to the neighboring property needs to be fully understood before this project can proceed. Gronberg noted that Bentrott's house is tower than the neighbor's and any drainage problems would occur on the Bentrott property first before the neighboring properiy. Mayor Jabbour stated the drainage issues need to be addressed first before approval of the driveway and garage can be given. Jabbour remarked he would like to see no impact to the adjoining property, and recommended that the Applicant continue to woric with his neighbors to ease any concerns that they may have. Jabbour moved. Kelley seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4198 for the proposed house improvements which require side yard adjacent to street variances only, and to continue Application #2395,1453 Park Drive, to the December 14th City Council meeting, with the understanding that the City Council is in agreement with granting use of the upper portion of Bluff Street for a landing subject to the submittal, review, and approval by the City Engineer Page 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23.1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) and City Staff of a drainage and grading plan with no additional watershed to the adjoining property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten opposed. Goetten noted she was not opposed to the continuation but had concerns regarding the use of Bluff Street. Van Zomeren inquired when the Applicant should have the information submitted by. Mayor Jabbour stated that the Information should be submitted by December 4th if this Item is to be included on the agenda for the December 14th meeting. (#6) #2399 MURIEL SENN, 4448 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE Muriel Senn was present. Van Zomeren presented photographs of the property to the City Council members. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant Is requesting multiple variances to add to an existing residence and to construct a garage. This residence lies within the LR*1B district, which has a minimum of one acre. However, this parcel only consists of .38 acres, and does not lend itself well to many improvements. Van Zomeren remarked the Applicant has submitted three or four plans and Is now proposing to change the roof line and to construct a garage located 10 feet off of the property line. Van Zomeren noted that 84 percent of the lot is located in the 0-75* setback, and requires variances to lakeshorellwlwW 8110* Iwl iWVvlfcWW Ml %iiw w fw setback, north side yard setback, street yard setback, structural coverage, and hardcover. A large amount of hardcover consists for the driveway, noting that Hennepin County has paved a portion of ^ • A __A A •the lot due to erosion. The Planning Commission had recommended unanimously to deny the application finding that the amount of hardcover remains excessive and the structural coverage exceeds the 15 percent limit by 147.7 square feel. Senn commented she has resided on this property for 24 years and has seen her land continually erode. There currently is no parking on either side of the street and it is difficult to access the existing garage. Senn staled she is In need of more storage room due to the fact that there Is no basement or attic In the residence and she is limited to three closets. Senn stated she would like to convert the old garage into a utility room, noting that her furnace Is presently located in her kitchen and needs to be replaced In the near future. Senn remarked she has met numerous times with her builder to revise plans that would reduce the need for variances but this property does not lend itself well to any improvements without requiring variances of some sort Mayor Jabbour commented that this residence once possibly was a cottage and was converted into a yea'-round residence. Jabbour slated a hardship is determined based on the configuration of the lot and other factors. Senn staled that the residence was only six years old when she purchased the property and it didn't seem to be a cottage at that time. Senn noted there were no setback requirements at that time. Mayor Jabbour stated in his opinion a hardship does exist. Page 5 ^ » I into fthe ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16.1998ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date >with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith. William Stoddard. Elizabeth Hawn. Dale Lindquist. Janice Berg. Llll McMillan, and Charles Schroeder. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron. City Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren. Assistant Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. RENEWAL: PUBLIC HEARING (#1) #2442 TONY AND DIANE EIDENi, 345 LEAF STREET, VARIANCE RENEWAL, 6:34 p.m. - 6:40 p.m. D'ane Eiden was present. Van Zomeren stated the Applicants are requesting a renewal for a lot area variance for their property located at 345 Leaf Street. The previous resolution was adopted in July. 1997. and expired on July 28.1998. Van Zomeren stated the lot. comprised of 1.77 acres, does not meet the minimum two acre requirement. The existing structures are to be removed for new construction with no new changes being proposed. Staff recommends approval of this application. Diane Eiden staled they would like to renew this application. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2442, renewal of Resolution No. 3937 for property located at 345 Leaf Street. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 2) #2395 BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:40 p.m. - 7:12 p.m. Brent Bentrott was present. Van Zomeren staled the Applicant Is requesting a conditional use permit to allow some grading and land alteration to occur within Five feet of the property line and to allow 500 cubic yards of fill. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan that shows a different driveway approach than what had been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission at the October meeting. The revised plan moves Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16.1998 (M39S Brent Bentrott, continued) the curb cut to Bluff Street to provide a less steep landing area. Van Zomeren remarked that Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, has reviewed this property and has concerns regarding the negative impact the grading would have on the adjoining property as well as the need to relocate the curb cut on Bluff Street if that street is ever opened for public purpose. Van Zomeren stated the Planning Commission had recommended in July that Bluff Street not be vacated. The proposed driveway cannot be contained on the Applicant's property because of the existing topography and the need to provide a grade of ten percent or less for the driveway. Chair Smith stated to her recollection the reason the last plan submitted in October was not looked favorably upon was due to concerns regarding grading and drainage, and this newly revised plan seems to be similar to a previous plan that was submitted where the Applicant was advised that the Planning Commission would not look favorably upon a vacation to Bluff Street. Bentrott remarked this is a new plan that has not been submitted before. Chair Smith commented this plan appears to have a different degree of impact on Bluff, but it was the consensus of the Planning Commission a couple of months ago that they would not look favorably upon any plan that would impact Bluff Street. Van Zomeren stated that it was her understanding that Bluff Street currently contains a grade of 23 percent. Bentrott stated he received Kellogg's letter on Thursday, noting that the proposed curb cut is 19 feet and not the 20 feet as stated in Kellogg's letter. Bentrott remarked the curb cut could be further reduced if necessary. Stoddard inquired whether the driveway could be completely located on the Applicant's property. Van Zomeren stated the driveway cannot be located entirely on the Applicant's property due to the topography that exists and the need to have a flat area to make the proper grade. Van Zomeren commented that the grade of the driveway was not known at the last meeting. Chair Smith inquired whether there were any public comments. There were no public comments. Chair Smith slated there has been some comments received from the adjoining neighbors Mark and Pam Palm. Van Zomeren remarked that City Staff has received some inquiries from the Palms regarding what is being proposed. The Palms are proposing to do some underpinning around the foundation of their house. The City Engineer has stated that grading cannot accurately occur up to the property line, and that some grading may occur on the neighbor's property. Chair Smith stated according to some comments contained in Van Zomeren's memorandum, the Palms have concerns about the drainage impact on their property. Smith inquired what the Palms exact concerns were regarding. Van Zomeren stated the Palms have reviewed the proposed plan and called City Staff saying they Page 2 • t • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16,1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott. continued) did not understand what exactly was being proposed, and they were advised that they needed to have an Independent person review the plan on their behalf. Bentrott eommenteO he has been speaWns wHh the Palms about this project. noUng that they have endorsed this project in the past. Van Zomeren stated that one issue Is the fact that the curb cut and driveway doss not meet City standards, and that the Public Service Director would not approve It as proposed. Schroeder commented he was not sure that the driveway could be designed to meet the appropriate standards. Chair Smith remarked she does not see many options available to the Applicant regarding his driveway. Bentrott stated that Gronberg has reviewed his property and suggested that the garage could be located three to four feet higher, which would require more fill and retaining walls. Van Zomeren commented that the City Engineer has not reviewed that option, Lindquist stated In his opinion that option will not be acceptable either. Bentrott stated he has taken photographs of the surrounding noting that two of the existing driveways have steeper grades than what is being proposed here. Chair Smith commented she was unsure what the Applicant was referring to. noting that the Planning Commission can only address what is before them with this application. Schroeder commented this Is a hard lot to work with, but would not look favorably on a vacation of Bluff Street. Bentrott stated there is history that the City has vacated unopened, platted streets previously. Van Zomeren remarked that the vacation the Applicant is referring to occurred in the 1960s. Lindquist stated the Applicant can request the City Council to vacate Bluff Street. Chair Smith commented even If Bluff Street is vacated, there still are some drainage teal would need to be addressed. Smith stated the Planning Commission is merely an advisory body to the City Council and they may choose to go a different route. Schroeder suggested the Planning Commission vote on this revised plan, noting that ^ thS proposal will work is if Bluff Street is vacated. Schroeder commented the drainage issues with the adjoining property will still need to be addressed. Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission needs to get some direction from the City Council on Bluff Street, noting that the Planning Commission did not look favorably on vacating Bluff S past. Lindquist stated he has a problem with the drainage, but this application needs to move forward. Bentrott commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on this application. Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16.1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to deny Application #2395,1453 Park Drive, fora conditional use permit due to concerns regarding the vacation of Bluff Street and Park Drive if future development should occur in that area and the potential drainage issues to the adjoining property. NO VOTE TAKEN. Van Zomeren noted this hearing is concerning the conditional use permit and that the variances had been addressed at the October meeting. Chair Smith commented that the variances were not voted on at the last meeting. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to act on the variances at tonight's meeting. Bentrott stated he would. Van Zomeren commented that the hardcover figures are not available. Lindquist stated he would like the hardcover figures before voting on the variances. Schroeder noted this application will be appearing before the Planning Commission again. Chair Smith inquired whether this application could go before the City Council on the Bluff Street issue without the Planning Commission taking action on the variances. Schroeder recommended that they vote on the motion that has been made, and inquired whether public notice needs to be given on the variances. Van Zomeren slated hardcover can be reduced but not increased. The amount of hardcover In the 75-250' setback is 1.036 square feet for the driveway and 572 square feet for the garage, noting the current hardcover without the driveway and garage is 2.303 square feet or 24 percent. The proposed changes to the house should not impact hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Council Member Goetten suggested that the Planning Commission make a full recommendation to the City Council regarding the vacation of Bluff Street and the variances. Schroeder moved to amend his motion to include denial of a Conditional Use Pe.nmit dealing with construction of the new garage due to concerns associated with the vacation of Bluff Street and the drainage impact on the neighborhooding property, and denial of variances for side yard adjacent to street variance to allow a new garage to be located eight feet from the property line, a variance to the hardcover requirements in the 75-250* setback as outlined In the Planner's Report dated October 14.1998, and to approve that portion of Application #2395 for 1453 Park Drive granting of a variance to side yard adjacent to street to allow a new deck and porch to be located one foot from the property line. Lindquist seconded the amended motion. McMillan inquired whether the proposed driveway is located mainly in the right-of-way for Park Drive. Van Zomeren stated that a portion is in Bluff Street and a portion in Park Drive as well. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 19.1998 G (#2427 Kenton and Diane Cartson, Continued) Van Zomeren commented the drawing shows 3/4' stone along Baldur Park Road and in the yard between the house and north property line. Cunently a boat is stored on the rock. Staff is recommending that this area be regarded as hardcover but not Included In the hardcover survey. Staff Is recommending that this stone or rock be replaced with sod and landscaping. Staff is also recommending approval of the after-the-fact variances for structural lot coverage, side yard setback, and hardcover, with the condition that no further variances for hardcover and structural coverage be granted. Cartson stated he intends to sell the boat or house the boat indoors. Chair Smith suggested the Applicant seriously consider adding sod to that area. Carlson commented he could put in a decorative garden in that area. There were no public comments. Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission will give the Applicant a reasonable amount of time in which to remove the boat. Lindquist suggested by June 1,1999, the Applicant have grass In the area and the rock removed. Chair Smith suggested the boat be removed within 60 days. Smith inquired whether hardcover for this tot should be reduced. Van Zomeren recommended no new hardcover or structural coverage be allowed on the property. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2427, 3498 North Shore Drive, granting of after-the-fact variances for side yard setback, hardcover, and structural coverage, subject to removal of the boat within 60 days of today's date, and further subject to the condition that the rock be removed and sod be placed in the area where the boat Is currently stored, and further subject to the stipulation that no new hardcover or structural structure will be allowed on this property in the future. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2395 BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:04 p.m. -8:54 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Brent Benlrolt were present. Van Zomeren stated the Applicants have appeared at the July 20th and August 17th Planning Commission meeting requesting hardcover variances, a 10 foot vacation of Bluff Street, and side yard adjacent to street setback variances. Van Zomeren commented the Applicants have submitted a new plan which requires a side yard adjacent to street variance to allow a new deck and porch to be located one foot from the line, as well as a side yard adjacent to street variance to allow a new garage to be located eight feet from the property line where 35 feet Is required. A variance to hardcover is also required In the 75-250* setback to allow 35.32 percent hardcover. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 19,1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) Van Zomeren stated a conditional use permit is also required to alter land and grade within five feet of the property line which will require proper notification to the adjoining property owners. Bentrott commented his architect has reviewed Kellogg's letter and responded to the concerns. Bentrott stated they are contemplating planting hostas and other green cover along the bank to avoid the necessity for mowing. Mrs. Bentrott commented they have planted hostas previously along an existing bank. Bentrott stated they could also consider constructing a retaining wall or move the fill somewhat. Chair Smith inquired whether the water drainage issues concerning the adjoining properties have been adequately addressed. Bentrott stated their adjoining neighbor is in the process of remodeling as well. Lindquist stated a joint drainage and grading plan should be developed between the property owners to resolve any water runoff issues. Bentrott remarked he was unsure what Item No. 4 In Tom Kellogg's letter was referring to. Van Zomeren stated the language contained in Items 3 and 4 is standard language for a subdivision, and was not sure of Mr. Kellogg's intent by including that language in his letter. Bentrott commented he is frustrated by the continual requests by the Planning Commission at each meeting to change a different aspect of the plan, noting he requested at the last meeting to have the Planning Commission give better direction on what they would like to see changed in the plan. Van Zomeren stated Staff has received a letter from the Palms at 1447 Park Drive expressing their support of this application. Bentrott commented according to the building inspector, his present driveway is a hazard due to the necessity to back out onto the street. Hawn stated she has concerns about the amount of fill that will be necessary. Chair Smith stated the drainage issues still need to be addressed before this application could be approved. Stoddard stated he was okay with the three foot setback on the side for the proposed three season porch. Hawn cornmented that she knows the Applicant has appeared before the Planning Commission three times, noting there are substantial issues that need to be addressed with this application. Lindquist stated a definite plan for the grading and drainage needs to be submitted. Van Zomeren stated notification needs to be given to the adjoining property owners of the request for a conditional use permit for any grading within five feet of the property line, noting there was not sufficient time to give notice to the neighbors before tonight’s meeting. Van Zomeren commented the Applicants have been working closely with City Staff to get an acceptable plan together. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 19,1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) Chair Smith inquired when the Applicants were planning on commencing construction. Bentrott stated they had wanted a fall start dale but have pushed it back to the spring. Chair Smith suggested putting this Hem on the November agenda to allow the Applicants time to submit a detailed drainage plan and less fill required. Bentrott inquired whether the Planning Commission could approve the application subject to the submittal of a drainage and grading plan. Schroeder stated an acceptable drainage plan needs to be submitted before approval can be given. Van Zomeren stated the steepness of the driveway also should be addressed. Stoddard suggested approving the side yard and hardcover variances subject to the submittal and approval by City Staff of a grading and drainage plan. Lindquist inquired whether the Planning Commission was In favor granting the variances. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that they might look favorably upon the variances subject to an acceptable grading and drainage plan. Schroeder moved to approve Application #2395,1453 Park Drive, granting of variances to side yard adjacent to street to allow a new deck and porch to be located one foot from the property line, a side yard adjacent to street variance to allow a new garage to be located eight feet from the property line, a variance to the hardcover requirements In the 75-250* setback as outlined in the Planner's Report dated October 14,1998, subject to the submittal and approval of a drainage and grading plan before commencement of construction. MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. Van Zomeren noted an extension will be required because the 60 days expires November 8th. Schroeder suggested tabling the item since notification has not been given for the conditional use permit. Schroeder withdrew his motion pending submHlal of a grading and drainage plan. Van Zomeren stated the variances are part of the old application. Schroeder suggested submitting a new application for the variances as well as Inclusion of the request for a conditional use permit. Chair Smith stated it was the concensus of the Planning Commission that the variances will be approved subject to the submittal of an acceptable drainage and grading plan. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2395,1453 Park Drive, to allow the Applicants time to submit a drainage and grading plan. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #2413 PAUL AND MEGAN BENNETT, 500 HANLON AVENUE - VARIANCES, 8:55 p.m. - 9:05 p.m. Paul and Megan Bennett were present. Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY. OCTOBER 19,1998 (#2413 Paul and Megan Bennett, continued) Weinberger stated this item was before the Planning Commission at the September meeting where it was tabled to allow the Applicant time to pursue possible purchase of an adjacent tax forfeited lot The Applicants are proposing to constmct a 20* by 24* garage with second floor living space to the existing residence which requires variances to the side yard adjacent to street setback requirements, side yard setback requirements, rear yard setback requirements, and a variance to the structural coverage. Weinberger noted in 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2982 to permit the construction of a deck by the previous owner with the advisement that future proposals to increase lot coverage by structure on this property would not be looked upon favorably by the City Council. Weinberger stated without the adjoining lot the hardcover would be at 31 percent and with the adjacent lot It would be 14.4 percent. Bennett commented he is willing to purchase the tax forfeited lot but would like to negotiate on the special assessment for the sewer. Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive special assessments and it would need to be brought before the City Council. Lindquist commented he would approve the application if the adjoining lot Is purchased and would deny the application if the adjoining lot is not purchased. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that the application be approved subject to the purchase of the adjoining lot. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2413,500 Hanlon Avenue, as outlined In the October IS, 1998 Planner's Report, subject to the acquisition and legal combination with this property of the tax forfeited property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (#10) #2411 PAUL HANSSEN, 3195 CASCO CIRCLE • VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:08 p.m. • 9:27 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Paul Hanssen was present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a land alteration permit to replace a boathouse 15 feet from the lakeshore as well as replacement of a deck located on top of the boathouse that was damaged In a wind storm. The building official has reviewed the boathouse and has determined the boathouse to be in a deteriorating condition which was not the result of the wind storm. Weinberger remarked the Applicant has hired a structural engineer to review the boathouse and was advised that the front and back walls would need to be replaced as well as portions of the side walls. The structure’s foundation will also need to be replaced which will require a conditional use permit. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 (#2408 MIKE HILBELINK, Continued) Chair Smith staled the Planning Commission has to act on what is presented to them, but the Applicant could request that the application be tabled to allow time to submit revised plans. Van Zoneren stated if the bam is to be used to house animals, the Planning Commission needs to know the exact lot lines that are being proposed. Schroeder stated to house horses a minimum of three acres is needed. Van Zomeren stated since the bam has not housed animals for an extended period of time, the intent to house animals probably has been abandoned and a new conditional use permit would be required. Van Zomeren stated if a new house is constructed on the backlot, it must meet the required setbacks for that lot, noting the restriction for the barn falls on the lot that contains the barn. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2408 for property located at 900 Willow Drive North to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. CONTINUED (#3) #2395 BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES, 7:20 p.m. -7:45 p.m. Van Zomeren stated this application was considered at the July 20 Planning Commission meeting where the Applicants requested hardcover variances, a ten fool vacation of platted, unopened Bluff Street, and side yard adjacent to street setback variances. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of the vacation of Bluff Street and tabled the application to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. Van Zomeren reported the Applicant has submitted a new plan that shows access from the street and locates the garage closer to the house, approximately 130 feet from the street. The Applicant is proposing to construct a two-story 22 ’ by 25 ’ garage. Van Zomeren staled she has spoken with Tom Kellogg, an engineer with Bonestroo, who has revie ••••ed this plan. Kellogg has expressed concerns over the slope of the driveway, which would require a considerable amount of fill to obtain a grade of 8 percent. Van Zomeren stated the Planning Commission needs to consider whether this garage can be relocated to its proposed site, what grade the driveway should be at, how much Till will be allowed, how close the garage should be to the adjoining property line and existing house, and whether a variance to hardcover should be granted. Chair Smith stated this application involves issues that need to be addressed by an engineer, which the Planning Commission is not in a position to handle. Bentrott stated at the last meeting the Planning Commission had staled they would not be in favor of using the unopened street for access to the garage, which necessitated the need to relocate the garage. Bentrott remarked a structural engineer has viewed the property. Bentrott stated the adjacent property should not be impacted by the additional fill since the elevation is much higher. Van Zomeren stated the engineer has also raised concerns about the distance available in the lot Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 (#2395 BRENT BENTROTT, Continued) width to maintain an adequate bench of three to one for safety and mowing. Stoddard commented the steep embankment might require retaining walls, which would also increase hardcover. Lindquist stated this property will exceed the allowable hardcover in all three zones if the application is approved and will require variances in both the 75’-250 ‘ and 250'-500* setbacks. Lindquist stated he would probably vote against this application with the proposed hardcover. Van Zomeren stated that the new hardcover numbers were not provided with the revised plan. Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission probably cannot act on this application without the new hardcover numbers. Stoddard stated the surveyor or Applicant should be notified by City Staff that hardcover needs to be calculated before the meeting. Mrs. Bentrott stated they would like to relocate the garage closer to the residence to allow elderly relation the ability to visit them year-round, noting they weren't aware they couldn't relocate the garage. Mr. Bentrott stated Bruce Vang, building inspector, has been out to view the property and followed his suggestions to utilize the platted, unopened street and to construct a new garage because in his view the existing garage was a hazard since they had to back out onto the street. Stoddard stated it has not been the philosphy of the Planning Commission to vacate or allow use of platted, unopened street for private driveways. Stoddard stated the Applicant will need to review the possible need for retaining walls, amount of fill, and new hardcover numbers, noting the Planning Commission cannot act on this application until those issues are addressed. Berg expressed concerns over the driveway being close to the neighboring house and the impact the noise and headlights would have on the adjoining property. Schroeder suggested tabling the application to allow the Bentrotts time to address these issues. Chair Smith stated she would prefer a plan without retaining walls if possible, and suggested the Applicant continue to work with City Staff on the hardcover and engineering issues. Mr. Bentrott stated they applied for the vacation to eliminate setback for the three-season porch. Hawn stated the vacation probably would not be approved. Mr. Bentrott stated in his opinion he has three options; 1) keep existing garage; 2) reconsider the application without the ten foot vacation of Bluff Street; and 3) proceed with the revised plan, which Is the most costly. Hawn remarked in her view those options are not viable due to the increased hardcover. Schroeder suggested tabling the matter, noting he is not prepared to give guidance on this application due to the engineering issues that need to be addressed. Stoddard suggested the Applicant continue to work with City Staff in an effort to resolve some of Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 («2395 BRENT BENTROTT, Continued) these issues. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2395 for property located at 1453 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2391 EVAN ANDERSON, 1260 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCE, 7:46 p.m. - 8:05 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are applying for an after-the-fact variance for hardcover to allow a patio to remain in the 0-75' distance from the take, and a variance from allowed hardcover in the 75 ‘- 250' lakeshore setback for a patio and the reconstruction of an old garage, which would require a variance from the side yard adjacent to street setback. The Applicants are proposing to construct a 24' x 20' garage to replace an existing 22.5' x 20' garage, which is 40.6 square feet larger. Weinberger stated a conditonal use permit is needed for retaining walls that have already been replaced on the property. An after-the-fact variance is needed to allow retaining walls and patio to remain in the 0-75' zone which are not depicted on a 1996 survey. Mr. Anderson stated the retaining walls have existed since 1978 and have been replaced. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to maintain the total hardcover within the 0-75' lakeshore setback at 18.5 percent. The allowed hardcover in this zone is none, which would require a variance. A hardcover variance is also required for the 75'-250' distance from the lake. The Applicants are proposing to increase hardcover from 55.3 percent to 56 percent. The allowable hardcover for that zone is 25 percent. Anderson stated City Staff have been out to review his property in the past, noting they were not aware the retaining walls were not depicted on the survey. Mrs. Anderson stated they have obtained many permits over the years for the work that has been completed on their property. Mrs. Anderson noted their property is the principal watershed for that entire area and the retaining walls are necessary for the drainage. Chair Smith expressed concern that the retaining walls were not depicted on the survey. Stoddard stated he agrees with Staffs recommendations There were no public comments. Stoddard remarked he would be in favor of granting the after-the-fact variances, but would like to limit the size of the garage to what is currently existing. Stoddard commented he has viewed the Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20.1998 (#14) #2395 BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES AND VACATION.- 9:24 p.m. - 9:47 p,m. * ^ The Certincate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Brent Bentrott were present. Van Zomeren stated this lot is located in the LR-1B zoning district, which has a minimum of one acre. Van Zomeren stated the applicants are requesting that a 10 foot portion of platted, but unopened, Bluff Street be vacated to allow an existing deck that is along the west property line to be remodeled into a three-season porch. The vacation is also requested in order to build a new garage that would be accessed from Bluff Street. Variances are needed for hardcover in the O'-SOO’ setbacks. Variances are also required for the side yard adjacent to street setback from Bluff Street to add the three-season porch, and a variance to the side yard setback for the proposed garage because it is considered an oversized accessory structure. Van Zomeren stated this application is dependent on the vacation, which traditionally have not been granted, and recommended the Planning Commission consider that portion of the application first. Bentrott stated they are proposing to build a new garage which would be located closer to the residence which should help reduce hardcover. Bentrott slated he didn ’t know a fire lane was considered a road. Mrs. Bentrott stated they would like a portion of the existing deck turned into a three-season porch. Chair Smith Inquired what the practical use of the fire lane was. Van Zomeren stated any access off of the lake would need to also be reviewed by the utility companies and the DNR, who would probably deny the request. McMillan stated the Planning Commission might be setting a precedent If the variance is granted, noting she was not in favor of the vacation. Lindquist remarked he does not think realistically this application would be approved as proposed. Bentrott stated they suggested using the fire lane as one option. There were no public comments. Chair Smith inquired what would happen if the vacation is denied. Van Zomeren stated if the vacation were not granted, the Planning Commission would be looking at a side yard adjacent to street setback to build right on the property line, no additional hardcover, and the conversion of the deck into a three season porch would be considered a structural change, and at least ten feet would be required between the accessory buildings. Bentrott stated he would be in favor of constructing the garage under 750 square feet and ten feet from the neighbor's building. McMillan stated she would be in favor of the three season porch and a redesigned garage with proper setbacks from side yard with no additional hardcover in the 75 ’-250' and 250'-500 ‘ zones. Lindquist stated the garage cannot be constructed right on the property line. Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,1998 (#2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) Benlrolt commented the existing deck is currently located right on the property line, which will be removed. Lindquist stated the Applicant probably will be denied the vacation and will have to comply with present hardcover restrictions. Chair Smith suggested the matter be tabled to allow the Applicant to submit revised plans. Bentrott stated he would be Tine with tabling the application. Lindquist commented he would be in favor of a 60 day extension from August 22. Van Zomeren stated the City is required to act within 60 days of when the application is submitted. Bentrott stated he would be in favor of extending the time limit. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application 2395 for property located at 1453 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. («15) #2396 CLINT AND JODI MORRISON. 3510 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES, 9:48 p.m. - 9:57 p.m. The Certincate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Morrison were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting to replace their existing residence with a new house and attached garage. This property is located In the LR-1A zoning district, which requires a minimum of two acres. This lot consists of 1.36 acres. A variance from lot size requirements would be needed as well as a variance from average lakeshore setback requirements. A conditional use permit is also necessary to allow a boat house to remain on the property during the demolition and reconstruction. The boat house would need to remain as an accessory structure and not be occupied while the residence is under reconstruction. No variance to hardcover is required. Staff recommends approval of the application based on the lot being a comer lot and the construction is completed in a timely manner. The Applicants had no comment. There were no public comments. McMillan inquired whether a conditional use permit is needed to allow the accessory structure to remain. Van Zomeren stated a variance is needed to allow the accessory to remain during the reconstruction. Morrison remarked the boat house is really the original garage of the house. Lindquist commented boat house should be changed to read accessory structure. Page 14 0% I!7-:i3 m .* . / B / ^ / $• / 'V /^/ >> V A (I) s •<?/<?'« B C? ? s Oi->’ / I z \ \ I V I .X <v^> (31) \ s\2y 15 V * A ;(3 o> ._ro (3 » - - ,<VJ I * (30) ( V •,PARK vr> vrf.3 dry s^( ler S 18.'✓ V <0' V' 0 'Sa '-.y uo •>yyyy.-\ 7 V \ (A))X lor f ^ \ro3 irJ 5 2 W» 39)'3 (40) W<m V (13) > (15) a>. (14) ...s W^z-'S^-W OOC ''‘0 j9A2250y \\ X. • • 'y PART SAGA HILIyiWK <27) Or cj ^ .N 295 : ri R 5 OTJ- (13) , (28) ys 11^ 6 ^ ( 14) o\^’ \ « « 5? COMMON (26) V* t 16) / »y-^ / c~ ’(15) (3) (6) TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 11,1999 SUBJECT: #2530 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard ___________Variances for Signage Zoning District:B-1 Retail Sales Business District This application requires the following variances: 1. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A): Within the B-1 District the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed 50 square feet. The property is allowed a total of200 s.f. of signage based on frontage and building width along the front property line being 200 feet. The property owner has applied for variances to allow 129 s.f. of additional signage for the new Conoco Station on the property. The plan for a 89 s.f. pylon is attached as Exhibit D. Two Conoco Logos (Exhibit E) are proposed to be located on the canopy (2.5* x 8' each) totaling 40 s.f. The pylon encroaches into the front yard setback. Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 10, 1986, the property is allowed the following: A. Building Signage 12 individual tenant signs to be located on the building. Each sign is allowed to be 2' x 12' = 24 s.f. The total building signage was approved for 288 s.f. B.West pylon sign (Existing) Logo Sign - top (Orono Shopping Center) 5' x 7.5' = 37.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. C.East pylon sign (Advertising has been removed, pylons remain on property) Logo Sign - top (time and temperature digital display) 3' x 7.5' = 22.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. D. Total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 = 573 s.f. «2S30 mitiam Wear 2160 Wayzata Blvd 10/18/99 Page I 2. Section 10.40, Subdivision 6 (C): Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. The west pylon was approved 5' off the west property line and 10' from the front property line. The east pylon was approved 27 from the front property line. The east pylon was located within the front yard setback. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.61, Subdivbion 3: Signs in *'B" Districts. Existing Signage Suburban Lighting Inc. has completed a sign inventory on the property (Exhibit F). The survey indicates some signage on the building would not be permitted under the Resolution adopted in 1986. Existing Building Signage East Side MILK (11 s.f.) BREAD (I6s.f.) EGGS (12s.f.) MALL (6s.f.) On page 3 of Resolution No. 2073, Paragraph 3 states "Building signage shall be limited to current tenant's name or logo. Building signage must be brought into conformance by May 31,1989." Orono Coin Laundry (25 s.f.) The building signage is allowed to be 2' x 12* = 24 s.f. Red Apron (35 s.f.) Rowlette & Assoc. (11 s.f.) Existing Twin Pole Sign (141 s.f) This pylon is in conformance with the staged sign plan approved. West Side TLG Classy Canine (20 s.f) Sunlife Tanning (16 s.f) MALL (6 s.f.) Orono Coin Laundry (25 s.f) The Variances approved allow one building sign per tenant. U2S30 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Bhd. 10/18/99 Page! ANALYSIS The approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location for Highway 12. Highway 12 will be relocated to the south parallel with the railroad tracks reducing existing Highway 12 from a major highway route to a local arterial. There has been some interest in scaling back future development of signage to accommodate a local arterial street rather than a State Highway. The concept of monument style signs can be seen along the highway at Super America and McDonald's in Long Lake. The proposed sign is designed to be 17' in height, in contrast to the 26’ it was approved to be under the previous development plan. The height can be compared to the Super America sign which is 13' 10" in height. It can be argued the previous proposal would allow the existing pylon to the west to remain as well as any building signage as permitted by Resolution No. 2073. The only change to the plan would be the replacement of a sign which does require a variance for location and allowable sign space. The most appropriate way to resolve the issue would be to approve variances for a signage plan to allow the building allotment of signage and the west pylon to remain under the previous resolution, with reduced signage for the Conoco station. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of variances based on the signage proposed would not be allowed under the existing Ordinance and the proposed pylon style sign would be in contrast to the character of the locality. Staff recommends to the property owner to design a sign and base that conforms to a smaller scale arterial street and utilizes materials used for the base of other monument signs in the locality. The use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the "B-3" Shopping Center District. If the property is zoned B-3 the lot would be allowed 380 s.f. of sign space. A variance could be justified based on the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B-3 District. The Planning Commission noted in 1986 the applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. The Conoco station, as well as many other tenants, use an exterior entrance rather than a typical interior entrance associated with other malls. It may be appropriate to approve additional signage based on this need. H2530 IViiiiam Hear 2160 Wayzata Blvd 10/18/99 Page 3 Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 Application Plat Map Site Survey Proposed pylon sign plat Proposed canopy sign plan Site photos Sign survey completed by Suburban Lighting, Inc. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 Resolution No. 2073 . i' tt2SJ0 Willum Wear 2160 Wayzala Blvd 10/18/99 Page* ~ ~~ii r ~Ti ^ Application # Date Received 9/*^/yy Amount Paid 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION / \ J 1^ / ^ Site Address9lLn tC WfUjyaU Propeity Identification Number fP.i.D.) Attach legal description to application if not induced on required survey. ' ‘ l!\ln\/pmiA(>r 19&0 of land. n I residential X o ther (specify) I DiyifHFTO ( Date Property Acquired. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Zoning District: E> ~ / .<T.v • ■> (month/year) N' / APPLIC Name *N lam Address:^/Hri i^blmj I OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SairKlF^ _____ Phone (]nomo)JdMlAMzA^2n. " Phone(work ^ L nf)d.n t)nd lAUe' Zip: 53366^ f \ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated ConstrucUon Cost $^^—^— il: rI'vunaa tn to^1/)T(^/f^ ^Tnt yf^}f/i WrAbX , 1 fLPt^S.€n\£/^. lA, /3f3 sf]' (See (jpA/Dr7^/>(\ De^ribe request in detail. --------- . ^/TaZ( ch^additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore X Other (specify) V Jif. //ji: olS 209.14 $ 154. 14 201.51 iiZ.33 154. 14 N69*36'07'E o — 0^7 ‘or '67:98 8 ■15^38 .^liZL '01.17 50.09 (20 » / I^Ar^OOO II. 9a 8.22 290.96 437.41 I6\ 24 OUTlOT 0 101.05 •54. I7^5"5.^' 4 155.23 - . DOC NO 2038792 IjU 353.42 se7 ‘4rw 81.59 153742 OU" itlot a (as) S :^\o OUTloT e (32) «3. 24 '52' .{45. K, 50 2 r (23)/*\»/ / jO'/ / / */ (53) / AV 204. 44 « • « « ••• • <••••••••• o 200 ^0. S87*4I ’E (0 • • • • ••••••«■••«••• *|*«*»*«*j*«*a*a*«*OT 10 -13 -94 r/4riLCL 4*4iC CCTLO* r (58) .---- 214.41 55 j WAYZA R /V/ IS 7.76 332 (9) (2) (10) 10) '•>n <0'..i? • ( M s e o I (>I8) • 119. 58 55.6 (36)(39) ao.oi 175 225. Cl 6# r p- 8 D 2.5 ’20 sq ft 2.5 ’ WESTERN- CONVENIENCE 3.5 ’ P* fe?^iK';-i js;®g f0AIp w .^ ,. .^, >*-*nvSP.' m H a '12 HI UQUOR-r .. -. ^. . <*. • ♦ .. ■ \ Unleaded .C,- ; f/ *•1.15 IM SfiBsa s“i > J§? - -r...' , -**rv' >-• ■* .v, ^Unleaded^;-.^.:;-'..KUnleaclecl^ Ar .rj 1.5 ’ 51» 1.5' fei®) iS^J-jS!va®pP%s|B ■^-m 2.5 ’ f. .. ■. '. M.\ •ivV-v'r:^ T-^ v\:'*;w\-*1r-v'iil ^ »* :;.'5;kvj M'K4 mis. TWO LINES OF SIX INCH COPY 2’ V.A'Am • N r*» J.;••;• A 6’ 89 sq ft total f'^poSe P ICfl^■Vo lOhef"^ £)C I s4-i<o<:, T uj I 1*0 15 sq ft 21 sq ft 9sq tt 9 sqft 17’ 15 sq ft OK) £. e*"’ • -SIGNAGE IDENTIFICATION ^ CAPSULE SIGN PLACEMENT ON CANOPY FASCIAS Jobbers may choose from 6 ’ and 8' single-face Conoco capsule signs to inset or surface-mount on their canopy fasda. The 6 ’ capsule sign is to be used on vertical canopies which are 36" to 48" wide. The 8 ’ is to be used on vertical canopies 48" and wider. Two capsule signs are permitted per canopy. While it is not mandatory at this time to mount a capsule sign on the canopy, it is recommended and will in the future become a part of the new image requirement Canopy- mounted capsule sign cans will be painted charcoal gray. Use of the capsule sign on a mansard-style fascia is prohibited. A mansard fascia should be con verted to a 36" or 48" three- panel, two-reveal canopy giving the facility a more contemporary appearance. Jobbers should be aware that local signage codes sometimes restrict the number and size of signs by a variety of formulas to determine allowable signage. In these cases, pole-mounted cap sule signs take precedence over canopy or building capsule signs. Capsule Sign Placement on Canopy Fascia r 10-—r 6' ^coinoco . . i,. r. '■> sV .. r .Ir'. . Edge of Canopy Capsule Sign Cans are Painted Charcoal 24-8' I I • V } -/will Cl ' 2^ r ■ .* ' .- •* ' r -- .* - Cr^ £ 4 lD- 1-88 ”>11 gl 1 . .. ■ D * • *.'5 •. ' . i . •••‘c-r- ..t••.vvvv-/: • /:*.. V • • ♦ i'* ir •c^’: m- ■ ,w.;^ >■' 5 //!><?/VN Ct C C ^ , 5 / ^ <r A» <» Vi' .' '• .- . ' ■•:. . •■ :; 0- ;;•■■ •. '.-v .’^ • • • . . -'• .'•••. .■ . r-v ...• 'i: r W?y ■■■■yi •*. •. , ' V • /. •> • t.- I '.a '.I •%; "Li'ZittibiA fciT^ ,7-?^ ^■’y'h /> ' ’ ‘ v’ ' Jl *. • . r •>*:. r'..;- . ■r -V , -. »t« ax ii^V' >• *'i^:VA;.r2L 2^' .': V •.'. •^- ■■ •^^ * V ■ . . * *”"* V '^ ■ ■•. . ' i by /st /^^- S t tf lo. <’'■»?•»'Hr#o7T ,' W •■*•-'* ^ r o p ^ ^ ^ ^ £“. UJ. -o (Subuir(>an Commercial Industrial LIGHTING INC 6077 LAKE ELMO AVE. NORTH. STIUWATEa MINN. S5082 £AST ^/J oaj - Z. I 7"^ ]ry\ i L K — 0"!^S^. ^ ^ • ^reack - s^. PT £<j 9S ” 1*2. St O A O C c» IP UeuAidl/^t^ ~ ‘Z-S’ 5<j* ^ © u? /«'H'C T ^ I D 6 3^ 5<i FT (i. FT II Sq F r T-LC./ CckDJiue ft 1 U S(V ft UNA a LL-- ^Set ff r‘> ^ r 0(0 o ,• % \ - ZS Si-ft ./.,( /a: e. Y,ts.ri^<i 9m^ Pe>/« - o>. Frop^t^-r*.^ J^/ s^./^r. o Oi SPECIALISTS IN UGHTINQ AND SIGN MAINTENANCE. MANUFACTURING. AND INSTALLATION H permitted: § 10.61 [d. 2. Signs in "R" Districts. Within "R" Districts, the following signs are SNameplates. ^^^e nameplate sign for each dwelling and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per sihii^e, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. 2. One naraepiqje sign for each dwelling group of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square feet inJ^a per surface and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. 3. One nameplate sign for Sbi^ermitted use or use by conditional permit other than residential and such sign shall not exceed tw«<;^quare feet in area per surface. B. Illumination. Symbols, statues, sculptures disintegrated architectural features on non-residential buildings may be illuminated by flood lights pr^S^d the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential dis^ C. Setbacks, Etc. Any sign over one-half square foot shall be setbq^ at least five feet from any property line. No sign shall exceed eight feet in height above the avera^rade level. Signs may be illuminated but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect, Subd. 3. Signs in "B" and "1" Districts. Within the "B" and ”1" Districts nameplate signs and ousiness signs are permitted subject to the following regulations. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. "B-1", "B-2" and "B-4": Size. Within the "B-l", "B-2" and "B-4" Districts, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed fifty square feet. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B. ”B-3": Size. Within the "B-3” District, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. ORONO CC 381 43-1-84) § 10.61igns are shall not lore than >re units, istructed nditional surface. dtectural :t source k at least § 10.61 Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 njctri t t- II and "B-4": Height. Within the "B-l", "B-2" and "B-4” Distncts, no sign shall extend in height more than two feet above the highest , STr" “y -e located closer than tenttl"rl™ prindp^SiTfton. the uneplate Districts, 5 foot for building. ;e of sign le square 11 exceed 3-1-84) Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 . .,I , Within any "B-3" or’T District, no siim shall extend n b: )ure ! .n six feet m height above the highest outside wall or parapet of anv nrincinal butlo , ..0 s-tn shall be located closer than ten feet from any proper^ KceptZC st exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into the yard ar^a from any Zdfn“ Subd. 4. Purpose of Off-';i^t>arlun1 mil Lpajim. Reouiremeni, .1' and loading spaces in this Chapter is to alleviate or prevent congesUon of^ P >s^t-of-way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing loading and unloading Jm motor occupancrraSlnaZin ZT 1^“'® and structures. All applications for an j ‘*'*‘"0 “ sl“'l I’o accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and followi4"r^Z3l *0 Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 „ A. Application of Parkm||^Rules All Districts. In addition to the reculations rTSZ“ — -Snlations and Zi™ in all use districts: mg^ing Off-Street parking shall apply to the r«,uImdlSipo;';;quM So®^: Ordinance No. 172 EffectiSjDate: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 382 43-1-84) « fiti- pF aoNod City of OEIOINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL r NO.2073 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO HDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.61, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) & (D), ORDINANCE 13, SECOND SERIES PILE #1000 & 1009 WHEREAS, William Wear (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Section 34, Township 118, Range 23; Commencing at a point in Northerly line of State Highway No. 12 distance 149.05 feet Easterly as measured along said Northerly line from West line of East h of Northwest 1/4 thence North 2 degrees, 41 minutes, 23 seconds East distance of 334.52 feet; thence South 87 degrees, 18 minutes, 37 seconds East distance 200 feet; thence South 2 degrees, 41 minutes, 23 seconds West to Northerly line of said highway; thence Westerly along said Northerly line to beginning (P.I.D.: 34-118-23 21 0002), (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) & (D) and Ordinance 13, Second Series seelcing approval of a staged comprehensive signage plan prior to the completion of the Highway 12 Planning Study requiring modifications in existing signage, allowing the installation of a second, independent pylon and limiting building signage at 288 s.f. (12 tenants each allowed a 2'xl2' location sign), this signage plan requires the following variances to the B-1 Commercial Zoning District standards: Ordinance 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) - Allowed Area For Signage Allowed B 200 s.f. Proposed = 573 s.f. Total Signage Area Proposed Variance *» 373 s.f. or 187 % Ordinance 10.61, Subdivision 3 (D) Allowed » 22 feet Proposed » 26 feet Variance « 4 feet or 18% - Allowed Height For Signage Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 5 CITY OBONO k. j City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073________ FINDINGS 1. These applications have been reviewed as Zoning Files #1000 & 1009. 2. The property is located in the B“1 Commercial Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed application #1000 on December 16, 1985 and application #1009 on February 18, 1986, and recommended approval of the multiple variances sought by the applicant based upon the following findings: A) The location, height and size of the directory sign will not impair sighting at the accesses to the shopping center and poses no hazard to the safety of the general public. B) The applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. C) The specific design of the structure with elongated sides and minimal building area facing the street is unique to this property requiring special signage. D) The highway is curved along the street frontage of the property and the two curb cuts at the extreme edges of the property create special signage needs. E) The majority of tenants have direct accesses from building and not via an interior mall requiring special signage needs. 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 danpr 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. Page 2 of 5 .CITY 5* * • Of OROisro City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073 _________ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning COvie Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) & (D) and Ordinance 13, Second Series seeking area and height variances and a variance to the temporary limited development ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Council hereby approves a staged comprehensive signage plan for the property: A) Total Signage Area: Building Signage (12 x 24 s.f.) Pylon Plaques (12 x 18.75 s.f.) Logo Area (5 * x 7.5') Time/Temperature Area (3 * x 7.5') TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA " 288 s.f. « 225 s.f. = 37.5 s.f. 22.5 s.f. - 573 s.f. B) The property is limited to two 26 feet high pylons described as the west "Logo" pylon and the east "Time/Temperature" pylon, the areas of each pylon are designated as follows: 1. West Logo Pylon 6 Plaques (2.5* x 7.5' « 1 Logo Sign (5' x 7.5') TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA 18.75 s.f. X 6) 2. East Time/Temperature Pylon 6 Plaques (2.5' x 7.5' = 18.75 s.f. 1 Time/Temperature (3' x 7.5') X 6) TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA 112.5 S.f. 37.5 S.f. 150 S.f. 112.5 s.f. 22.5 s.f. 135 s.f. 2. The existing west "Logo" pylon must be altered to meet approved 26 foot height by May 10, 1987. The east and west pylon must be identical and constructed of similar material. Building permits are required for the installation of the east pylon and proposed modifications of west pylon. Each tenant shall be allowed one plaque area space but in no case shall any one tenant be allowed to exceed 37.5 s.f. of single signage or the combined area of two approved plaque signs on each pylon. 3. Building signage shall be limited to current tenant's neune or logo. Building signage must be brought into conformance by May 31, 1989. Page 3 of 5 [\r VCJ feiPP ■ PORONO >r 4 - L''•> 'ti *.J City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073_ _ _ _ _ 4. All additional signs in front island or landscape area are to be removed. The use of temporary portable signs is discouraged until the final code and comprehensive plan amendments have been completed. The use of temporary signs is limited to 3 to 5 day periods and requires a permit from the City. 5. The City Council places the owner on notice that he (she) is solely responsible for the maintenance and implementation of this staged signage plan and that violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code# shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein^ and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. Authorities granted by these variances 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 these variances will expire on that date (November 10, 1987). 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby 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. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 10th day of November, 1986. othy Hailin', City Cleric Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 5 1;' City of ORONO CITY -f Of RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073________ ORONO !IES0TA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of /Jo cJ€r)x h-e r 1986 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared LOUh'ctm) uJea r ^ YV\(ih}e 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. )UiAJUU(X~. / mi THEMSA L. NAAB HorrMivPUMic • MmnaorA NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 1986, 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. i NOTARY PUBLIC I ^ s-A- MY C0M,w1‘;a,I0N EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 TO:Chair Haun and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner October 8,1999 SUBJECT:#2531 Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variance Renewal — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:44,225 s.f. (1.02 acre) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1. Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B), LR-IB Lot Requirements Application Summary: The applicants received variances to expand and remodel the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area. Variances were granted on November 24,1997 and October 26,1998 for lakeshore setback to be located 34' from the lakeshore where 75' is required and for hardcover in the 0'-75' setback where 20% (5,815 s.f.) was existing and 15.3% (4,413 s.f) was proposed. #253 / Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood Variance Renewal PC-10/8/99 page-1 1 \ t ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75’ setback; 357 ft. atOHWL 37 ft. (existing) 35 ft. (proposed) 46 ft. (existing) 20 ft. (proposed) 34 ft. The existing residence does not conform to the current lakeshore setback regulations. The homeowner ’s association has more restrictive side yard setbacks than the zoning district, therefore, the garage was placed 20’ instead of 10’ from the side yard setback. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75’28,810 sq. ft.5,815 sq. ft. (20%) None 4,413 sq. ft. (15.3%) 15.3% 75’-250’15,415 sq. ft.2,995 sq. ft. (19%) 25%3,600 sq. ft. (23%) None The applicant was granted a hardcover variance in the 0’-75’ setback to reduce the amount of hardcover from 20% to 15.3%. U235lRogerJ. Olsen 815 Partenwood Variance Renewal PC-10/8/99 page-2 / Statement of Hardship: See Exhibit B Staff Recommendation: The zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, and side yard setback requirements. The existing residence is located within the required lakeshore setback. The proposed plan reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. The existing amount of hardcover on the site is 10.228 s.f. (23%). The proposed plan is for 6,595 s.f. (14.9%) total hardcover on the lot. Staff recommends renewing the variance for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. Attachments A Application B Applicant ’s letter C Architect’s letter D Elevation E Site Plan F Hardcover worksheets G Minutes from previous meetings (10/20/97,11/17/97,11/24/97) H Res. 4004 I Minutes from previous meetings (10//19/98, 10/26/98) J Res. 4185 H253I Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood Variance Renewal PC-1 0/8/99 page-3 ^5 Application # ^ S3 J Date Received" *tlizl9^ //^ajksAmount Paid /S 0 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-confonning structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address KoAO OdoNo -------------- Property Identification Number (PJ.D.1 OS-^30003--------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propetw Acquired____________S/Soh?_______^_____________^(month/year) I (do) (do'jw also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)___ Zoning District:______//9.^V> 5~ Ly^-/B fxmer hw it APPLICANT t •*+'' A • F. Name S- Address: )?/*{ R p/\c > City:. Phone fhome’l '173S______ Phone fworki y/ 7 ~ /30^____ C/Cc Wd_______Zip: S'^JSO '.y OVTsER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Constmetion Cost $.m i-..' (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore )L. Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 77 m.' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All ofJhe following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complgtci d) 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 854" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (l)';jpy 814" 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) not cunent owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infoimation supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please 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. September 22,1999 To: The City of Orono From: Roger Olsen Subject: Renewal of Variance for my home at 815 Partenwood Road. I am requesting a one-year extension of the existing variance on my property due to the following circumstances: 6 Several general contractors have turned down my project after initiating the bid process due to a lack of time and their inability to get reliable commitments from their sub contractors. After receiving a firm bid four weeks ago from a general contractor willing to do the project, the price is over one hundred thousand dollars higher than my initial expectations and financial ability at this time. This represents a 25% increase in construction costs over the initial estimates. Thank you for your considering this renewal variance. Sincerely, Roger Olsen ir .V . j a 4 '5 c. 5 November, 1997 ali-:xani)i:r Hvsiii DKSIC'.N GROl 'V I \ ■ r « I • II To the City Planners of Orono: In response to your Inquiry about the extent of remodeling to take place at 815 Partenwood, I will describe to you the scope of the work. After being on the market for over a year, the Olsen ’s purchased the property in June with the intent of Immediately remodeling the house. The house has a sagging roof that is in need of re-construction. The structure is of 2x4 wall construction & not up to current energy codes, is in need of window replacement, the porch foundation is in need of replacement,as well as needing much updating to pass any building inspection for current code compliance. Much of the current foundation will remain. Foundation will only be remove^ at areas where the house is being expanded. The porch foundation will be re-built. The lower level is walkout and has a sub-standard wall which can either have 2x6 studs piggybacked to the existing studs or we would rebuild the wall. Rebuilding the wall is a much preferred method of remodeling and what we hope to do. The same options of construction can be applied to the main floor walls that will remain. The main floor Is currently cantilevered at lakeside further than current codes allow for cant’s, so we will need to cut it back and re-build it without cantilevers. Given that the whole main leval lakeside wall needs to be re-built to eliminate the cantilever, it has been suggested by contractors to rebuild the floor- for several reasons- to improve constr. & eliminate rebuilding of sub-standard areas, to raise the height of the lower level to current ceiling heights, and allow for clear spans. This concept has now been incorporated into our plans. The ceiling plate heights will be raised and a totally new roof truss system installed. The exact size and shape of the existing and proposed house are shown RESirEmuBaLDiNCDEjicN overlaid on the site plan submitted for variance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the Olsens or myself. ▼ i i EA<T L.\Ki STREET Sincerely, Kathryn Ali<ander V. \VZ.\T.\ VN (612) 473-S": FAX (6i;) 4-3-?::: Heviseto £Lg\/Mlow el a^ i f»’ »i tasM I aao4». ^«c t? ll‘20/97 10:04 F\X 612 470 5222 ALEXANDER DESIGN ttAlOJCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) existin g HARProvr.n tn A. House f 75-250’250-S0Q* LenjUfJ wiiim S.F. X X X m TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER'IT AREA IN ZONE A -4- B X 100 - PROPOSED WAJRDCOVER TN 7:ON’E A. House ft6l-cc*av' S.F. S.F. S.Fi B.Garage •• X 9 \wJoAur\ tr\ s p C.Driveway •X • S.F* X S.F. D.Sidewalk X S.F, X as:S.F. E. • Paiio/Deck X A\r\S.F. X rs S.F. F.Laadscape X I.b4n S.F.Uadcrlaln • X ' S.F.By Plastic X S.F. G.Other • X • s Q F g^->. S.F. S.F. _____2^tfr g. (gg)0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B.Garage S S.F. C.Driveway m 23 o S.F. S.F. D.Sidewalk m o S.F. 1=S.F. E.Paiio/Dcck:•B S.F. XB •S.F- F.Landscape * o S.F. Underlam 0m S.F. By Plastic X S.F. G.Other X A—S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^•35 S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •S.F. A <• B X 100 -• / I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARnrnVER IN ZONR A. House -V 250-500'500-1000 lrPhr\ S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage K. S.F. C. Driveway X X l.tgC5r> S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. ________S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5- B S.F. VPy.MFo S.F. X 100 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 'h'hCi S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage ^30 S.F. C. Driveway X X ^.\(on S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X “ iV\ C^j. S.F. =» S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X \^n S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X A S.F. ____S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5- B X 100 ^ ./iiOQ S.F. \^i S.F. A B A B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 O' (#12 - #2304 Deborah Sholl - Continued) Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2304. Vote: Ayes 6, NaysO. • « ^ (#13) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:45-11:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is for remodeling and expansion of an existing residence to include an attached 4-stall garage and loop driveway requiring a lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances in the 0-75' and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks. A revised survey was presented. Bressler indicated that due to the lot configuration, the building pad on the lot is restricted. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to ^ conditions noted which include elimination of the loop portion of the driveway, plastic under landscaping, and with the notation that no further hardcover would be allowed in the future. Bressler reported that the applicant has agreed to remove the plastic under the landscaping. • ♦ Olsen said the plans have changed due to the homeowners’ association covenants requiring a 20' side setback. The plan currently calls for a 10' side setback. He would like to move the design down 10' to satisfy this requirement. Hawn said in order for this to occur, a new plan would have to be submitted. Bressler noted that hardcover calculations would change. Berg questioned what existing foundation and walls would be used. The existmg foundation and walls to be used were noted. The house is a walk-out style. Lindquist said he would agree in principle to this change but would require reviewing the plan. Olsen said there was a time limit problem for beginning construction this year. Hawn asked about the elimination of the loop and location of the well. Olsen said he has reduced hardcover 1185 s.f. in the 0-75' setback with the elimination of driveway and retaining walls. The applicant's designer asked if approval could be based on percentages and changes meeting the percentages required. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#13 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) Schroeder indicated he would have to review the plan. Berg said she would like to sec • what the impacts are. Schroeder suggested guidance be given to the applicant. Lindquist asked that the hardcover calculations be improved. Berg noted that the Planning Commission must review the application that will be seen by the Council. Olsen said the shift would change the front setback from 35’ to 32’ and asked if that was a big consideration. He was informed that Lindquist that it was a consideration. Schroeder questioned the need for 4 garage stalls. Lindquist informed the applicant that the City does not like to see any structure within the 75' lakeshore setback. Mrs. Olsen suggested the plain eliminate the 10' within the setback that is in question by the covenants. Olsen said he could eliminate 10 ’ from the plan but would lose storage space. Lindquist suggested the architectural design be considered as well. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2305. Dr. Bill Cottleman, a next-door neighbor, was present representing the homeowners' association. He submitted a letter form the architectural committee regarding their restrictive covenants. He noted their restrictions are more stringent than those of the City. He said the homeowners' association would approve the home bein't more centered on the lot. A copy of the letter was submitted to staff. He said the associ ,*ion prefers to see as much distance between the homes as possible. a Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14T»23Q^LLEN PETERSON, HAVING AN MTEREST IN 3355 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD>V4RI^CES - PUBLIC HEA^IKG 11:05-11:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publicalioh'aQd Certifi^it^f Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Photos were shown of the pr^erty. Bressler reported th^tdne applicant is proposing Construction'bf^82 s.f. carport with a deck above it attached to the front of the existing residence. TheY2M^ide carport would extend 22’ out^er the existing driveway with a walkway. This propossd'^^ill require variances fofside setback, lakeshore setback, and 0-75’ and 75-250’ setback^i^dcover. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 \ \ \ w Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ^ (#3) ^2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - 6:47-7:03 P.M. The applicant and architect, Kathryn Alexander, were present Bressler presented pictures of the property. The applicant is proposing remodeling and c)q)^ion of the residence to include a 4-stall attached garage. The application requires variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. There is no problem with average lakeshore setback as noted in the topographical map. The residence currently has a 3-stall side loading garage. The driveway configuration has been changed. The existing residence encroaches the lakeshore setback. The allowable building space is limited by the property. Only a portion of the existing foundation will remain; lurther information is included in the packet The total hardcover is proposed at 19%. The 1.02 acre property h located in the one acre zoning district with 3/4 acre in the 6-75' setback. The street setback is also restricted. Bressler reported Staff recommended approval subject to maintaining a 34' lakeshore setback &om the designated OHW where 75' is required. Encroachment on the lakeshore setback will not be increased by the improvements. Staff recommends hardcover be maintained at a maximum of 14.5% in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed, and none is allowed. Bressler indicated that the amount of existing hardcover excluding landscaping underlain by plastic is 14.5%. This figtire could largely minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on NOVEMBER 17,1997 be met by eliminating several proposed decks and existing patio area on the lake side of &e residence. By approving this percentage, there would be no net gain in the amount of harfeover on the property, not including plastic under landscaping. Staff recommends all landscape underlain by plastic in the 0-75' lakeshore setback be removed prior to commencement of new constmclion. The applicant has agreed to this provision. Staff also recommends that no further hardcover variances be granted to this property in the future. Mr. Olsen, in noting the difficult lot, said he preferred not to reduce the hardcover further than the proposed 16% to 14.5%. Ms. Alexander said the total hardcover is less than the • 25% allowed. Hawn informed the applicant that trading hardcover for landscaping underlain with plastic is not the same and does not justify the additional hardcover. Lindquiat said he agreed noting there is a large amount of structure on the property and is of the opinion that the applicant should maintain the 14.5% hardcover maximum. Stoddard asked Bressler to explain the suggestions for hardcover removal. Alexander noted that as suggested, the hardcover would still be over 14.5%. Bressler informed McMillan that he arrived at the 14.5% by subtracting the landscaping underlain with plastic ffom the hardcover. The balance of hardcover to be removed would come ffom eliminating a portion of the patio, dog run, decking, or decreasing the size of the addition. Olsen said that he would have to eliminate the existing pado or addidon even if aU of the decking was eliminated. Lindquist informed him that if the residence was new \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 _ construction, he would not be allowed any structure in the 0-75' setback. Olsen acknowledged that the home would not have been able to be built to meet today’s standards. Alexander noted that the patio consists of pavers and asked if pavers with drainage holes is still deemed hardcover. Lindquist said they were. Alexander said eliminating 1.5% of hardcover would consist of497 s.f. « When asked by Hawn what items are necessary, it was noted that the dog kennel could be gravel and the patio could be reduced in size. This would amount to less than the decrease being requi’^ed. The patio is 810 s.f. and could be reduced. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2305 for lakeshore setback, hardcover variance in 0-75' setback, subject to revised Staff recommendation including a 41' lakeshore setback variance for structure to remain at 34’ from the OHW, hardcover variance for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75' setback, and plastic under landscaping moved in the 6-75' setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' setback will be decided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2368.^ROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SHOj^ELCSi: DRIVE - PLANNED REsroE^^rIAl^D^^vELOP^IENT andc £ass m preliminary SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39 P.^ Bill Gleason \v^a^esent representing Brook Park Realty MINUTES OF TEE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ^3) #2279 G. MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVE ;ONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Mrs. Whh^head was pfcsent. Gaf&on reporteJk&at discussioa was held at the last Council mecuiig regarding the park dedication fee. Puh^^t to Stafif discussions. Staff recommep<ls reopening the preliminary plat resoUiUpn to enable Stafif to draft for incojjwration into the resolution additional findings relate^o the nexus and proportion^ity issues related to the park fee. Mrs. Whitehead had no comme'hts. She verified Stiff and Council renewed her letter faxed to the City Office. Gafi&onmdicated thcyf^ was received on this date and distributed for Council review. Jabbour informed Whitehead that the Council plans on acting on the application in a timely manner. Mrs. Whitehead saidshc apprt^iates that. Jabbour said the Council must also protect the interests opme City. Jabbour moved, Peterson>^onded, to reconsider Resolvtion#3966 for purposes noted. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0^ Jabbour moved, Blmt seconded, to direct Staff to draft findings^a^nexus and proportionalipp^or inclusion in Resolution #3966. Barrett vdnfied that the findings will include the nexus and proportionaK^jr of the subdivision's impact on parks. ote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ^ (#4) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 814 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4003 The applicant.^ and architect were present. Van Zomeren reported that the 1.02 acre property is located in the LR-13 Residential District and meets the minimum lot requirements. Pictures were presented of the property. The existing house is located within 75' of the lakeshore. The lot is unusual as the lot extends along the lake but is narrow in its depth. The application is a proposal for a 4-car garage and additions to the residence. A patio with pavers currently exists. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the 41' variance for ^ lakeshore setback for the residence 34' from the lakeshore and 15..3% hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback where 20% exists and none is allowed. minutes of the regular orono city council MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 (nf4 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) The applicant had no additional comments. • i. Jabbour asked if any of the hardcover resulted &om replacement of non-structural hardcover with structural hardcover. Van Zomeren explained what currently exists and '. is proposed. She indicated the plan is reduced from the original proposal by removed of a dog run and balcony on the lake side. Van Zomeren said additional structure will occur. Jabbour explained the issue of concern. He noted that applications have been reviewed where illegally non-conforming hardcover is approved as part of an application becoming legally non-conforming hardcover and resulting in more permanent structure on properties. Jabbour said when the non-conforming hardcover is reviewed, the Planning Commission assumes it has been placed their legally through the permit process but has been added since the original application for construction on the proper^ \vas made. The City has not verified if ie property has changed since the last application and the hardcover is used for trading for additional structure. Kathryn Alexander, the architect, said the property is the same as existed when the original permits were issued. Jabbour said his point referred to other situations. Peterson expressed her surprise that the residence was able to be built originally. Jabbour indicated that it was approved just prior to the current zoning ordinances. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4003. Vote: Aye^, Nays 0. LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - RESdN’JION NO. 4004 CE- Mr. Fritz was pre^ Peterson moved, Flint seconded^loadtSptResolution No. 4004. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#6) #2313 TOM AI^HICARI STEINKE, RESOLXrriONNa4005 (AKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE - PeJerS^ moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4005. Vlrte;^Ayes 3, Nays 0. • »h CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. io 0^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2305 WHEREAS, Roger and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Mumcipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expa^ion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space located 34 from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and reqmring a hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed as shown on Exhibit A. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council pf Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2305. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore ResidenUal Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre. The Orono Planriing Commission reviewed this application on November 17, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL. Page 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^______ 2.The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad. 3. The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3%. 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 traific conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations cf the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants rnd the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34' from the OHWL where 75' is required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f (15.3%) in the O' to 75* lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed. 1.All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback prior to any new construction. 2. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but ^e 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 (November 24, 1998). Page 2 of 5 ( m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 0 0 4NO. 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the teims and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall ^automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be pumshable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigi^s, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of November, 1997. AT^ST; Dorothy M. Kallm, City Clerk Gabrietsjabbour, Mayor Propdlfty 0\%*ner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of November, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instnimcnt was executed on be o the City. JAMEL68MRMWrRJUC^MCSOU Notary/ Public men COUNTY MyCBnwial0i6clwJ«.«.»a Page 3 of 5 1 ! STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 0 4 COUNTY OF HEI^PIN ) On this day of—Tl^ ^ before me a Notary Public within and for sard county personally appeared kno\^Ti to me to be the person(s) described^in ^d who executed me foregoing in^tnim^V anj acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. I faiftt im.it jh£4<t NOrAltY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ____ day of____- . __________________ 199 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. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 X ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 19,1998 ROLL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Wiiliam Stoddard, Elizabeth Hawn, Dale Lindquist. Commissioner Charles Schroeder arrived at 6:45 p.m., and Commissions Janice Berg and Llli McMillan were absent. The following represented City Staff: City Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Assistant Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. RENEWALS AND AMENDMENTS: PUBLIC HEARINGS {U2) #2431 ROGER OLSEN. 815 PARTENWOOD - VARIANCE RENEWAL, 6:34 p.m. - 6:36 p.m. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2431,815 Partenwood, renewal of variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover In the 0-75* setback per the findings and conditions of Resolution #4004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#3rZ434^ROL OLSON. KID’S ART SCHOOL, 2180 NORTH SHORE AMENDMBlTr«:36 p.m. • 6:40 p.m. -CUP Carol Olson was present. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant is requeSttjgr^amendment to the conditional use permit to allow a tipi to be located on the property for educdtionaTbttfppses, which is considered to be an accessory use to the art school. Lindquist inquired whethepth^pplicanl had any concerns with City Olson stated stje'^^ fine with the recommended conditions. Thprer^re no public comments. recommendations. Page 1 . . .... r . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26.1998 (#2430 Paul Phillips, Continued) Goetten inove37Tetcr$on.,4cconded, tosctyLAppHcff(ToirW430,2140 Sixth Avenue North, hark fn th» Pi<tnnhi^l05nyTfffs5|^^]fot^heir^ VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ^ *(#13) #2431 ROGER OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE RENEWAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4185 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2431,815 Partenwood Road, and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4185. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. [H) #2432 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 4755/4775 BAYSIDE ROAD EA^MENT/SUBDIVISION Laurie Lur\deen, Greenfield Corporation, and Jim DeBerg, were present. Van Zomeren sba(ed the Applicants are requesting a revision or amendmOTt to the final plat resolution to accommodate a private driveway easement over Lot 3 to^ovide access to Lot 1, The private dnyeway easement does not comply with the ap^val resolution for the final plat, which shows ahsoutlot for all three lots along Bayside R^d. Van Zomeren stated Staff is generally not in favoKof private driveway easements dueJfo the possible problems that may result. The Planning Commission recommend^ denial of a priva^easement and suggested that the Applicant apply for a lot line rearrangembqt, which woi^ require a lot width variance for Lot 3. Jim DeBerg, 1551 Hunter Lane, Medina, stated hi^had previously met with the property owner and offered the private driveway casern^ nolVMlizing that it was in conflict with what was originally approved in the Resolution. DeBerg^ted he was later informed by the building official that he could not have a pwate driveway Msment. Laurie Lundeen stated they were unaw^e they could not grant a private driveway easement. Mayor Jabbour stated the City doe^oi officially recognize a private drivbway easement. DeBerg remarked that even witlythe granting of the private driveway easemenCtlje lot still exceeds the minimum lot size. Van Zomeren stated a lot^dth variance would be needed in the case of a lot line rearrangement for the middle lot. CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 1 ^ Fs_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2431 WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f (20%) is existing and none is allowed as shown on Exhibit A. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2431. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakcshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property, consists of 1.02 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October 19, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1 . The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL. Page 1 of 5 ,_j CITYof ORONO i-.o'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO____41 H '■-^ t J The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad. *s J The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3%. 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necess^ to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND COiNDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34' from the OHWL where 75' is required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f (15.3%) in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed. 1. All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback prior to any new construction. 2. 3. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a buildirig permit within one year of the date of Council approv^, or this variance will expire on that dale (October 26, 1999). Page 2 of 5 J ClTYurORONO i‘?Ti *S 3®o5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 1 ft R 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 applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. 6.Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require reconsideration by the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of October, 1998. ATTEST: v/ i/a Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel>^abbour, Mayor \ Property Owner^(s) /2^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENns^PIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of October, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. r C^J^OLE A. HASEJ.WI & HOT;fiYFLEL!C-y.I’;!.'ESOTA f) v -.. .*y H£NKE?!.N COUNTY « : _ f'*yCcr;tr,!!iicn£,*;:r?sJcn.31.2CC0 (• /. • * ^V:Notary Public Paee 3 of 5 W i GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL N0» ■ 4 1^5------- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) , 199^ before me a Notary Public within and for known to me to be the person(s) desenbed in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and On this ^ day of said county, personally apfleared acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed, % t . :.:.e;.has?.vam KCT;?.YrUELiC-W!M££v;TA 1^&:NEr:N COUNTY f*Cc.TjrJsiIcnE)t;!rssJ«n.31.2CC0 jfJ ( V . NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199_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. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 5 4185 Page 5 of 5 10 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner October 13,1999 SUBJECT: #2532 Herman/Marilyn Crawford 4745 North Shore Drive Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:approximately 20,635 s.f. (.47 acre) This application requires the following variances; Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements; Within 75'-250' cf the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 3,912 s.f. (29.08%) where 3,498 s.f (26%) exists and 3,363.3 s.f (25%) is allowed. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B); LR-IB Lot Requirements; To allow construction of the attached garage 3' from the rear yard lot line where 30' is required. Application Summary: The applicants have applied for a rear yard setback and hardcover variances to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence. The attached garage would be located 3' from the rear yard setback where 30' is required and for hardcover in the 75'-250' setback where 3,498 s.f (26%) exists, 3,912 s.f (29.08%) is proposed and 3,363.3 s.f (25%) is allowed. The existing garage will be removed when the new one is constructed. The driveway will continue to come off County Road 19, but the garage door will face east. The existing gravel/driveway will remain and will be used as a turn around. U2532 Herman Cranford 4745 North Shore Drive Variance PC-W/15/99 page-! i ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IB Lot Area Rear yard setback Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)30' Existing 20,635 s.f. (.47 acre)16' Proposed 20,635 s.f. (.47 acre)3' Hardcover Calculations : Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75’7,182 s.f.0 s.f. W'i,155 s.f. (2.16%)155 s.f. (2.16%) No change 75’-250 ‘13,452 s.f.3.363.3 s.f. (25%)3,498 s.f. (26%)3,912 s.f. (29.08%) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration : 1. The existing garage goes past the property line. It was built before County Road 19 was turned into a county road. The new garage placement is more suitable for the lot. 2. The lot has several very mature trees that the applicant wishes to remain. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Herman Crawford 4745 North Shore Drive Variance PC -10/13/99 page - 2 Staff Recommendation! Staff recommends approval of the variances for rear yard setback and hardcover in the 75-250' area. Attachments A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Plat Map D Location Map E Hardcover Worksheets F Property Owner's List G Permit Record #2532 Herman Crawford 4745 North Shore Drive Variance PC-lO/13/99 page-3 A Application # 2.S3^ Date ReceiveJ" Amount Paid 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^7^5* l^r'xvc. ^_0/^OkJv Property Identification Number fPJ.D.I G7 •/f7’30-0^/9 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired i97^______________________^(month/year) I (do) ^do not]) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^ Present use of property: Zoning District: / a /^ar * -1 6 APPLICANT fesidential Other (specify)n covet* Phone (homel H72 ’3/¥9 i) Phone (wotk^ SO 9 - \ y ■€r "Pr i>.o^P f^oieoK>g) Zip:_££2£^' OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ o oo t-J- -) Describe request in detail: —nnrH\ srJe— df gX/S7?>xa \nouse.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------“T ' 3 j (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area t*^^etback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover y^Rezi TTorVii Lot Coverag 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: TU is I or "uL •- -.<1 II * \w CKv\ ^^------------ >;tL is 4oo cloir preferS0u4V\ .SiAfl. IS—&— §1 i*. mcLsl REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following informarion must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. 2. See. 3 4. 5. Ifi 6. 7. 8. i/ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat niap (you must obtain this list, labels and map firom Henhepin 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 8i4" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views Q)rovide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff 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 cortp^ to the J>est of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signa Date WjoUf OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes olHiiyestigatio^and verification of this request. Owner's Signature^^^^ Date _______ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please 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. t I TRAILS END CM Ml iRTN Likcvicw;. > ^ I • L > RED OAX r Red'. OakV t.. Su35*»^, SEE MAP 61 Jennings f AVE i» CCplf ,Course*v-T. WEST IRANCH RO P/> 8C0 • ( i WaadUm^i fokM ‘/Aj ■\ • f • • '> © \. ./ OAHL RD lAV ‘•*^r ** \ • v-V • i!' :;. ' ..<V • tj.'» • ‘Arm ^ h :- * N ■'‘ili 1600? WWf*C _i/ tSTi /«V R^;k>^. T^flooo It-RMMMI U Harrison ••• r'Vk* Yc\:‘ ’• M ‘il^ :v LSsX. -r .•> . :i .J .• • ^ Skogsberg Point twilMr ^ \R0RNf West ORONO Arm «. • • • food Poiii/ DEERINO .-••••* !• • » *A* - Bay /llONNS •rOMT \U ••V ,/ Crystal f \ * • * . : 4 •; • * ISLAND . • •.. n Fagarness Point K • ! ! I, rf* / / < # / -kfiAwi Crawr)ro 9^ t 6/z) /a^/L-ff p,ff HARDCOVEK^LCULATlOiN WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^O-Tjl) 75-250' 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House V = 500-1000* Length W'l&uh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X a D. Sidewalk X X ISS' E. Palio/Dcck X X a -i • • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B X 100 \Sb z./« PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House (a^o Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B ZiLi X 100 7/^Z S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. cc->wx>a snIp S.F. S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. *r - / r S.F.I S.F. •S.P.* S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. fr •' ‘i •.. 'ij S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2^/^:___% A B SETBACK ZOr^: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House HARDCOVER CALCULAJiOiii^VORKSHEET f4eRA\^H dkAWfO{ZC> 0-75' X ^75-25(^250-500'500-1000’ 12.5*5" SF-HoyS£ Length X X X Widih 2.4^ m. B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck X X E. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric Ul X X 37 xg.5 G. Other WAU>20. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B 5455 X 100 PROPOSED RARDCOVER IN ZONE' A. House Length Widih X X X B Garage ^^££££££__0^ oe x C. Driveway jL/eL<A aa x 7^ 720 - /4-I ** D. Sidewalk A €aaOi/€X X -45 E. Patio/Deck AJfotA A€C< ^t CiL X X /• 400 =jLta_ F. Landscape Aotk o^jficAtrK. x Underlain _____________ x By Plastic _____________ x Or Fabric -t?o g p S.F. S.F.-CONCAff S.F. S.F. S.F. i S.F.-5TEPP/*>^ 5' S.F. ,SE.. . S.F. • SF-Wffr OP h: 397 s^f !-PMT op H5 Is S.Y.-SO^O -Aftf S.F. -S.F. S.F.I3.4.gi 2€.^0 ■ % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. f:.•.ce.v S.F.C S.F. S.P.-•V. S.F. S.F. 1' S.F. S.F. ( S.F. s S.F. S.F.5 r-'ts 7‘at^C : y- 4ti‘ G Other S.F. ( TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B -h 4/4- 3^72 S.F. /Ja 4 X 100 » A B 29 %I • 1^1- LL RUN DATE t9/20/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASSA91 PAGE 5 I MTCH 503 fROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 35 07-117-23 32 0003 00725 TONKAVIEW LA EOT CHRISTIANSON EARL t TERRY CHRISTIANSON 0001 TONKA VIEW LANE HOUf4D HN 55300 35 07-117-23 32 0009 00730 NORTH SHORE DR CHRISTINE J SCHANZENBACH CHRISTINE J SCHANZEWACH 0730 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55300 35 07-117-23 32 0010 00750 NORTH SHORE DR JAHES R THOHSON ETAL JAHES THOHSON 0750 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55300 PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 35 07-117-23 32 0010 . 00739 TONKAVIEW LA LARRY A 0REENHA6EN ET AL L 6REENHA6EN t V 6REENHA6EN 0739 TONKAVIEW LANE HOUND HN 55300 35 07-117-23 32 0010 00731 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A HEYER DENNIS A HEYER 0050 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55300 35 07-117-23 32 0017 00725 NORTH SNORE DR J P HENRY ETAL J P HENRY 0725 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55300 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 35 07-117-23 32 0015 00731 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A HEYER DENNIS A HEYER 0050 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55300 35 07-117-23 32 0019 00705* NORTH SHORE DR HERHAN CRAWFORD ETAL HERHAN CRAWFORD 0705 NO SHORE DRIVE HOUND HN 55300 35 07-117-23 32 0020 00753 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN FRIDAY JOHN FRIDAY 0753 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO HN 55300 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 35 07-117-23 32 0021 00755 NORTH SHORE DR 6 R EVERSON P H E EVERSON OARRY I HARIE EVERSON 0755 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55300 TOTAL BATCH 503 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE (7 #2 L It* 1 ■ r> Mt ■ raffWvfTMrta I - Uori-^) ^ & PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit ■3s>3¥ pScs> eJxAQJexi^ /.ayi' 3^37 //*~ !0 73>^9-9- fX itm. II TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner October 12,1999 SUBJECT:#2534 W. Duncan MacMillan 1820 Fox Street Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1 B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area:Approx. 190,000 s.f. (4.4 acres) This application requires the following variance; Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B): Side yard setback requirements: To permit a side yard setback variance to allow a garage addition to be located 16.82 ’ where 30 ’ is required from the side lot line. Application Summary: The applicant has proposed to construct a 30 ’ x 30 ’ garage addition to the northeast side of the existing garage. The 900 square foot addition does require a side yard setback variance. The doors on the garage would be on the east side (not facing street) near where a parking pad is currently located. The applicant seeks approval of a variance for side yard setback to be located 16.82 ’ where 30' is required from the side lot line. Attachments: A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Plat Map D Elevations E Location Map F Property Owner ’s List G Permit Record ff253-f Duncan MacMillan 1820 Fox Street Variance 10 12/99 pa're~l ANALYSIS Lot Area: RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Side Setback Required 87,120 s.f. (2Acres)200 ’30 ’ Proposed approx. 190,000 s.f.400 ’16.82 ’ Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included his statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Issues for consideration : 1. The property is heavily wooded with mature trees the applicant wishes to keep. 2. The applicant is part owner of the adjacent property. 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval of the variance for side yard setback for the 30' x 30 ’ garage addition. U2534 Duncan MacMillan 1820 Fox Street Variance 10/12/99 page~2 Attachments: A Application B Site Plan/ Survey C Elevation D Plat Map E Location Map F Property Owner’s List G Permit Record U2538 Robert Jqffray 540 Barrett Avenue Variance 10/12/99 page-3 CITY OF ORONO * • ^ 612249A616 09/20/99 O'-W''Nuicur CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION loiUal AppUeation Fee S250.00 _ (550.00 per each addiuonal varlecce) Rsnewal Vuieoce Fee S150-00 (00 ehange &om origi«l eppUeouon) V^ence for noo-eonfomung str«o«» » After-the-Fect Fees (Double oppUcaoon fcel AppSailoD #. “^fy- Date l/az/^1. Anenst PaUl A Attach legal description to application ri Mt include ___________^(monfli/year) •>. i present we or propeny. _jc—" \ c t K Districti_£iiEa^.^iSU£S^ applicant . /LiilVldi^ Address:, other (specify) # - r Phone (homeX ■^1cy 32-U2- OWNER (if different Phone (wooc)--------------- Name -Bili-'- g\ ^ L -----C^lOivT^tea--------Zipi-faSSaj- AddresIiSE^------ -a-* description of f.^ f-’O Hi>r#i'^—' zip:_££±Lk Phone Ch^m*) Phone (work). C ■>v J*/ jescribe request in 1^ ,1 f t> V shee^ if neebssar^ tot Wider Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage » Average Lakeshorc Other (specify)____ Other t.spccuy; ------------------------ HABDSHIP/DESCRIP^ON of eondiri Describe undue hardship or practcal diffi ^ u mr ,'Jjih/, compUance vdth Zo^g cod. «qu {>f^ /ujJ-tA / / .-f ^7'J i J ^ _v •. .'. • • •'» y: ./ ni B ^ r d>3-//7-^ ♦•« !«l*3i'3rf l»S BL4I \ ;STI^wi}iioa.i V $t (10) r 1 H L -T^'Tlji a Mi'Si irE u. a rs ■ .'l.i .WuJ«^ .y.O '',^4: •ft (■-.} - ' - M Am 14 i \ I I r-*ri:: *»«!_ f.«eg4 •tffCMmk ■M .«• V £ C/4LU0I: WATZAfA i DNO WfAJI CM bats aV FOX ■ATS ^ waiehtown m «J SOMCBSIT mj ••••••••••• nfm • •• 000 ULLIT nm*> T«« II Co^ THOWOUOHMID 0^ 0CV1N U CO UN ^____ISDBi ^0WN<\ SIOI Line . VNni 400 eoo .-D* -’■• 10N8V1CW cm ........................ • • • Bikins • • • '044106 4 40 A4M600N WAT ORONO niN^LAXE flO ^^;Orono. i- Golf • Aaoo Cou * S f •*4*3 • •••» »::•:. \ ■ooa*^ s!| ociiitoa S M ^S»J • • s M M •V li RUN DATE 09/21/99 BATCH 597 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TANPAVCR NAHE/AOOR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP AODR OMMEir NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 9S-117«2S A1 0903 01700 FOX ST CRAIOBANK ASSOCIATES CRA16BANK ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9S00 DEPT 20 HPLS HN 55990 SB B3-117-23 92 OOOB 01B90 FOX ST JOItl C SKOOLUND TRUSTEE JOHN C SKOOLUND C/0 BAKER HANACEHENT BO BTH ST S 09900 HPLS HN 55902 SO 0S*117-2S 99 0002 '01795 FOX ST ' SUAO H AZHARX SUAD H A2HARI 1795 FOX ST NAYZATA HN 55S91 r V * D HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 20 SO 9S’117-2S 92 0002 01000 FOX ST NILLIAN L WALDRON WILLIAH L WALDRON 1000 FOX ST NAYZATA HN 55391 SO 0S-117-2S 92 0007 01090 FOX ST NILLIAN L WALDRON WILLIAN L WALDRON 1000 FOX ST WAYZATA HN 55391 J SO 0S-117-2S 92 0009 01029 FOX ST N DUNCAN NACNILLAN W DUNCAN NACNILLAN 1020 FOX ST WAYZATA NN 55391 30 03*117-2S 93 0001 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSI6NED SUAD N AZHARI SUAD N AZHARI 1795 FOX ST WAYZATA NN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 507 00007 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATXON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE '9.-21-99 « ITT,I VI Permit No.m. ijlb ^>1 t V 71 ~3 .Um. 'ja 9d6j M3lG ’not lln^ mts' PERMIT RECORD Date /o-g s-t. % H-i'U *> UtlsuJeX / '.5 i' ‘9- 5-'/3 7- 9-li- ^ '/S-9^ // ' / lo'^S G ■ /o -9_~l_ 4-Q,q<^ f,/7- ^ f-Sto-?7 G Type of Permit AtM£UU% ^<j2.9Vi C-iajL (07/<iJti4LA Renncdei' (XAAxijjrf^ / 1^ TO: FROM: DATE; SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner October 12,1999 #2538 Rob/Tori Jaffray 540 Barrett Avenue Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area:38,700 s.f. (.88 acres) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): Lot yard requirements: To permit a front yard variance to allow the new roofline to be 25' from the front yard where 50' is required. Application Summary: The applicant has proposed to change the roof line on Jic e.\isting house. The roof line is changing to accommodate dormers. The dormers will tor more headroom in the second story. The location of the house is such that a section o'” (k'S li-itnin the front yard setback. In May 1992 this applicant was granted a front yard variance for*T 1/2 story addition. The front setback granted was 25' from the street line. The applicant seeks approval of a variance for front yard setback to be 25' where 50' is required. H2538 Robert Jqffrcof 540 Barrett Avenue Variance I0< 12/99 page-1 ANALYSIS Li2LAl£a: RR-IB Lot Area Front Yard Setback Required 2 acres 50’ Existing 38,700 s.f. or .88 acres 25' Proposed (No change)38,700 s.f. or .88 acres 25’ Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 38,700 s.f.Allowed: 5,805 s.f or 15% Existing: 1,667.69 s.f or 8.6% (No Change) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The roofline is changing but not the footprint of the house. 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance for front yard setback H2538 Robert Jaffray 540 Barrett Avenue /0//2/99 Variance page-2 Attachments: A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Elevation D Plat Map £ Location Map F Property Owner's List G Permit Record H2538 Robert Jqffray 540 Barrett Avenue Variance 10/12/99 page-3 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received" Amount Paid ^SC> ^ PROPERTY INFO^IATION Site Address ^ Property Identification Number fP.l.D.^ o L-t- B>1 cpoH-fa—^^ / Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. • *' "" Date Property Acquired. ---------------------------------^(raonth/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residentieil ___other (specify) Zoning District: g.g--\0>______------------------------------ APPLICANT Name Address: Phone fhome’l(^j2.> ^ ____ Phone (work) 12. - ril ‘ City: _________Zin: . . i) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work).\ Address:City:.Zip:,t .. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $coo m-------------------------------------------------------■ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Describe request in detail: -TO Oc»2-n. gta^ ^ y-J-r C,>^>^wry^4 ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preyentmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: zr^ ao-rv.r^c. for7r»Ci«j-r - c^u>-'c<;y Ar>>;.rru>-*>tt =------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) -TV I'prrcM »*> 7]fMrT ' Jti,j C.-H . c>0-> -TT> T>t© o^r T>«. t4o«^c . {dj REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. ^ 4. 5. 6. Hh 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property 0^^’ners 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 814" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" 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 your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and cp^ect to Applicant's Signature the best of his/her knowledge. Date_5ii!^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of inves^ation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please 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- 3 If . o 1 sitaBUiu 5^ S «_• .• ..• •• .V'. ‘C-‘- V V_ .-----r #• r r§u^ •'. •«'* v-»* A v.i*. •'} * V,r. •.:-». lEW cm »#u..«... ION WAT RON \ I Bikini.. .................................. (%. «• •. ^ LdOktvi \lm - ^ *»-••. 0l|) X 'V, ................... •V Orono Golf \ Course ['•... • -. Olvo S § DCKIIIOR Tanager PEAVEY msNUiftlu U • % fiREEKTU^X Browns .• 4 f S I POo * Bo M M» W S loinog gnS_ f «*. • # • • A* •• .*; /•>:.• .',• f. :.. V . Wayz •• *'iTv - *- ■ ? • •. • •• -,4, A m■f \ * m %* • • ^• -.: nn ‘ Breay ‘. / foi/i/ N>;«;£ / I. RUN DATE iV; BATCH 511PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR ONNER HANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADOR . ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP AMR ONNER NANC taxpayer NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AMR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR RUN DATE §9/21/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1935A0X PAGE 33 RATCH 511 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR LlO PROP ADOR mmn name TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR. OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 §2-117-23 31 §§§5 §§5A§ ORONO ORCHARD RO S SANDRA S LARSON SANDRA S LARSON 15A§ 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 5535A 36 §2-117-23 31 §006 §§55§ ORONO ORCHARD RD S LAWRENCE E NELSON LAWRENCE E NELSON 550 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §§07 §§§36 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROGER J HAWKINSON ROGER J HAWKINSON 57§ ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §§§6 §§§36 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROGER J HAWKINSON ROGER J HAWKINSON 570 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0009 §1360 FOX ST HER6ERT D MEYER Mff.TERT D MEYER ^JX 12 WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §§13 005§§ HANLON AVE P A I h N BENNETT PAUL A I MEGAN M DENNETT 50§ HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2 117-23 31 §§1A §§521 HANLON AVE C P GURLER t 6 GURLER CHARLES P GURLER 521 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 0015 §0537 HANLON AVE R V E M E KOEHNEN ROBERT E MICHEL KOEHNEN 537 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §§U §§545 HANLON AVE HAOASSAH YENUDIT ZONARA NADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA 545 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 V-r; sa az-nr-zs si aoir taasa address uhassidneo NADASSAH YENUDIT ZONARA NADASSAH YENUDIT ZOHARA 56S HANLON AVE ORONO HN 55SY1 Sa 02-117-Z3 31 OOla also# SHORELINE DR R E HOWARD ADS HOWARD ROBERT t BARBARA HOWARD 1300 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA NN SS301 sa 0Z-117-ZS 31 ms 01340 FOX ST ALLAN N LITWIN ALLAN N LITWIN 1340 FOX ST WAYZATA HN 55341 LLi, 01 36 §2-117-23 31 §§2§ §§§36 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED N D MEYER ETAL N D MEYER BOX 12 WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §§21 §13§§ FOX ST R T JAFFRAY E V H JAFFRAY R T E V N JAFFRAY 54§ BARRETT AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §§22 §§549 BARRETT AVE R T JAFFRAY E V H JAFFRAY R T E V N JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §023 §§540 BARRETT AVE R T JAFFRAY E V N JAFFRAY R T E V H JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0024 §§§36 ADDRESS UNAS:;IGNED PAUL E MEGAN BENNETT PAUL E MEGAN BENNETT 50§ HANLON AVE ORONO MN 55391 36 §2-117-23 31 §§44 §§540 BARRETT AVE R T JAFFRAY E V N JAFFRAY R T E V H JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 RUN DATE R9/21/99 BATCH 511 HEWIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB RZ-llT-ZS 31 R0A9 tOSBR ORONO ORCHARD RD S S S A J E WEBSTER STEVEN S t JO ELLEN WEBSTER SBB ORONO ORCHARD RD S HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 511 00019 REPORT HO. PI935901 PAGE 3A A CQ 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AH ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS APPEARS THIS DATC^OH THE^EW^^ OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE B OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE ) , A y Permit No. A 4?)^ A 44^ 4d9Q __________ Vj? y <__ 4f.i n 'Ion 5-40 ,;&<x'VO-ftXr 7)0^ G- PERMIT RECORD Date /?-2/-A-f g-g>|- •!?) Q- /-/'§/ h ■ 4 - 4 .3- _6 ;3s'~-9^ ^ - 9.a < ' ^ i /-/Jg Type of Permit 0 /I 4 • / . ^ P-"^^ j4.-uS~ ' c4_ 13 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE; Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner October 12,1999 SUBJECT; #2539 John/Becki Sundet 684 Tonkawa Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR> 1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:29,500 s.f. (.61 <\c;ds) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements: Within 75' to 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 5,841 s.f. (39.26%), where 14,878 s.f. (33.41%) exists, and 3,719.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessoiy structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Application Summary: The applicant has proposed to construct a new attached garage and a main floor master bedroom to the residence. A detached garage is currently located on the lot appro.ximately 200 feet up the driveway from the residence and will be removed once the attached garage is constructed. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 5,841 s.f. (39.26%), where 14,878 s.f. (33.41%) exists, and 3,719.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Staff has reviewed this application as an addition to the residence, not as a rebuild. #2539 John'Becki Sundet 6S4 Tonkawa Road Variance 10/12/99 page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IB (1 acre)Lot Area Lot Width Side Yard Setback Required 43,560 s.f.140'10' Proposed 29,564 s.f.85’11.8' Hardcover Calculations : Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75 ’6,376 s.f.Os.f. (0%) 617 S.f. (9.68%)541 s.f. (8.48%) 75'-250'14,878 s.f.3,719.5 (25%)4,971 s.f. (33.41%) 5,841 s.f. (39.26%) 250'-500’8,310 s.f.2,493 s.f. (30%)3,357 s.f. (40.4%) 1,550 s.f. (18.65%) Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 29,564 s.f.Allowed: 4,434.6 s.f.( 15%) Existing: 1,759 s.f. (6%) Proposed: 2,883 s.f. (10%) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. §2539 John/Becki Sundet 684 Tonkawa Pood Variance 10/12/99 page-2 Issues for Concern: ' 1. The existing house was built in 1960. It was at that time located closer to the lakeshore than its neighbors. 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the reasons for hardship. Also, staff has concerns regarding the grade of the driveway to the residence. The survey shows two walls as existing walls, which appears it is a rebuild. Katherine Taylor Homes did not return phone calls regarding this application. Attachments A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Elevation D Plat Map £ Location Map F Average Lakeshore Setback G Hardcover Worksheets H Property Owner’s List I Permit Record #2539 John/Becki Sundet 684 Tonkawa Road Variance 10/13/99 page-3 ft Application # Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _ _ ^ ^ -.-f Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 «aC*» ^ (no change from original application) ’ \ ~ - Variance for non-conforming structures $2yJ0 v - si— After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address- Cr>lf*4 ‘T29/Mi^AuJ^ fip qAo /OO Property Identification Number (P.I.D.'l -cX3-3?. v'O// Attach legal description to application if not included on required survjy. Date Pn^erty Acquired___________________________________________''month/year) I (do) ,(^ notj)also own the adjacent parcels of land. Presennise of property: resident!^ ___pother (specify)______________________ Zoning District:_____UQ. - \ &_____rM---------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Name Kft>1 Address: -RP OWNER (if different than applicant) i4 gfigict gjKipgr ( l^-7^:6PAie,rr.g»..^ Phone fltiiwc’l ____ Phone(vroric) ______ City: VABOltih*_______Zip: Qf different than applicant) Phone (home) 1?^ 1 - dg«t4 ^/Klper (Phone (work) s: 1 1'City: k/l’iPMK^****^**** Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ^OOVL a Describe request in detail: IM *iS*2So \MiMue CArmtj^^.'OouJhi 'ZSO’^QO P€o M• Tg ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ToTM. >Vwa Tb VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side V/^ Hardcover Rear |<7i3 onr Lot Coverage \l7cfeucTi* 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: LocA-nsb AP/^/^K-—FtT b4odie... TO ATTPAJ^ Tt)UP r?Ae.u. tiou%ks __lu__nv Pod. ftXtf^icA'L^ j T>g^i/2e~ tD /?6D SOFT* "To MAiM (attach additional sheete if necessary) pXeTi-„! lOirw.M i5« oc/e»/=K^ sreijTO A/A/Cie4M4^ t-A-r. $ .7 *• • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the applicarion 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 firom 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 814" x 11" for reproduction. ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if* any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/4" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). __ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). __ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __ Additional item? as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this a^licatidn.- ‘PieaSe remember! that vonr varfamce application is not complete if the above information has rtiot been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide .all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay' additional fees (staff time not* covered*, by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses* iiicuned in review of this application, and certifies that the iifformation supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature .Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, corfsultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning * Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to. advise the Biilding & Zoning Office of this change-prior to the meeting.. . .; *. • 7 E OF SURVEY FOR TAYLOR' S HOMES 5UNDET RESIDENCE \RTEN' S POINT FIRST DIVISION :OUNTY. MINNESOTA CO r^<i'—tnM rt -TTri-™ nir^ ^ ^ ^ Mrif «r i«l f. *500 iM 9t X Pmimt • r. -• • Ml • • iarwit* V : 4M«M iP*« . aaM^ €•*••# M# lial |i *• fcF‘M4 «»OT •* »« imthM •• • pim**94 *mm» •»# r*»| •• #«• «r ' J ' » ; f* Flans & OiMings a» Rnaperfy d; KtfhiriM Tiyl^ Kaaei^ b& UsaPtaMbiMVIMiarfCanttt RMMMinirtsTa: itaaTavNnrp^ 435-1180 o -U^ ^•» ♦n-* 1, . Plans & Drav/ings a/e Property o ‘: Katherine Tayior ’e Homce, Inc. Use Prohibied Without Consent Return All Prints To: Katherine Taylor (612) 47S-1 160 I ■■■>>■ imiivMui ii ai jii■■ mm ■■ __________ '••AiAk.ilUuf [M!' ••»? :!f!l dIMiiiiilitii IZIJIMI lllldliMi* (hlliil iiiiiiHiii O iiO)' .— j i ■ f r^"^) Q Plans & Drawings o-e Property ;:: Katherine Taylor’s Homes, Inc. Use Prohibit^ Without Consent Return All Prints To: Katherine Taylor (612) 475-1130 O Plans & Drawings are Property c f: Kathirin# Taylor's HoniM, Irw. Use Prohibited Without Consent Return All Prints To: Katherine Taylor (612) 475-1160 5: (■S) 6fia.85 Na9»2B*E THAI 456.02 APBi (17) tOl. 12 Fn: • •• I-' '(15)Li^ > ''5(1) OI (5) <?:• >t.X '. S J ■*•.. \J RT r <^S CJ '-.S' a),^^ >-. . XV > 3^ '?)' I* ...\0-^\,^',,-' (9)" .r*• *.Hh* • • • •I • ...\y* ...* • • . ^ •• 1 e (10) EH.EEN ST WAHATA ORONO ’Ad WEAR cn SCMR8TINE OR 5/Sy V •• IM p :-T «Ait ' ■m Stubbs f • • * * * J OAHLRD »•’ j »• :••■:.■. i. FOX ^ WATERTOWR m CO/, ° THOROOWl \t . i SOMERSET ^Stnwo*’^ifi__ ►•••••••• lATSBERO g WNITE^I \400 F(X “ 000 •. •# JCU SN6^ OEVIRU lONBviEw cn ABDI600R WAT ORO FRERCH LAKE RO funch) <. ''Lake'" ■OHNSi FOWT \U ) o ./ P • • .1?,ORON' *«# 1600 Crystal ‘•-”C|S V‘• • ;...... Bohns PotMt Crystal Bay * •• *v • • • Ltfayet j ' ■/v'V7;^ounlryC ub ' , / Pernit No. PERMIT RECORD Date mi U V3AZ> ^S2/. I-■7* 7^ I - y-74 Type of Permit /UtSlU /ZiT^ 5/7C ^dTZ*/ti7g NdOirttp '7L; tMpSFT ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date vrith the foiiowing members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn. Commissioners Dale Undquist. Elizabeth Hawn. William Stoddard. Sandra Smith. Daniel Kluth. and Commissioner Jay Nygard arrived at 6:33 p.m. The following represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, City Council Representative Richard Flint, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: PUBUC HEARINGS 1. #2516 JEFF MARTINEAU, 1420 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES, 6:32 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Jeff Martineau. Applicant, was present on behalf of the property owner. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to allow the lot to be redeveloped as a residential site and to permit the detached garage on the property to remain after the principal structure has been removed. This lot is unique in that it has two 0-75 foot iakeshore setback zones. Weinberger stated a garage and small portion of driveway is located within the 75 fool Iakeshore setback on the northwest comer of the property. The principal strurture was removed in 1997, and City Code prohibits accessory buildings on lots without a principal structure. A variance is needed to allow the structure to remain within 75 feet of the lake, a hardcover variance, and a variance to the average Iakeshore setback. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances to allow the garage to remain In Its current location. Weinberger stated that this lot does meet all the zoning requirements for the LR-1A zoning district and consists of approximately 2.0 acres. The Applicant is proposing to have a building pad on the portion of the property outside the required setbacks but would, however, encroach into the bluff setback. The proposed location of the residence would take advantage of the previous building pad and not require the removal of trees necessary for protection of the property between the proposed house and Shoreline Drive. If the house was constructed further to the north on the lot, the existing driveway would be required to be realigned and result in the removal of some mature trees and some extensive regarding. City Staff is recommencing approval of the variances to permit encroachment into the top of bluff setback to permit a new residence to be constructed on the site since the proposed location of the residence would take advantage of the previous building pad and r!Ot require the removal of trees as well as avoiding the need to realign the existing driveway. Page 1 .•f '! ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 (#2518 Jeff MartiiMau, Continuad) Martineau stated the property owners purchased the property with the idea of renovating the existing residence but through the process of renovation, the owners decided to tear the existing structure down and construct a new residence on the lot. Martineau stated the garage is in good shape and the property owners would like to keep it. Smith inquired whether the use of the existing garage would change. Martineau stated the use of the garage would remain the same. Smith inquired whether there would also be a new garage constructed along with the new residence. Martineau stated a new garage would be constructed as well. Weinberger stated the new residence would not encroach within the 75 foot setback but would encroach Into the bluff setback as proposed. Hawn inquired whether the residence could be located outside of the bluff setback. Weinberger stated if the house is moved out of the bluff setback, it would encroach into the SO foot setback to the street. Hawn indicated that in the past the Planning Commission has not allowed encroachment into the bluff setback and that this ordinance should be strictly enforced. Martineau stated most of the vegetation has already been removed where the existing house was located and that additional vegetation would need to be removed should the proposed residence be relocated. Hawn suggested that the property owners consider relocating the house 20 feet closer to the street to lessen the impact on the bluff. Smith inquired whether relocation of the residence would have any impact on the drainage. Weinberger stated that Staff has a concern with relocating the residence much closer to the roadway due to the fact that County Road 15 is a heavily traveled road and if the residence is relocated 20 feet closer to the road, it would then be located 30 feet from the street. Weinberger commented that the current plan is taking advantage of the existing driveway and the highest point on the property. Stoddard stated that the previous residence existed within the bluff setback on this property for approximately 75 to 100 years. Weinberger stated the previous residence did encroach into the 75 foot setback. Stoddard stated given the history of the location of the previous residence, he would not be opposed to the new residence encroaching slightly into the bluff setback. Lindquist stated he would not be opposed to allowing the residence to encroach into the bluff setback, but would like to see the existing garage relocated out of the 0-75 foot setback or removed altogether. Weinberger indicated that this property is being considered for possible connection to City sewer, and that connection to City sewer could be a condition of approval on this application. Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (#2516 Jeff Martin«au, Continued) Matlineau stated that he would recommend to the property owners that they hook up to City sewer since the majority of the site would not be able to accommodate their own private sewer, and that they are willing to work with City Staff on this issue. Hawn and Smith indicated they would also like to see the garage relocated outside of the 0-75 foot setback. Martineau stated there is a hardcover issue if the garage is kept within the 0-75 foot setback. Weinberger remarked if the existing driveway is kept basically the same, there would not be a hardcover issue if the current garage is relocated outside of the 0-75 foot setback. Martineau stated that this lot contains a limited building pad and that the property owners are attempting to preserve the lakeshore as much as possible. Martineau remarked if the residence is relocated closer to the roadway, it would Impact negatively on the site, and that additional land may be taken in the future to accomm^ate widening of the highway. Hawn commented in her opinion the house could be relocated slightly to lessen the impact on the bluff, noting that the ordinance was drafted to help control the runoff into the lake. Kluth stated in his view the Planning Commission needs to do a balancing Job between working with the hardships that exist on the property and protecting the bluff, but that moving the residence much closer to the roadway might not be the best solution to this problem. Nygard commented in his view the runoff from County Road 15 will be more than the runoff that the the property owner might experience from the bluff. Hawn indicated she was not sure a hardship exists to allow encroachment into the bluff, but that there does appear to be a consensus regarding the relocation of the existing garage. Smith commented she was in favor of perhaps relocating the house ten feet closer to the roadway, which could significantly lessen the impact to the bluff. Hawn stated she would like to see a new plan showing the proposed residence closer to the roadway. Stoddard indicated he would be willing to vote on this application tonight. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to approve Application #2516,1420 Shoreline Drive, to grant a variance to permit encroachment Into the top of bluff setback to permit a new residence to be constructed on the site, to grant a variance to the average lakeshore setback, subject to the condition that the existing garage is either removed or relocated outside of the 0-75 foot setback prior to the first building permit being issued on this property, subject to the condition that hardcover not exceed 25 percent in the 75-250 foot setback, and further subject to the condition that City sewer is available to this site. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Smith and Hawn opposed. Hawn indicated she was opposed to allowing encroachment into the bluff setback since In her view no hardship has been demonstrated, but was in agreement with removal of the existing garage from the 0-75 foot setback. Smith indicated she was in agreement with Hawn. Page 3 t II ■ I TIB ' I !■ ~i ■ > ORONO PLANNINO COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (#2616 Jeff Martineau, Continuad) Hawn stated this is a public hearing, noting that she failed to ask for public comment on this application prior to the motion being voted upon. Hawn stated she would like to having the Planning Commission revote on the motion following any public comments. There were no public comments. REVOTE: Ayet 4, Nays 2, Smith and Hawn opposed for same reasons. 2. #2519 MATTHVfM AND ROBIN STALOCH, 4705 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES. 7:01 p.m.< 7:10 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Matthew and Robin Staloch, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit the construction of a horse bam between the principal structure and the street. This property lies within the RR*1 A, five acre district. Horses and bams are permitted accessory uses in the RR-1A District. A variance is needed to permit the bam as an accessory building to be located closer to the front yard setback than the existing principal structure. The proposed accessory building does meet all the required setbacks for oversized structure. The proposed location is basically the only feasible spot for the accessory structure. City Staff is recommending approval of the application with the condition the property owners file a restrictive covenant on the property which would state that if the property is ever subdivided in the future, the bam may be required to be removed. Smith commented that this is a similar situation to one that the Planning Commission had approved in the past. Mrs. Staloch stated it was their opinion that this was a six acre parcel. Weinberger stated this is a six acre parcel but it lies within the five acre zoning district. Hawn commented that the Planner's Report does not indicate the size of the parcel. Smith inquired whether there were any septic issues relating to this property. Mrs. Staloch stated they recently constructed a new mound system approximately one year ago and that there are other possible secondary septic sites. Weinberger recommended that the secondary septic site be located outside of the fenced in pasture area. Hawn indicated she does not have a problem with this application. There were no public comments. SmKh moved. Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2519,4705 Watertown Road, to grant a variance to permit the construction of a horse bam between the Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (#2519 Matthtw and Robin Staloch, Continuad) principal structura and tha straat. wHh tha accassory structure teing located closar to the straat satback than tha principal structura, subjact to tha condition that a secondary suitable septic site be located on the subject pfopeityv and further subject to the condition that a rastrictiva covenant be filed by tha property owners indicating that if the property is subdivided in tha future, tha horse bam may need to be removed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2520 TOM BERTIAUME, 3035 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 7:10 p.m. - 7:11 pjn. Tom Bartiaume, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Appiicant is requesting a variance to permit an extension of the eaves on one side of the home to extend over a sidewalk alongside the house. The existing eaves on the house extend three feet, with the proposed addition making the eaves five feet wide. The Appilcants are requesting to relocate the walkway closer to the residence and extend the roof line to allow for a covered walkway to the residence. Weinberger stated that a variance to hardcover would also be needed to allow for hardcover within the 75-250* lakeshore setback. The existing hardcover would be reduced by .5 percent to 57.6 percent. Weinberger indicated that the Applicant has voluntarily removed a majority of the rock and plastic undertayment, which was a condition of a previously approved application in 1993. Berthiaume stated he has no comment regarding his application. Hawn inquired whether this application has been discussed with his neighbors. Berthiaume remarked that his neighbors are In favor of the application. Lindquist indicated he does not have a problem with this application. Smith inquired whether all the plastic undertayment has been removed. Weinberger stated that removal of the plastic undertayment has been removed. Nygard commented that he did view some plastic undertayment under the rock. Berthiaume stated that a substantial portion of the rock and plastic undertayment were removed in accordance with his previous application. Undquist suggested that removal of ait the plastic undertayment be a condition of the motion. Hawn commented to her understanding the rock and plastic would be removed as part of the construction of the walkway and placement of sod. Berthiaume stated that was a correct understanding. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to recommertd approval of Application #2520, 3035 Casco Point Road, to grant variances to sideyard setback and hardcover to permit Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 (#2520 Tom Bortiaumo, Continued) an extension of the eaves on one side of the home to extend over a sidewalk alongside the house, subject to removal of all plastic underlayment under the road which currently Is located on the property. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #2521 JOE HAUS, 4455 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:18 p.m. -7:28 p.m. Joe Haus, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a garage with living space above as a guest house on the property. This lot is located within the RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District, consisting of over sbc acres in a two acre zoning district. The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence and,construct a new home on the site. The guest house will be utilized by the Applicant as a residence during the demolition and the construction of the new residence. Weinberger stated the proposed location of the guest house is an accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. City Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to permit the construction of a guest house, but the Applicant should be aware that a new conditional use permit will need to be approved upon completion of the new residence. Weinberger noted that the existing septic system is designed to accommodate a three bedroom house, with a new septic system being required upon completion of the new residence due to the fact that the size of the guest house is three bedrooms. Haus stated the garage located at the top of the property is not in very good shape and would probably be removed, along with an old quinset hut located on the properly, which eventually be removed. Smith inquired whether those buildings would be removed. Haus stated they would be removed. Smith inquired whether the guest house would meet the requirements for a conditional use permit upon completion of the new residence. Weinberger stated that this proposal does meet the requirements for a conditional use permit. Following completion of the new residence, the septic system would need to be updated. Haus stated he would like to finish the guest house prior to removal of the existing residence. Hawn stated the Applicant should be aware that the guest house should not be rented out in the future. Haus indicated he understands that condition. Lindquist indicated he does not have a problem with this application. There were no public comments. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (#2521 Joe Haus. Continued) Haus inquired whether improvements coutd be made to the existing garage located on the property. Weinberger stated a building permit would need to be applied for prior to any improvements being made on the garage. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2521, 4485 Bayside Road, and grant a conditional use pennit to permit construction of a garage with living space above it as a guest house on the property, subject to the condition that the guest house be connected to the existing septic system at the time the new residence is completed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 7:28 p.m. - 7:31 p.m.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2522 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE NORTH AND COUNTY ROAD 6 • CLASS III SUBDIVISION. 7:31 p.m. - 9:03 p.m. David Newman and Marty Campion, The Bancor Group, appeared. Weinberger stated the Bancor Group has submitted a preliminary plat application for a 58 acre parcel located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North which proposes to subdivide the property into 49 loU, with an average density of approximately one acre per dwelling unit. The Applicants are requesting that the property be rezoned to R-1A to allow the one acre per unit densHy and develop the property as a Planned Residential Development. A PRD is a conditional use in the R-1 A District. The purpose of a PRD is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces and to counteract the effects of urban congestion. A PRD would allow the property to be developed at one unit per acre, however, the average lot size would be less than one acre. The remainder of the property would be held by the Homeowners Association as open space. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing access through a newly platted street, with no access to this development off of Willow Drive or County Road 6. However, on five lots Willow Drive would be considered the rear yard. The proposed rezoning of the site would allow a higher density development. The property could not sustain a rural style development with individual septic systems due to the high water table and poor soil types present. It may be appropriate to utilize this property as a buffer zone between the different uses surrounding the proposed development, with two acre density east of Willow Drive, two acre density north of County Road 6, the Orono School Campus to the west, and possible townhome/office use along Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway to the south. Rezoning the property to sustain higher density housing may be appropriate for this area because sanitary sewer is available and would be a condition of approval. Development of this area as a PRD would also allow for the creation of conservation outiots along County Road 6 and Willow Drive, which would allow the highest concentration of lots being located within the interior of the property. The City’s Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area might be suitable for a PUD. Newman stated following their last appearance before the Planning Commission, they have reduced the proposed number of lots for this development to 49 and relocated the access north. Newman stated this development would serve as a transition zone between the two acre density areas to the Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) east and north and the school to the west and possible townhome/office use to the south. Newman stated due to the high water table and poor soils in this area, it is necessary to develop this area with City sewer and water, which dictates the need for higher density housing in an effort to help offset those connection costs. This development would also offer an opportunity for those people being relocated due to the Highway 12 project to remain in this community. Newman commented in his opinion this development would not significantly impact negatively on the traffic situation in the area and would be an asset to the community by providing higher income housing. The concept plan proposes a trailway to the east and north as well as berming and landscaping in an effort to help buffer the area from Willow Drive and County Road 6. Extensive open spaces are being provided as well as ponding and protection to the wetlands. Newman stated the Bancor Group has attempted to comply with Orono's standards and would be a valuable addition to the neighborhood and community. Campion stated they have received a copy of the City Engineer's letter and all the issues raised will be addressed at the time of final plat. Campion indicated they are willing to work with the City Engineer in an effort to resolve these issues. Newman commented since this is only the preliminary plat stage, some of these issues will be addressed later on in the application process. Hawn stated that due to the number of people in the audience who wish to speak regarding this application, it will be necessary to limit public comment to five minutes per speaker. Steve Johnston, 2330 Shadywood Drive, stated he is representing a number of people tonight, noting that he has resided in Orono for 12 years, is a civil engineer by occupation, and has become familiar with Orono's Comprehensive Plan and ordinances over the years. Johnston remarked the Comprehensive Plan focuses on what is known as an urbanization cycle, which calls for extension of City services into areas where they are anticipating higher density housing. Johnston pointed out that the original Comprehensive Plan reiterated lime and time again that urbanization will not be expanded into existing rural areas, which over time has been revised and now allows for carefully integrated developments to limit the adverse affect on the surrounding areas, with a desire to maintain open spaces and natural environment as much as possible. Johnston noted that the sewer policy does call for City sewer in developments where the land is not able to support their own individual septic systems due to poor soils or high water table. Johnston reviewed an overhead depicting various proposals prepared by a consultant hired by the City on how this area can best be developed, noting that the number of lots proposed by the City consultant range from 14 lots to 20 lots, with the owner of the property proposing 22 lots at that time. Johnston stated when Amendment Two to the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City, it was determined that the City should remain at the two acre zoning. Johnston remarked that this area has been designated as a buffer area due to the wetlands and open spaces in this area. In order for rezoning to occur, the question noonally posed to the Planning Commission is what conditions have changed since the adoption of Amendment Two which would dictate the need for rezoning of this area. Johnston stated in his opinion the conditions calling for two acre zoning have not changed and that this area should remain zoned at two acres in an effort to preserve the natural environment. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) Johnston indicated that although overall the development is calling for one lot per acre, the average density under this PRD would be approximately .55 acres, with the smallest lot being .4 acres. In the past Orono has suggested that every lot have Hs own recreational area, which is doubtful for this development due to the small lots being proposed. Johnston pointed out that there is not a significant buffer area being proposed between the residences and Willow Drive, which should be addressed. Johnston stated he would like to reserve the right to speak again should the Planning Commission indicate a willingness to vote in favor of the rezoning. John Grobe, 2350 Shadowood Drive, presented the Planning Commission with a petition signed by 48 residents in the area opposed to developing this area into less than two acre lots. Grobbe indicated that a larger number of residents wouid probabiy be in attendance at tonight's meeting but are unable to attend due to the open house beirtg held at the school tonight. Grobe stated that he moved to Orono because of the smaller community size and the rural environment, which he wouid like to see preserved as much as possible. Grobe encouraged the Planning Commission to deny this application, noting that in the past four years, all the developments which have occurred in the City has been at two acres or more, and that the impact of this development needs to be considered. Eric Menge. 340 Tumham Road, stated he is a life-long resident of Orono and would like to see Orono remain as more of a rural type community, with higher density housing being avoided. Tom Carlson stated he is moving to Orono due to the rural natural of the community. Carlson remarked he had the understanding that Orono had a two acre minimum zoning requirement, and if higher density is proposed for this area, it may open the way for other developers to propose higher density housing for the Orono community. Carlson encouraged the Planning Commission to stick to the two acre zoning requirements. A number of residents in the audience indicated that they would like to see the tvw acre zoning preserved in Orono, and encouraged the Planning Commission to deny this application due to the high density housing being proposed for this area. Donna Crotteau, 2650 Silver View, commented that there are other developments that exist in Oron 3 which are comprised of less than two acres, and that this development would help generate additional tax dollars for the City. Laurie Collick, Medina, stated she would like to see this area preserved due to the natural feeding area that currently exists for the wildlife. Collick commented she would like to see the rural nature of Orono preserved as much as possible, and if this development is approved, it will open the door for more requests for higher density housing. Collick expressed concerns atwut the impact that this development will have on the Orono Schools, noting that there currently is a shortage of classroom space, and that this development will also have a negative impact on the amount of traffic In the area. Collick urged the Planning Commission to deny this application. Cathy Johnston, 2336 Shadywood Drive, commented that Amendment Two to the Comprehensive Plan does recognize one acre housing, noting that this development will be hidden by a number of trees atuf is located close Long Lake, which has higher density housing. Newman, Bancor Group, stated that the realignment of Highway 12 does present a basis upon which the comprehensive plan needs to be reviewed and perhaps revised. Newman commented that they acknowledge the neighborhoods' concerns regarding this development, but that an Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (#2522 Th« Bancor Group, Contlnuad) overall view of the development should be taken, noting that many of the lots will overlook open space. Newman remarked due to the high costs associated with developing this parcel of property and the poor soils and high water table in the area, It is impossible to develop this property at a lower density. Hawn commented that there are certain housing needs in Orono which are not currently being met. but that this proposal in her opinion does not address those housing needs. Hawn stated there needs to be a compelling reason to revise the Comprehensive Plan, which in her opinion has not been demonstrated tonight. Hawn thanked the people in the audience for their interest in this proposed development and in the future development of Orono. Kluth commented that the Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council, and In his opinion it is not within their Jurisdiction to change the comprehensive plan. Smith stated that the Planning Commission does need to look at the future needs of the residents in Orono. both near term and long-term, and that the City is receptive is looking at other types of housing in Orono. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed housing is too dense for this area but does make good use of the City sewer and water that is available in the area. Stoddard commented he is in favor of two acre zoning, but would be willing to considf^*' a proposal calling for 39 or fewer units on this property. Lindquist acknowledged that developments are genei'ai! / economically driven, but that the Planning Commission does not look at the economic side of the pt oposed development but rather the impact that the development will have on the community. Lindqui' * commented that in his opinion the housing density should be reduced somewhat, with this high <.^ensity housing being unacceptable in his view. Newman requested that direction be given from the Planning Commission on what they would like to see for this site. Kluth stated that the Planning Commission is not in a position to develop plans for a particular area, but that in his opinion housing in this area should be limited. Hawn stated that personally she would be interested in seeing smaller, more maintenance free housing for this area, with plenty of open space being provided. Kluth moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2522, Southwest Comer of Willow Drive North and County Road 5, Class III Subdivision. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:03 p.m. - 9:08 p.m.) CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#6) #2523 RONALD AND RITA ZEBECK, 998 WILDHURST TRAIL • VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:08 p.m. - 9:41 p.m. Tim Oberg, Southview Design, was present. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (#2523 Ronald and Rita Zaback. Continuad) Wainbaigar stated the Applicants are requesting hardcover variances and a conditional use permit to permit gradittg within 75 feet of the lakeshore in order to relocate the existing driveway and to construct some retaining walls to allow for better use of the land. The driveway realignment would allow the driveway to be more centrally located In that portion of the property and then allow for the planting of trees to help screen it from the neighboring property. The grading work beirig proposed will result in 1,300 cubic yards of fill being brought In, some of which will occur within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the Applicants are also requesting to erect a fence along the side property lines, and ar» proposing shielded lighting to illuminate the fence. Weinberger remarked that the Applicants are proposing a slight increase In the hardcover for the 75-250' zone, but that hardcover In the 250-500' zone will be reduced. Weinberger stated this Is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to require the Applicant conform to the hardcover requirements in the 75-250' zone. Staff also does not feel that gradiiig within 75 feet of the lakeshore is necessary and could be preserved. Staff is recommending that the Applicant submit revised plans. Tim Oberg, Southvlew Design, stated two plans have been submitted ori this application, noting that the retaining wall depicted on the topographical map Is located outside of the 75 zone, which is inaccurate. The retaining wall is located within the 75* setback, with no grading being proposed for the 0-75' setback. All grading will occur within the 75-250' zone. Oberg stated as far as hardcover, the house is built extremely close to the 75 setback and Is located next to a steep Incline. The retaining walls are designed to allow the property owners to walk on the side of the house facing the lake and to level off the area somewhat. Currently the property owners are unable to use an entrance located on that side of the house due to the steepness of the slope. The overall hardcover In the 75-250' zone would be decreased by one percent. The existing boulder wall and a stairway will be removed in the 0-75' zone, which will reduce the hardcover in that area slightly. Oberg stated the Applicants would like to relocate their driveway in an effort to achieve more privacy aruJ is currently located five feet from the property line. The bulk of the grading is to allow for relocation of the driveway and leveling off of the area next to the residence. Oberg commented the lighting proposed by the Applicants will shine into their property and be shielded inside the pillars. Lindquist inquired whether the hardcover in the 0-75' zone could be reduced further. Oberg stated the driveway has already been reduced to 10 feet wide, and that in his opinion hardcover In the 0-75' zone cannot be reduced further. Hawn indicated that the Planning Commission is reluctant to allow much grading within the 0-75' area, and inquired whether the retaining wall is necessary at the bottom of the slope. Oberg stated the slope is very steep in this area and the retaining walls will enable the properly owners to utilize the entrance on that side of the house and walk in that area by leveling that area off. Lindquist stated the survey will need to be corrected before the City Council meeting with the retaining walls being depicted in the correct location. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1S99 (#2523 Ronald and Rita Zebeck, Continuad) Hawn commented that the plans are confusing with the retaining waiis not being located in the correct spot, and that the map shouid be corrected to avoid confusion on the part of the City Councii. Stoddard inquired whether the retaining waiis couhJ be shortened somewhat Oberg stated the Appiicants are attempting to reduce the hardcover in the 0-75* zone, but that the retaining wali cannot be shortened if the Applicants are to be abie to gain access to this area. Oberg stated the retaining wall is not located in the 0-75* zone but is depicted inaccurately on the topographical map. There were no public comments. Smith noted that there is no grading being proposed for the 0>75' zone, and that the issue is whether the hardcover could be reduced further in that zone. Oberg stated in his opinion the hardcover cannot be reduced further. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2523, 998 Wildhurst Trail, and grant a conditional use permit to allow 1,300 cubic yards of fill, with the understanding that no grading will occur within the 0-75' zone, and to grant a hardcover variance to permit 25.7 percent hardcover within the 75-250* zone, subject to submittal of an updated survey prior to the City Council meeting to reflect the proper location of the retaining wall. Hawn commented that the lights are located on the interior of the pillars as opposed to on top of the fence. Stoddard stated the lights should shine inwards towards the subject property. Kluth commented that there appear to be a number of mistakes in this application and requested that the Applicant delineate the amount of Fill to be used and the location of the fill. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #2524 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN. 1820 FOX STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:42 p.m. - 9:52 p.m. Steve Fomay was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow land alteration of greater than 500 cubic yards and to permit grading within five feet of the property lines to allow for redirecting of a driveway access further to the east. The existing driveway is quite steep, with the proposed driveway being at an eight percent slope and the landing to Fox Street being at two percent. The proposed driveway would greatly reduce the overall slope for a driveway. City Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to review and approval by the City Engineer of the grading and drainage plan, as well as the other conditions outlined in the September 9.1999 Planner's Report. Weinberger stated the address is incorrect and should read 1820 Fox Street Page 12 ; ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 <#2524 W. Duncan MacMillan, Continued) Smith inquired whether it would make more sense * .r this to be an outiot rather than an easement. WeinberQer stated an outiot is created tor a subdivision, which is not the case here, and access to an adjacent property is being provided via an easement. Gaffron stated no outiot is beii^ created, noting that this situation is not unusual for this area. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved to recommend approval of Application #2524,1820 Fox Street, subject to the conditions outlined In the September 9,1999 Planner's Report. Fomay stated the width of the easement is still in question, and inquired whether the easement could be 30 feet in width rather than the depicted 40 feet Weinberger stated 30 feet is fine. Fomay commented that this may not be a permanent easement and that the property owner may revert back to using the existing driveway sometime in the future. Weinberger stated that approval of the curb cut would be needed prior to reverting back to the old driveway. Fomay stated the property to the west is owned 100 percent by the Applicant, with the property to the east being Jointly owned between the Applicant and his family. They would like to reserve the right to cancel the easement in the future. Gaffron stated the City cannot deny the Applicant a curb cut, and that the pending proposal vrould create a better situation. Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#10) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999 Motion by Undquist, second by Kiuth, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 16,1999, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AUGUST 23,1999 AND SEPTEMBER 13,1999 Jay Nygard attended the September 13.1999 City Council meeting and reported that the lots located near the Narrows Bridge was discussed, and it was decided to leave the no parking signs erected. Nygard reported that the Dakota Rail will officially stop doing business October 15. being made on the proposed trail. Nygard remarked the Dakota Trail \Muld enable the City to eliminate a safety hazard in the winter, namely Fletcher's Channel, which should be considered. Flint stated that the railroad needs to go through a public process to abandon the line, which could take five to six months. Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 («9) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None («11) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 27,1999 AND OCTOBER 11,1999 September 27 • Stod<lanl October 11 - Nygard ADJOURNMENT Motion by Kluth, Mcond by Lindquist, to ed{oum the meeting at 9:57 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn. Chair Page 14 yriri t • I .