The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-21-1997 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 21,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Char ’es Kelley ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS'PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1. 7:00 p.m. #2201 George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570, 580, 590 and 600 Big Island - Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-Way 2.7:30 p.m.#2204 James G. Fullerton III, 3350 and 3400 Fox Street - Class III, Preliminary Subdivision/Conditional Use Permit. ACTION ITEMS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 3.#2187 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North - Variances -Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 4.#2195 Genmar Inoi. tries, Inc., 1449 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site PlanA^ariances - Continuation of Public Hearing 5.#2199 Richard W. Bloomquist, Rick's Super Valu, 3333 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances - Public Hearing 6.#2200 Mr. and Mrs. William Ellis, 2435 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing 7.#2202 Hennepin County Department of Public Works, County Road 15 Improvement Commencing at Orono Orchard Road Intersection East to City Line - Conditional Use Permit and Variances - Public Hearing Sketch Plan/Conceptual Reviews 8.#2203 Ted Wolf, 900 Willow Drive - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed Class III Subdivision Planning Commission Comments 9.Report by Planning Commission Representatives attending Council Meetings of November 25, 1996 and December 9,1996 10.Other Issues for Discussion PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING r TUESDAY, JANTJARY 21,1997,7:00 P.M. Additional Items 11. Planning Commission Approval of Minutes of the November 18, 1996 Meeting 12. Planning Commission to Select Representatives to Attend the Council Meetings of January Adjournment A ■ JC I ■* L" k '« r i Public A ttendance Meeting Date □□C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.^u7fy' /^A^n 5 TA^r^i ff/ 2. ^ rtt'i 6:1.■^^■3 'H= 1 -----1 ^ V V --------------------------------------------^ r ^ ytf ir — iSA 7 4 ^ - 4 4 ^^--------------------- 8- T)dhA Vsfe.cL£>1 ^ ^ *7 C~^R.ASt\t)44^+*^ Q. <1 fi^ ^of h^n/^/L/ O/^^aJO ^ 7 -i 4 10. r f y 4 V 11. /-^>OlxJ cf32-0 Of^c>^ci ^lo ^ ~~7 12. R>bJo%A'ocmc)ui^- n £T 13. (^^,1 1)S'<6'’ ((j M / tf tv CTT^^ ^f)(^ 2j ------*---------------(A. ^fy., -■>' — 14. //iP^QJiA'i \AJ IviPc /fT7 ^tvvv> 1^0 C \ . - - 1 1 15. OllJiS.4 iA -j ■ V.} 4 $1 'i V * i /. To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator January 7, 1997 Subject:#2201 George Adams, James Fieger, and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570-580-590-600 Big Island - Right-of-Way Vacation - Public Hearing Zoning District: RS, Seasonal Recreational, 5 Acre Application: Request for vacation of dedicated road right-of-way within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, in order to accommodate a proposed shared septic system and for other purposes. List of Exhibits A - Application B • Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - DNR Comments 1/9/97 F - US West Comments 1/8/97 G - City Letter to Applicant 12/18/96 H - Applicant Letter to City 12/13/96 City Letter to Applicant 12/10/96 with Map - Septic System Proposed Design K - Area Topographic Map L - Original Plat, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka (1888) Background "Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka" was platted on Big Island in 1888. That plat included the dedication of unnamed streets and a "park" area (see plat map). Each of the three applicants owns property adjacent to the two platted streets at the southeast comer of that old subdivision. The applicants have been advised by the City that their non-conforming septic systems need to be brought into conformity. They propose to construct a shared septic system with drainfield located partially within platted right-of-way. In addition to proposing just a vacation of the portion of street necessar>’ to accommodate the drainfield, they propose a more comprehensive vacation of the dedicated road access to the lake as well as to the eastern property boundar>'. 1 Zoning File #2201 January 7, 1997 Page 2 Original Plat Dedication The original plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka dedicated these streets and the park area to the public forever. The intent of dedication of right-of-way is to provide for pedestrian and vehicular access to properties, to provide corridors for utilities, and for other purposes. Necessary Findings for Vacation In order to recommend approval of the vacation of public right-of-way. Planning Commission must be able to make the following findings: I. The vacation is in keeping with the public interest. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road c.xcept for utilities and access purposes. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it e.xisls ser\'es no public purpose. 2. 3. 4. Public Purposes Served by Existing Right-of-Way Staff has identified a number of public purposes ser\ed by the existing right-of-way proposed to be vacated: 1. Telephone lines. 2. Electric power lines. 3. Potential Minnegasco gas lines. 4. Potential cable TV lines. 5. Provision of legal access to properties not abutting any other road or the shoreline. 6. Public access to properties abutting the shoreline but that have steep slopes and/or bluffs making vehicular access impossible from the lakeshore. 7. Public access to the "park" land dedicated in the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Vacation The following represent public and private impacts if the proposed vacation is approved: 1. Properties to the north of Lots 22 - 24 will effectively be landlocked. 2. Lakeshore properties along the west side of the island will no longer have an alternate rear access to the lakeshore. Such an access may be essential due to the steep slopes/bluffs at the shoreline making vehicular access impossible at the shoreline. 3. General public accessibility to the island would be permanently limited. 4. Existing/potential utility corridors will he lost. 5. Potential access to adjacent properties to the east will be eliminated. Zoning File #2201 Januar>' 7, 1997 Page 3 6. Applicants will increase the square footage of their record lots, bringing each into greater conformity with City area/width/setback requirements, provide for their septic system needs, and eliminate the potential for public traffic in close proximity to their properties. Agency/Utilit}' Comments Per Exhibit F, US West does not object to the vacation as long as a utility easement r- granted for existing lines and future needs. Per Exhibit E, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly objects to the vacation, suggesting that the vacation as proposed is not in the best interest of the public, and that there are alternatives that would not eliminate public access to the lake. Discussion As noted to applicant George Adams in the letter dated December 18, 1996, vacation of this right-of-way absent a rededication of roadway at an alternate location would appear to be inappropriate. The City cannot predict potential future public uses for this right-of-way, however, there are a number of obvious existing public uses which would be eliminated by a vacation. SiafT is concerned that access to the property to the east not be eliminated since that property has not been declared unbuildable, but is identified in City ordinances as being a substandard buildable lot of record. That property has steep topography near the wetland (see topographic map. Exhibit K) and its owmer may need to gain future access via the road right-of-way to a possible building site near the northwest corner of that lot. Vacating the access road leading from the lakeshore to the park portion of right-of-way, will eliminate the only viable legal access to properties to the north of Lots 22-23-24, which do not otherwise abut the lake or an alternate right-of-way. Further, vacating this portion of right-of- way will eliminate the only viable vehicular access to those properties along the shoreline to the northwest, which have extremely steep lakeshore banks which may not otherwise be accessible. There are certain types of vehicles which will have occasion to use the right-of- way, including well drilling trucks, septic pumpers, construction vehicles, etc. The City cannot vacate right-of-way that has such obvious public purposes, unless a suitable alternative right-of-way location serving all of the existing and anticipated future public uses is provided. The fact that the existing right-of-way is so close to the applicants' cabins, with the obvious property owner concerns of public use in such close proximity, cannot be considered a suitable reason for vacation considering the public's need for that right-of-way to Zoning File #2201 January 7, 1997 Page 4 exist. The right-of-way undoubtedly was platted and dedicated prior to the construction of the existing cabins. Further, a review of the topographical map suggests that the right-of-way can in fact serve as a reasonable access to inland properties, and, without regard for existing trees or other natural or manmade obstructions, the right-of-way do'.-s have public purposes. Suggested Alternative Exhibit I, the staff letter of December 10, contains a topographic map showing a triangular portion of right-of-way which could be vacated and a portion of the Fieger property which could be replatted as roadwry. This would accomplish the applicants' basic requirement for accommodating the septic system drainfield, while generally providing access to properties to the east. However, the property directly east of Lot 21 would appear to not be ser\ed via this new access unless an easement is granted over the Erickson property to the north. Therefore, in order for this alternative to be viable, applicants must be able to gain an easement from Erickson. StafT Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the vacation as proposed, based on finding that the existing and potential public purposes served by that right-of-way will be eliminated or compromised by such a vacation. Further, Planning Commission is advised to review Exhibit E, the letter from the Department of Natural Resources recommending denial of the vacation request. It may be appropriate to table the application if the applicants are willing to consider restructuring their proposal per the sketch in Exhibit I or something similar. In this case, applicants should then be advised to attempt to gain the necessary easement from the neighboring property owner (Erickson) in order to make that alternative viable. In spite of the staff recommendation for denial of this particular proposal, stafi' must commend the applicants for working together to solve their septic system needs. They have responsibly proceeded with the necessary testing and design work as well as the legal work to create easement, in order to meet City requirements. However, the City is obligated to consider the long-term public interest when being asked to relinquish a dedicated right-of-way that serves both utility and access functions. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4 Recommend approval with conditions. Table for further information or revision, giving applicants specific direction. Forward a recommendation for denial to the City Council. Other. r • m • m • % ^ Vv; •• I l'\ Tv6 r:c CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION / Site Address Z^dU^c/^ ^ Type of Application to be Filed j ________T n Property Identification Number 1\n APPLICANT Name /*j ^ Application # / Dfite Received /;; -/ Amtfunt Paidl^pTTT m^A Address /y/y\ Phone (home) ______ Phone (work) 63j~ a y/d City /^/^. ^ r r).^ Zip j~u'YS'<f~ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work) Address City Zip. /p?^.Date Propedy^cquired_____________ I (do) /jao no^also own the adjacent parcels of land FEES -^^JlSlTIONAL USE PERMITS - 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest Housc/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakcshorc _____PRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule _____ 5150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/ycar) OTHER APPLICATIONS $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation _^^$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other * see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (spcciM DEC-12-1996 09:45 6124730510 97Ji P.09 i • •700 50RR Z7 ^1 R \ 26 HS; 10)Jx.s ^ y\o« „ . „ . §^xS^ w ^)(33)P^ 25 ft—’ ‘5TH5 >5 ^ 2 <<^ ^ 29)12112 fv- 50 . I^'' I ‘v'l f^oSE LOT 4 % ^ u a ^ WSSS^P ^ u^JHA.T /*i ^ Ac.'mAu i^ocA'Wi^ ? # # * • /oo \11 RUN DATE 11/06/96BATCH 501 PROP ADDR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME T/U<PAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONTCR HAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADI OHNER TAXPAYEl NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 58 22-117-25 24 0001 00720 BIG ISLAND TRISTIN 0 ERICKSON ET AL TRISTIN 0 ERICKSON 4567 80TH ST H MPLS m 55457 56 22-117-25 24 0006 00056 ADDRESS UNASSICNED' SHERYL RAHSTAD HVASS SHERYL RAHSTAD HVASS 12120 GOLDEN ACRE DR MINNETONKA MN 55505 56 22-117-25 51 0009 00650 BIG ISLAND DOUGLAS E PERSON ET AL H/L JEFFREY A PERSON 17545 9TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 56 22-117-25 51 0020 00590 BIG ISLAND J D FIEGER A J M FIEGER JAMES FIEGER 14601 ATRIUM HAY 6524 MINNETONKA MN 55545 58 22-117-25 51 0026 00650 BIG ISLAND JAR JOHNSON A H L JOHNSON JAMES A R JOHNSON 2212 SOUTH HILL LA ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 56 22-117-25 51 0051 00560 BIG ISLAND J D A J M FIEGER JAMES D FIEGER 14601 ATRIUM WAY 6524 HIM^TONKA MN 55545 56 22-117-25 24 0004 00660 DIG ISLAND H BRYSON A T BRYSON HILLIAH A THELMA BRYSON 11650 TIMBERLINE RD Mirff^TOMCA MN 55505 58 22-117-25 24 0010 00690 BIG ISLAND R A B BRUOER ROBERT O BRUDER 2500 67^1/2 ST H BLOOMIfKrrON MN 55451 56 22-117-25 51 0010 00650 BIG ISLAND DOUGLAS E PERSON ET AL W/L JEFFREY A PERSON 17545 9TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 56 22-117-25 51 0026 00660 BIG ISLAND ELIZABETH FOSTER SALISBURY BETTY F PRINCE C/O GWEN S MYERS 9705 BRIARWOOO CIR SUN CITY A2 85351 56 22-117-25 51 0029 00570 BIG ISLAND ODIE-JUyARG«_ET AL SELDEN ROBB C/O ROBB SUMMERHOME 5010 MANITOU RO EXCELSIOR MN 55551 56 22-117-25 51 0052 00620 BIG ISLAND DAVID R A JAN W CARLSON DAVID R A JAN W CARLSON 6501 CREEKSIDE CIR 6101 BLOOMINGTON MN 55457 REPORT NO. PI4554D1 PAGE 1 56 22-117-25 24 0005 00670 BIG ISLAND H E BRYSON A T L. BRYSON WILLIAM A THELMA BRYSON 11650 TirBERLINE RO MINNETONKA MN 55505 56 22-117-25 51 0001 00550 BIG ISLAND B f FAUS JR ETAL B F FAUS JR 5610 YORK AVE SO MPLS MN 55410 56 22-117-25 51 0011 00650 BIG ISLAND DOUGLAS E PERSON ET AL W/L JEFFREY A PERSON 17545 9TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 K » 56 22-117-25 51 0027 00650 BIG ISLAND JAR JOHNSON A H L JOHNSON JAMES A R JOHNSON 2212 SOUTH HILL LA ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 V V 56 22-117-25 51 0050 00640 BIG ISLAND CLINTON KNUOSON CLINTON 1825 FRAIiaii iUE S E MPLS MN r 56 2 00610 KENNE KENNE 9496 OLY EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55547 \n RUN DATE 11/08/96 BATCH 501 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWJERS LIST REPORT NO. PZ4S5A0I PACE 2 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOl 38 22-117-23 31 0034 00600 BIO ISLAND CBoacF I A nn>iu L adam? GEORGE L t DONNA L ADAMS TOTAL BATCH 9581 VIRGINIA AVE BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 501 00019 22-117-23-31-0002 560 Big Island Don Henderson et al Don Henderson 5018 Normandale Ct Mpls MN 55436 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE H£N^CPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE lH2'% I 4\ I ■ i 1 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5W S. Ilwy N.» 101 MiimcUMika. MN 55345 Mhuk * (612) 474 79f*4 I nx (612) 474 *267 SlIRVKY FOR: GEORGE ADAMS S1IRVI:Y[.[): December. I<>%I DRAFTt-D: 20. 1^% PRF.SENT LliGAl. DliSCRIP HON i)V ADAMS PARCLL: Lol 3. Block I. Island Poinic. Hennepin County. Miiinesnla. PRUSFNT LtiGAL DCSCRIPTION OF RHGFR PARCEL: Lois 22.23. and 24. Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. Ilennepiii County. Minnesota. PRLSLNI LEGAL DESCRIP I ION OF ROBB PARCLL: Lots 19.20. and 21. Pleoitanl View l^kc Minnetonka. Ilennepin Count). Minnesota. LLGAL DLiSCRIPTION Oi S I RI:L I ARLAS PROPOSI D I (JR VACAHON: l liat pari of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. I lennepin County. Minnesota designated as street and park; uliidi lies west of U k cast line thereof; which lies cast of tlic northerly extension of the west line of Lot 3. Block I. Ish nd Poinic, Hennepin County. Minnesota: and which lies south of the south line of Lots 22. 23. and 24 arid its westerly cxtensioii in said Pleasant View Lake MiniKtonka PROPOSED NFW LEGAL DLSCRIPI ION OI ADAMS PARCLL: Lol 3, Block I, Island Poinic. Hennepin County. Minnesota, together with that part of Pleasant View I ; kc Minnetonka. Ilcnncpiit County. Minnesota desigiuited as street and park: wliich lies west of a liiu.* par.illel with and 10 feel west of the west line of Lol 19 in said Pleasant View l^kc Minnetonka: which lies cast of the luiitl.crly extension of Ihc west line of Lot 3, Block I. Island Pointe. Hennepin County. Minnesota: and which lies junith *»fthc south line of Uns 22. 23. and 24 and ils westerly extension in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. PROPOSED NEW LEGAL DI-.SCRIPHON OF MECil R PARCLL: l^ts 22,23. and 24. Pleasant View Ijikc Minnetonka. I lennepin County. Minnesota. PROPOSED r W LEGAt. DESCRIPTION OF ROBB PARCEL: Lots 22. 23. - 1 24. IMcasanl View Lake Minnetonka. Hennepin County. Minnesota, together with that pait »»f Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. Hennepin County. Minnesota designated as street and park: which lies west of »lic east line tlicrcof: which lies east of a line parallel with and 10 feet west of Ihc west line of Lot 19 in said Pleas^'nt View Lake Minnetonka: which lies east of the northerly extension of the west line of Lol 3. BliKk I. Island Pointe. Hennepin County. Minnesota, and which lies south of the south line of Lots 22. 23. and 24 and its weste ly extension in said Pleasant View laikc Minnetonka. Subject to an easement for drain field purposes over the following portion thereof: Beginning at the southeast comer of said Lot 24: thence on an assumed bearing of No th 76 degrees 40 minutes 00 scxtoih Is West along the south line of said Lot 24 a distance of 27 feet: thence .South 20 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 80.00 feet: U kmkc South 33 degrees 37 minutes 19 sec«mds f ast a distance of 30 feet to a point liercinaner referred to as Point “A”: llicncc South 33 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds E.ast a di.stance of 72.59 feet to a point on the cast line of Lot 21 in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka which I es 120 feet soutlicriy from the northeast corner thereof: tlrence North 00 degrees 56 minutes 34 seconds West a distai*ce of 154.08 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to a utility casement over a strip of land which lies 5 feet on both sides of tlic following described 'enter line: Commencing at the southeast corner of s;iid Lot 24: thence on an assumed bcanng of North 76 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds West along the south line of said Lots 22. 23. and 2*- a distaiKC of 16.79 feet u» tlic point of beginning of the center line to be described: thence North 06 degrees 24 minutes 29 seconds I:ast a distance of 177.00 feet: tlierrcc Nr»rth 83 degrees 35 minutes 31 seconds West a distai^cc of 53 feel* thence South 35 <legiccs 12 ntinutes 25 seconds v,'?«t a distarre •‘•f 74.57 ‘‘.vt ft Point “A” and tin a* tenninatiiig. 4^ LIMITATIONS & MO l ES. 1 he scope of our scrx iccs f«»r this job is as follows: 1. SIww ing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description you furnished. 2. .Sliowing tlic location of cxi.sting improvcmenls we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of (he property. 4. Slunving a proposed street vacation which will require action by the City Council which may or may not v granted. 5. Showing pn»p»»scd transfer of the vacated stroet property to adjacent parcels, which will rettuire tlic owners to exchange deeds to accomplish lliat transfer and a.ssumes their willingness to execute and file such deeds. 6. Showing proposed easements and legal descriptions for them to allow all properties to u.sc the drain Field and utility line running to it. which will require the prcp.uation and filing of an easement agreement to create these ca.scmcnls and tlic willingness of the nnccted owiKr to execute such an easement diKument. 7. Showing on some copies of (his drawing, a pi^sstble alternate solution to the problem to replace a vacated piutioii of tlic street by a realigned street right of wa> and to limit the vacation to only that part of the street iK-cessary to accomplish the realignment. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVI NI IONS: "o" Denotes 1/2" ID pii«: with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235. set. if "o" is filled in. then denol.'s found iron monument. fERriFICAnON: I licrcby certify that this survey wa.s prcpaied by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional l*ngincer and a Professional Survey or under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. (h^)CS II. Parker IM-.. & I’.S. No. V2}.<> .SrAl.K: ONi: INCH HJIIAI..S 30 FKKT / o' Li^Of"'^S^¥2A^.. r-^ Pr*!\-A -/I ( ) r a. ^mx ^ A7f O . ^ni fjg • C*^ .rCMi /n i? yj * i /r" I I '^ciJo ^’8*29V, // 8^, I I (/>'34Z.G O I I \ \ \?a?o ,^! r<PCiS^J n y 1 \ —\ O, \ 1 (.0 : I SI DECK I /^^^kV{» Oi 93cS ^ / / r» O / < n-\ » ‘ ' ' ■* = fo = U12 V CD \PJ '93,% 3SP W ' ' ’ LAKE TONKA a STATE OE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, mi. B PHONE NO.Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612)832-6170 file no January 9,1997 City of Orono Attention: Mr. Mike GafTron 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ' .I.S. rr n Dear Mr. Gaffron: This letter is in reference to the proposed vacation of the right-of-way described as follows: That part of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota designated as street and park; which lies west of the east line thereof; which lies east of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 3, Block 1, Island Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and which lies south of the south line of Lots 22,23 and 24 and its westerly extension in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. I would appreciate it if you would make the contents of this letter part of the public record, and read it for the public hearing scheduled on January 21, 1997, as I will be unable to attend the meeting. Please be advised that the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Trails and Waterways opposes the proposed vacation of the above described prope-ty. This public road as originally dedicated, provides a means of access to Lake Minnetonka, and has for many years. (See attached plat dedication). The citizens of Minnesota have a right to use all of the public waters in our state. Any attempt to preclude public access should be carefully considered. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources devotes considerable effort to providing the public with free and adequate access to our water throughout the state. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity. Our goal is to preserve and protect the public ’s right to all forms of accesses. These accesses can include, but are not limited to, shorefishing, canoe/carry-in accesses, winter access (by car, snowmobile, foot), swimming, picnic areas, observation areas, and access from the lake to the land. Any access the public has, has value. The public owns it now, and should not lose any property or opportunity. No access should be simply “given ” to adjacent neighbors. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -L According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, a vacation of a public road must be in the best interest of the public. It must be shown that it has no public value. The roadway referred to above has great potential future use both as an access by interior residents, as well as access from the lake to the interior of the island. By vacating this roadway it appears that access to the park and some inter or lots would effectively be cut off. I don’t believe it could be proven to be in the best interest of the public to vacate this road. Although there is other public property on Lake Minnetonka, and perhaps on the island, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the vacation of this particular public street is in the best interest of the public. It also appears to me from reading the material provided me that the vacation of this road is not the only option available to accomplish the project the petitioner has in mind. A triangular piece of property could be vacated on one of the back lots, with a replat right behind that, and the project could still move ahead. Please consider the above request for the denial of the proposed vacation. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with you, or any member of the City, if you so desire. In addition 1 would appreciate it if you could provide me with a copy of the resolution regarding the outcome of this subject once it has been decided. Sincerely, • ■ GMartha J. Reger Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor attachment cc: Bill Johnson, Regional Supervisor George Golden, Attorney General’s Office Kim Lockwood, Water Recreation Specialist Jim Konrad, Conservation Officer VtiS^MEST COMMUNICATIONS N 1 0 1997 5910 Shii^le Creek Parkway Brooklyn Gaiter, 55430 January 8, 1997 Mr. Micheal P. Gaggron ... Assistant Planning & Zoning Adtninistrator City of Qrono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 55323 Re: Notification of proposed street right-of-way vacation on application #2201. Mr. Gaggron Hiis is in response to your letter dated January 6, 1997 which gave notice of a hearii^ on the above referenced vacation on applied cation #2201. US West Cormunications, Inc presently has aerial facilities ^ong the southside of the east/west street. US ^st has no objection to this vacation, but requests that a utility easement be retained to provide for future maintenance/reinforcement along this area. Respectfully Yours jfiG. Munson US Vtest Field Engineer 612/569/3017 A t GITYofORONO Municipal Ofllca Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 December 18, 1996 George Adams, M.D. 9581 Virginia Avenue Bloomington, MN 55438 Re: Proposed Street Vacation, Big Island Dear Dr. Adams: The City is in receipt of your letter of request and partial payment for a vacation of portions of the road dedicated in 1888 within the plat of "Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka" on Big Island. As Steve Weckman indicated in his December 10 letter, vacation of this road right-of-way absent a re-dedication of roadway at an alternate location may be in^npropriate. While you may feel there is no practical need to maintain a public roadway at this location, we cannot predict the potential future public uses for such right-of-way, but it may very well be in the public's best interest to preserve some options. In order to better understand the potential ramifications of vacation, the City must answer a number of questions regarding lot line locations, access to adjacent properties, utility line locations, topography, etc. A complete application will require that you provide formal survey work in the area being vacated, as well as detailed information about all e.xisting utilities using the right-of-way. We are especially concerned that access to the property to the east not be eliminated, since that property has nol bee.* declared unbuildable, and in fact identified in City ordinances as being a Substandard Buildable Lot of Record. Further, that property has steep topography near the w etland and its owner may need to gain future access via the road right-of-way to a possible building site near the northwest comer of that lot. We are also concerned that vacating the road behind your property may eliminate the only viable vehicular access to properties along the shoreline to the northwest of you, which have extremely steep lakeshore banks and which may not otherwise be accessible. The types of vehicles which might have occasion to use the right-of-way (for instance on a one-time City permit) might include well drilling tmeks, septic pumpers, construction vehicles, etc. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 iiirwEsr COMMUNICAHONS @ •JAN' 1 Q j^907 5910 Shingle Creek Parkway Brodklyix Center, 55430 January 8, 1997 Mr. Micheal P. Gaggrc.-i Assistant Planning i Zoning Acirdnistrator City of Orono 2750 Kslley Parkway, P.O. Eo>: 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Notification of proposed street right-of-way vacation on application #2201. Mr. Gaggron Hiis is in response to your letter dated January 6, 1997 viuch gave notice of a hearing on the above referenced vacation on ^plicication #2201. US Vfest Oonmunications, Inc presently has aerial facilities^ong the southside of the east/west street. US ^^st has no objection to this vacation, hut requests that a utility easerent be retained to provide for future maintenance/reinforcement along this area. Respectfully Yours, ^G. Munson US West Field Engineer 612/569/3017 Dr. George Adams December 18,1996 Page 2 Your vacation request raises enough questions that by no means can we guarantee that it will be approved without the provision of an alternate access corridor. For that reason, I w ould again offer you the option of initially pursuing the request as an informal 'sketch plan review' at the January 21 Planning Commission meeting, although I ?m advised by Jim Parker that most of the sur\ ey work has already been completed and will be submitted by next Monday's noon deadline. Assuming you wish to proceed immediately with a formal vacation request per your letter, the following items must be submitted by noon on Monday, December 23 in order to be formally considered by the Planning Commission at their Januar>- 21 meeting: 1. $100 balance of Vacation fee (The right-of-way vacation fee is $300; if this was merely the vacation of an easement, the fee would have been $200) We are unable to locate the property owner list which you indicate was submitted by Mr Robb. This needs to be submitted to make the application complete. Certificate of sur\ey (and legal description) for the area to be vacated including the loeation of neighboring property boundaries, structures and utility lines. Written confirmation of agreement between property owners regarding the septic system construction. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would then be scheduled for City Council review and final action on February 10. Dr. Adams, please don't construe our concerns noted above as an attempt to dissuade you from forging ahead in completing your septic system replacement. We are pleased that you and your neighbors have responsibly proceeded with the necessary' testing and design work, as well as the legal work to create easements, in order to resolve the matter. Yet the City is obligated to con 'der the long-teim public interest when being asked to give up a dedicated right-of-way. I will be handling the vacation application, so please feel free to contact me at 473-7357 if I can be of assistance. 2. 3. 4. Michael P.Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator cc: Steve Weekman, On-Site Systems Manager Ron Moorse, City Administrator U niversity of Minnesota ■ H Twin Cities Campus Otolaryngology-Head dc Seek Surgery Lions 5\f International Hearing Center Medical School Box 396 Mayo Memorial Building 420 Delaware Street S.E. Minneapolis, MS 5545S 612 625 3200 Fax: 612 625 2101 December 13. 1996 dec ; 6 U')' Offices: 8th FUwr Phillips- Wangensteen Building 516 Delaware Street S.E. Stephen Weekman On-Site Systems Manager P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Steve: Thank you for your letter of December 10. Enclosed is a formal request to vacate property behind the Robb cabin ana on the lake s=Je of the Fieger cabin in order to make a drain field acceptable to the city of Oron j and in compliance with the DNR requirements for the three cabins. The adjacent cabins to the west have a combined system. After assessment, having S and P review and evaluate the existing properties, this was the only feasible system that could be placed in the area. There was not acceptable space for a mound-tyoe system. The only other alternatives that could be discussed were holding tanks that could be emptied every year or two. This system was not felt to be acceptable because of yoi r fear that the tanks would not be emptied as frequently as may be necessary. The owners of the tnree cabins have agreed in writing to build such a project. The expense of the construction and materials will be psrd by Mr. Fieger and myself, and Mr. Robb’s contribution will be the p.operty. We therefore request that the property currently unused and never having been used by any of the owners and unlikely to be used by anyone ever in the future, be vacated and designated to be part of the Robb or Fieger property depending on the desires of the plann ng commission of Orono. I also request vacation of the property behind my cabin. This would allow me to continue to clean and remove the waste that has beer deposited there over the past 50 years, prior to my owning the present property. Additionally, if owned by an individual, it is less likely that others would use this property as a place to dispose of containers, bottles, etc., that should be transported to the mainland. In reference to your issues regarding a road, there a^e currently no usuable or functional roads on Big Island and as to my knowledge, there sre no plans for ever developing such roads in the future. There are above-ground el metric lines, but below-ground telephone lines. There is not now, nor will there ever be traffic on Big Island. The Island Is posted in numerous places with signs stating no motorized vehicles permitted on Big Island. To me, motorized vehicles include both recreational vehicles, cars, and/or trucks. I am certain that this is the desire of the residents in the area and of the city. It is also unlikely that anyone will be transporting such a vehicle to the island for any functional use as a car on Big Island would have no function and could be gotten there only during certain months of the winter (January, February) when the lake is frozen and only on those years wnen the ice is considered safe for an individual to drive to that area. Thus, requesting tiiat the road be maintained has no practical value and should not be an Issue in the discussion of the land for vacation. Further, the property to the east of the Robb and Rieger property has been designated unbuildable by the Orono City Council on previous occasions as there does not exist two acres above lake level. It is largely and primarily a swamp and lowland that is not considered buildable. Additionally, such property has access directly from the lake or through the swamp and has no need for an access through the Fieger property. Additionally, any access that would be required for walking or bikes or maintenance of electrical lines would certainly be recognized by individuals on the island, since it is they who benefit from maintenance of those lines. I request therefore, that vacation of the above-mentioned property with designation of such property to be that of Robb’s and Adams come before the City Council in January. Enclosed is a $200 fee as required for this permit. Mr. James Parker of Advanced Engineering and Surveying will be providing you with his recommendations including more detailed maps of the proposal. A copy of S and P's recommendations for the septic system is enclosed. Mr. Tom Robb has informed me that he provided the Orono City Hall with a list he obtained from Hennepin County of property owners within 350 feet of the vacation. I have asked Mr. Jim Fieger to contact you regarding the proposals with the alterations of permanent right-of-way to be closer to his property and I hoped he has talked to you regarding this. If there are any other issues that need to be addressed prior to the upcoming Orono City Council meeting, please let me know right away by fax. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, George L. Adams, M.D. Professor and Head cc: Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mr. Jim Fieger Mr. Tom Robb GITYof ORONO Municipal OfHces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 December 10,1996 George Adams 9581 Virginia Ave. Bloomington. MN 55438 Re: Proposed septic system in platted right-of-way Dear Mr. Adams: After discussing your situation with Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron, it appears there are three potential options available for you to consider: 1. 2. 3. Proceed with a vacation and replat of the right-of-way to move it into the northerly property so that the current and future public purposes served by a right-of-way in this location are not lost; Simply request a vacation of the right-of-way; or Request a permit for the installation of the septic system within the existing right-of- way. Each of these options requires a public hearing with the planning commission as well as formal approval by the City Council. In order for the City Council to approve any of these options, you must show that the proposed location of the septic system is the only feasible location, that no property on Big Island will be denied access as a result, and that there is no conflict with existing or future potential utilities (electric, phone, etc.), drainageways, etc. Relocating the right-of-way via a replat would leave your neighbor to the east (560 Big Island) an access to other existing platted roads on the island, would protect your proposed drainfield site by placing it on private property, and would preserv'e the public need for utility, access and drainage corridors. This is the option staff would recommend to the City Council (see attached sketch). Vacation of the right-of-w ay withou a replat might be approved by the Council, but in order to do so they would have to conclude that the property to the east does not need to be provided with access Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 to other parts of the island and vice-versa, and that there is no existing or future potential public purpose ser\ed by the right-of-way . From a planning perspective, it would be inappropriate to vacate this right-of-way without providing an alternative that serves the public need. Finally, if you request permisrion to install tfie septic system in the right-of-way without vacating it, you (and the City) would want assurance that motorized traffic is prohibited on the island or the drainfield could be inadvertently destroyed. My review of the City Code reveals no such regulation (recreational vehicles are prohibit.'*d in the right of way, but it would be a stretch to say this rule is applicable to cars or trucks). So far, we haven't determined whether or when the 'no motorized vehicles' sign(s) were placed by the City. Because of the potential conflict with other uses that could impact or be impacted by a drainfield in the right-of-way, we would not recommend this option as the protection of your new septic system could not be guaranteed. Attached is a sketch that depicts a potential vacation^replat of the propertv. The process for accomplishing this requires that you have formal suiv e> work completed, and you could easily have $2,000-3,000 in costs by the time you are done. If you w ant some assurance that a vacation'rcplat will ultimately be approved before you incur significant costs, you may wish to apply for a 'sketch plan review' at the Januaiy 21 Planning Commission meeting. This is an opportunity to gain input from the planning commission without providing ali the information required for a formal replat. Either your application for a sketch plan review or for proceeding with a formal replat would have to be submitted to the City with all the required information listed, by December 23 at noon to be considered for the Januar>' 21 planning commission meeting. Please contact me or Mike Gaffron at the City Offices if you have any questions. Sincerely, 5^*— Stephen Weekman On-Site Systems Manager cc: Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator o I s Sto V. jSl«/?SEl^%ST\f4^» VICI.V. <Sv?^T^OO-y»> nfs.) Ci^lW UOuJ •o-r ¥■^1^ AvJu V>^AW -^c<0%T>-»V>>>«<. <^tW>tS&ip. ^iJUVCpvicrOOV*. 1 « MT vM-v-^avX VA tuArV^€i>V^^ e\--^a^.3U (® PercoJotion Tests 9Soil Borings ® Bench Work scote'. r«so.; Noler This system is to be constructed to meet the Minnesoio Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 & Local Ordinance Note : Check all underground utilities m. PROPERTY I A Qroftv»i<=- •^Ua 5- Oesigned By*. Doteit/^/St :-fC«i - * *-‘ 'V^^v5sf1cW%‘. :W •** ^ , ^ / .Li. t. * *w ■ ^ « '^r y^//N^^ . H£JiM£:P/fJ aoUA/TY jyOi^’tvxv.eso'tcL se/n-f . ,soft'^ on in*A^^ . ■■ '»if» . .. ,. 7>^A- » •'• t'TaM* w r ' *44n^h ^£yU *v% ^Quito^ i4A£jkU^ /U^ tts, tfArA^JC^^Yrj ’<H'^ «4nV S'txfff) P^YO '^/k^ •>' /Si'/y ASa.^.^ A«0 Uy* \^kXto^fZf Ap^ Uf^’-aAS* >0uJ^ ^ r^'te •»*/» flL*^ ^ iVw4-.^ Xtr-^ , ^ ___^tiL£l^S) flfrtuu< r 3»• /r# ■ c 1 49 *r* c •v-l /• • < •V' t%m •w « *■1 /r« %% •• I. % I ?:■ ' r-,':tj(0|( ' V'- ^M-C-— <X ;.ri4iW4». Ci/A4,u^ nf4^ fc fc.y , 7^mP <**e.«*JIj\ !^\^.. A4*./!JtVv - . 7X*t,*tt^.u«.< ^»‘»^ ACap W fV^trii ^ * -c.u::d *wc 4-ir^ ^ 1 •i7;. *W A <-*^<^0*4>s.^4»4;;^ » 2? / • • ^^ '#V S >*>'>> 1•« { • 7 *•" r*• 1*^ I% % •> • • •• • ^' £ • ^ # • ••• i ’ ■ .* * • • •• • . *-,..s=-^ Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 Telephone (612) 330-5500 January 17, 1997 City of Orono Attn; Michael P. Gaffron 2750 Kelley Pkwy P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron, NSP has received notice of vacation of road right of way described as follows: That part of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota designated as street and park; which lies West of the East line thereof, which lies East of the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 3, Block 1, Island Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and which lies South of the South line of Lots 22, 23, and 24 and its Westerly extension in said Pleasand View Lake Minnetonka NSP has overhead distribution facilities in the proposed vacation of road right of way, that need to be protected. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Real Estate Rep./Highway Liaison 330-5983 Z 1 1991 SENT BY:1-21-97 : 10:50 : DBI MPLS SALES-PIOB-6124730510:? 2/ 2 I I • 1 q J To WTK)m It May Concern, * ”'*''’*‘* to vacate the easement on B ib Island^ween the ptopert, of the Robb ’s and the Adam ’s This smp of land i^tal orir ’n ® Btg Island because it is our only access to our property tor bnnging m die necessary equipment when making house repairs such as a naw roof, new septic tanks or new w ells Also if there were a fire at any of our houses on the hill the fire department would have to access the r«r otour pr^rty via the easement I his property is not used excessively ''" "«««■> and upgrades or comments please contact my son. Ward ^ ^22D\ \t January?, 1997 Mr. Michael P. GaflEron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron I own 670 Big Island and my neighbors are Messrs. Adams, Robb Sr., and Filger. Our address is 670 Big Island. We are opposed to the vacation of the dedicated road right of way. This is the only access to our property and our neighbors property for equipment and vehicles if repairs or other activities need to be accomplished I can be reached at my office at 544-7200 or home at 544-4161. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bill Bryson)r ^Z2JD[ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., on the matter of reviewing application #2201, the vacation of dedicated road right-of-way proposed by George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., adjacent to properties addressed as 570, 580, 590 and 600 Big Island, the right-of-way proposed for vacation being described as follows: That part of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota designated as street and park; which lies west of the east line thereof; which lies east of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 3. Block 1, Island Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and which lies south of the south line of Lots 22, 23 and 24 and its westerly extension in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A map of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is available in the City Offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission f Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator To be published the week of January 6, 1997 and January 13, 1997, Thank you for the advance notice. Steven Von Bargeif- Real Estate Specialist Minnegasco 1 TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Januar>' 14, 1997 SUBJECT: #2204 James Fullerton, 111 - 3350/3400 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision/ Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Total area = 26.72 acres (1.94 acres. Type I wetland within Lot 3 - not protected by City ordinances) Proposed - 3 new lots Lot 1 = 4.22 acres Lot 2 = 4.67 acres Lot 3 = 7.51 acres (5.57 acres excluding protected area) Lots 4 and 5 are existing lots of record and are included in current plat as current boundaries are realigned with adjacent properties. Lot 4 = 7.16 acres Lot 5 = 3.16 acres. Application: The subdivision proposes a 5 lot plat that includes 3 new residential lots and lot line rearrangements for 2 existing lots of record. A private road with cul-de-sac is proposed. Applicant also seeks approval of a conditional use permit for Lot 3 that would allow an existing guest/caretaker house to remain. The entire guest house structure is located within the 0-75' setback area. The follow ing ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 - Lot standards for LR-1A Zoning District. 2. Section 10.22, Subds. 1 & 2 - Existing caretaker structure located within 0-75 ’ setback area. 3. Section 10.56 - Shoreland Regulations applicable for all 5 lots. 4. Section 11.03 - Definition 66C - Definition of a Class III Subdivision. 5. Chapter 11 - All pertinent sections involving Class III subdivision. 6. Section 10.23, Subd. 4(A) [10.20, Subd. 3(G-1] - Conditional use pemiit for guest/caretaker house within proposed Lot 3. Zoning File #2204 Janueuy 14,1997 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Location Map C - Property Owners List D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/96 - Sketch Plan Review E - Ceil Strauss, DNR, Letter 12/20/96 F - Weckman Report G - Gustafson Report H - Long Lake Fire Department Report, Jim Cox Asst. Fire Chief, 12/16/96 I - MCWT) Permit Application J - Orono Wetlands Map K - Anderson Report - Wetland Delineation L - Staff Sketch - Road Upgrade Options M - Preliminary Plans General Review Comment The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 5 lot subdivision as a sketch plan at their November 18, 1996 meeting. A major issue to be resolved for the sketch plan review was the issue of required upgrades of the existing driveway that currently serves 3 residential properties (review Exhibit B). Proposed Lots 4 and 5 are existing lots of record and satisfy the lot standards of the LR- 1A Zoning District. The original lot lines of Lots 4 and 5 have been realigned to allow for existing improvements and amenities to remain within developed Lot 4. Tract E as shown on E.xhibit B is restricted by covenant to be developed at a maximum 3 lot density. The covenant also permits access to Tract E via the Fullerton propert>' road outlot. This would result in a total of 7 or possibly 8 residential lots serv'ed by the proposed cul-de-sac road. Members agreed that the existing drive with entrance monuments, stone retaining walls and mature plantings called for special consideration ‘v '.ten planning the upgrade to a private road with cul-de- sac. The City staff was to contact the Fire Department for their input on any necessary upgrades to the existing roadway. All properties within this subdivision shall be served by on-site septic and well. Refer to your preliminary plan survey, Exhibit M, note the residence on Lot 2 of Klitzke Addition will have an impact on the proposed placement of residence on Lot 1 requiring an average lake shore setback variance. Refer to Exhibit B, at the time of the Stielow Addition Subdivision, the City did not plan for an extension to the south for the future development of the Fullerton property. The City has not asked the current developer to consider any future extensions of the 1,600+ cul-de-sac road. Zoning File #2204 January 14,1997 Page 3 The following provides a more detailed review of the subdivision: Lot Standards Lots 1, 2 and 3 meet the required minimum 2 acres in area and 200' of lot width measured in a straight line at the shoreline and at the 75' setback. Lots 4 and 5 have also maintained the required 2 acre minimum area and 200' of width with the realignment of Lots 3,4 and 5. The two accessory struc' ;res within t ot 2 and detached garage encroaching the lot lines of proposed Lots 3 and 4 w ill be removed prior to final subdivision approval. If applicant files final subdivision application before structures are demolished, subdivider shall be asked to execute a developer's agreement and post a letter of credit to ensure their removal. As already noted abo'.'e, the house to the immediate north will have an impact on the final placement of the residence structure on Lot 1. Septic Septic testing for primary and alternate sites have been submitted for proposed new lots and existing lots. Existing septic systems serving Lots 3 and 4 have been found to be nonconfonning not meeting the required 3 ’ separation and must be replaced as a condition of this abdivision approval. Septic testing has confirmed there is suitable area to support 8 bedroom capacity systems for Lots 3 and 4. The existing caretaker residence with 2 bedrooms shall be served from the primary septic system on Lot 3. The existing residence has 6 bedrooms. Lots 1, 2 and 5 have been designed for 5 beoroom systems consistent with the requirements of septic code. Based on the location of access dri\es to serve new residences, V/eckman asks that the septic sites on Lots 1,2 and 5 be fenced off prior to any land alterations. DrainagcAV etiands Review Exhibits J, K and M, there are no designated wetlands within the property. The wetland delineation report confirms that a Type 1 w etland of approximately 1.94 acres exists at the shore line of Lot 3. This is the only Type 1 wetland found w ithin the property. Applicant will be asked to execute the standard covenant to alert future property owner of the location and need to seek approval of fir^t the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Corps of Engineer before presenting a plan to City for altering the Type I wetland. Zoning File #2204 January 14, 1997 Page 4 Grading/Drainage Applicant's grading plan proposes a retention pond within Lot 1 to maintain and treat runoff from development of Lots 1 and 2. The plan provides for a 20’ easement over drainageway that leads to retention pond as requested by engineer (Exhibit G). Note drainage from culvert beneath road flows to the northwest at the north side of roadway and to the southeast to the south side through Lot 5. Drainage does not all flow to the south through Lot 5 as originally assumed in the sketch plan review. The City will ask for a detailed grading plan witli the development of Lot 5 as it relates to both site drainage and driveway. The City Engineer shall review tlie grading plan and size of culvert to be used where drive encroaches drainageway. Private Road Review Exhibit D, Planning Commission Members agreed that the existing drive and amenities should be preserved as much as possible when applying the code standards for an upgraded private roadway at a 24' width. Exhibit G, the Engineer's report and the Long Lake Asst. Fire Chiefs review comments provide alternatives for tiie required upgrade. As for the entrance monuments, the City Engineer recommends that the monuments be relocated to provide a 24' wide opening. In the Asst. Fire Chiefs report, he recommends that the roadway for a distance of 100' west of the entrance monuments be upgraded to a 28' width to allow emergency vehicles to park to one side while another vehicle could freely pass. Both ask that the existing turn at the west end of the retaining w'all be upgraded to facilitate the turning of emergency vehicles. This is now show n on your preliminary plan. The City Engineer has asked that the roadway in between the retaining walls for 500' be expanded to 22’ with curbing. This can be accomplished within the 24' width that exists between retaining walls. Staff also recommends that the cul-de-sac be staked so that staff can determine what trees would need to be removed. There may be a need to adjust location of cul-de-sac to minimize tree removal. Both the Fire Department and the City Engineer recommend the drive be upgraded to a 24' minimum width and a combination of curbing and ditching can be 'vorked out in order to preserve as many of the existing plantings adjacent to the roadway. As already noted above, there is no future extension road leading from the north to the Fullerton property. The cul-de-sac will be approved at a 1,600' length with a potential of 8 possibly 9 residential units to be ser\ed. Lot 4 could be subdivided in the future. Topography and septic limitations will prohibit future subdivision of Lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 with the 30 year covenant that restricts construction within the southwest lakeshore yard will also prohibit future subdivision. r Zoning File #2204 January 14, 1997 Page 5 Staff Recommendation To approve the 5 lot plat, Fullerton Estates, finding all standards of the LR-1A Zoning District and septic code have been satisfied. Approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant to create covenajits providing for the protection of the Type 1 wetland within Lot 3. Primaiy' and alternate septic sites on Lots 1,2 and 5 shall be fenced off and protected prior to any land alterations. The two accessory structures within Lot 2 and accessory structure that encroaches the shared lot line of Lots 3 and 4 shall be removed prior to final plat approval. If structures have not been removed at the time applicant applies for final plat approval, applicant shall agree to enter into a developer's agreement and post an acceptable form of security to ensure structures are removed before a building permit is issued for new' residential construction. Applicant to grant drainage easements over retention pond and drainage way that is located within Lots 1 and 2. Applicant to grant drainage and utility easements 10' wV #f. r<«|: perimeter of the properties and 5 ’ along the shared lot line. Easements may be emitted at the shoreline. All new residential construction shall be subject to the shoreland regulations as set forth in Section 10.56 of the Municipal Code. Applicant to provide a 24' wide private road with cul-de-sac. The City shall work with developer to determine where ditching and curbing may be appropriate to preserve e.xisting amenities. Roadway may be upgraded to 22' width with curbing for 500 ’ section located between stone retaining wall. Applicant may have the option of either relocating monuments so that a 24* opening is provided or to install a 28' w ide paved road to the immediate w est of monuments for a minimum 100' distance. Owners of Lots 3 and 4 must install confomung septic system prior to final plat approval. If septic systems have not been installed at the time applicant seeks final plat approval, applicant shall e.\ecute a developer’s agreement and post appropriate security to ensure systems are installed by an agreed upon date. Zoning File #2204 January 14, 1997 Page 6 9. Others recommended by Planning Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GUEST/CARETAKER HOUSE Total area of Lot 3 = 7.51 acres (1.94 acres of Type 1 wetland to be included in diy^ buildable of property). Required = 4 acres 25'x25' caretaker residence with 6'x 12’ lake side deck is located entirely w ithin 75' setback area. Any plans to expand the existing building envelope or construct a new foundation will require variance approval from the City, Staff has completed an inspection of the caretaker residence and found the structure to be structurally sound. As already noted above, the primary septic site has been sized to serve 8 bedrooms. The 2 bedroom caretaker residence and 6 bedroom principal residence will be served by 1 septic system. The property at 7.51 acres satisfies the 4 acre zoning standard and with over 1,000' of shoreline will easily meet the lot width requirement. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit for an existing caretaker/guest house on proposed Lot 3, Fullerton Estates Plat finding all standards of the guest house conditional use permit to be satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicant and future owners are placed on notice that any expansion of the existing building envelope or construction of a new foundation will require variance approval. A conforming septic system shall be installed to serve the caretaker residence and principal stmeture no later than June 30, 1997. • Caretaker/guest house to serve the occupants of the principal residence to include their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. The structure shall never be used for rental or lease purposes. All improvements to the caretaker residence are subject to the Shoreland Regulations of the Municipal Code as set forth in Section 10.56. 5. Others recommended by the Planning Commission, J4A -r. r-t t.i^ . t r* \ ;■ ■! »-* •-.' ; Application # V Date Received /2,M3/^£ - --»Amount Paid oo IF CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address orcjj Qqoo FOV -SltlE-gT Property Identification Number (PID) -ATTAC\^ Please check one - Property____abstract or 'A torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ , Name O^OVr^J ^ \AJ\^lW^/ Address Uo rc03 .*7^0 ^ Phone (home) UOQ -2nMM City nr>(pu^ ^r<\N ZipS6^0^hone(work)\ —^1?OO OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 6r F^LLCt^Ots/ OT- Address O Cit>’_QiflQNO ^cA n /Zip! ^ Phone (home) tjlV *57 0^ ;2 Phone (work) 33A — ^ 11 (attach list if moie than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Ta.x Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District 4* or) '2TI Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites X. Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Existing Units New Units . Total Units Units per Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________.• MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Propern Owners List of owners within 350' (>'ou must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official’s Signature________________________________________ Date________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature________________________________________ Date_______ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees; _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & 111) S250.00 » _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I &. II) $350.00 _ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00 lot (Class 111 & all non-residential) _ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals 600 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminaiy Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.; Proposed Public Reads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; . lin. ft. .X .50 = $. lin. ft. X .50 = $ Request for City to Accept E.xisting Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Exten«ion $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x _____new lots C. Flexible Application Fecs/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit _ <i-oi4 0\T\cWAt_ W4C <PcK2.eA\r 6vM2<arr m-5 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Co^insilnecessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Anlc"",Si,nMur. X[) ___________________Dale j<^ C,_______________ ^ ^wvt.«-nL Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held cn 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 arrangemems to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. fmmm '■ /. V ’ 5* Ab6i» // c::- / 3 .::S:-:-> :|;|S::: : v Xv::: :* v:.v.;v;* : y v:y ■OiiJ’sMiOS ;•>■ •>•!; i'A*^ \'■' ! X*!";V‘>.'' ’••'• * iiiiiifipRlifc :a y yy :•^:v^:^.^^^v:•:;::V :-:-:-.-:h MA/V-I.L HA/ mn DATE IZ/lQ/^ BATCH SOIPROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER HAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER HAME/AODR PROP AODR OIMER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY (M4ERS LISTIB 04-117-25 52 0012 05175 SUSSEX RD N N A D C NILDHAN NINA H I DONALD C NILDHAN 745 SPRING HILL RD HAYZATA HN 55591 58 05-117-25 41 0020 00525 LEAF ST NEN THOUGHT CH REL SCIENCE NEW THOUGHT CHURCH OF RELIGIOUS SCIENCE 525 LEAF LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 41 0027 00580 OXFORD RD BRUCE CONSTRUCTION COHPAFiY JAMES H BRUCE 565 LEAF ST LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 05-117-25 42 0001 00058 ADDRESS UNA^IGNEO R H STARK A J H S'*ARK RICHARD H A JAh£ H STARK 575 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-l\7-25 45 0004 05400 FOX ST JAMES G FULLERTON III ET AL FULLFHTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX 50 MPLS MN 55440 58 05-117-23 44 0005 05500 FOX ST H L TRUDECK A J H TRUBECK HILLIAM L A JUDITH H TRUDEK 5500 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 58 04-117-25 52 0015 00575 SUSSEX CIR A A T DEVELOPMENT LLC A A T DEVELOPMENT LLC 5622 HHY 101 S flOO DEEPHAVEN HN 55591 38 05-117-25 41 0024 00555 OXFORD RO CORNELIA D KLITZKE CORNELIA D KLITZKE 555 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE HN 55556 002858 05-117-25 41 00565 LEAF ST J H A H R BRUCE JAMES N A MAUREEN R BRUCE 565 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-11/-23 45 0002 00865 PARTENWOO RO R H GREENE A J E PICCARD R H GP5ENE A J E PICCARD 865 PARTENHOOO RO S LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-23 44 0001 05350 JAMES G JAMES 6 P 0 BOX MPLS MN FOX ST FULLERTON III FULLERTON III 50 55440 38 05-117-23 44 0004 03250 FOX ST OOtta LUKIS DONNA LUKIS 3250 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 158 04-117-25 55 001005175 FOX ST DAVID A MAASS DAVID A MAASS P 0 BOX 592 LONG LAKE Ml 55556 58 05-117-25 41 0026 00550 OXFORD RD BRUCE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY JAMES N BRUCE 565 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 “t J 38 05-117-25 41 0029 00575 OXFORD RD RICHARD H A JANE H STARK RICHARD A JANE STARK 575 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE MN 55556 * ✓ i -5■ L> 38 05-117-23 43 0003 00815 PARTE»MOOO RO E C ZOItC 8 R E ZONNE EMIL C 8 KATHLEEN E ZOMC 815 PARTENHOOO RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 ./rr.v 38 05-117-23 44 0002 03400 FOX ST JAMES 6 FULLERTON ZIX ET AL FULLERTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX 30 MPLS MN 55440 38 05-117-23 44 0005 03400 FOX ST JAMES 6 FULLERTON III ET AL FULLERTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX 30 MPLS MN 55440 1 r \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#11 - #2196 Genmar Industries - Continued) McConnell responded to the suggestions made in 1989 and again by Chief Cheswick for a tunnel or bridge. She noted that Hennepin County said a bridge was not feasible and a tunnel would be a security risk. Doug Schmitt noted the presence of Indian Mounds in the Orono area and questioned the review by the State archaeologist. Mabusth reiterated the findings by the archaeologist of a natural sight with no burial grounds. Gaffron read the letter written by the State archaeologist Schmitt inquired about a cut into the land on the north side by this site that had been stopped. Gaffron said he did not know the history of that excavation, but it was quite visible when standing on the north side of the bluff. Schmitt asked if there would be any opportunity for more slips. Gaffron said the LMCD has already provided a special density permit noting a marina must provide a number of amenities. Gaffron indicated the number of slips is in direct correlation to the shoreline footage and amenities provided, and is within the jurisdiction of the LMCD. He did note that the Council may have an opinion as to whether additional slips might ever be developed at this site. Schmitt informed the Commission that he was concerned that another building such as a double wide mobile might be erected on the site. McConnell said they have no intention to add a structure or additional slips Hawn said she was opposed to cutting into the bluff on the lakeshore. Smith agreed noting the recommendation for denial by the DNR. McMillan and Berg also voiced their opposition to cutting into the bluff. Lindquist asked the applicant if a vote or tabling was preferred. The applicant asked for a vote. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny Application #2196. Vcte; Ayes 5, Nays 0. At Applicant’s request, it was indicated that Applications #2195 and #2196 would be presented together to the Council, probably at their first meeting in February, 1997. SKETCH PL.AN/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS (#12) #2190 JAMES G. FULLERTON, ID., 3350/3400 FOX STREET - SKETCH OF A nVE LOT SUBDIVISION The applicant, John Winston, was present. RUN DATE 12/10/9A BATON 501PROP AOOR OWCR NAHE TAMPAYER ■NAME/AODR TOTAL BATCH If r, \ . i C ■■ % r-k' HELMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5A01 PACE E 501 OOOIB I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErOIEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF DATE menutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 A (#12 - #2190 James G. Fullerton - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property for sketch plan review includes Lot 1, the original Fullerton estate. Lot 2, the homestead of James Fullerton III, which will include a lot line rearrangement. Lot 3, a developed lot once part of the estate, and Lot 4, which was divided off but served by Fox Street on the east side. The current proposal is for a five lot subdivision. It was noted that there will not be a back lot serving another properly. All of the lots meets the area and width requirements. There is a caretaker house which will be maintained. Application will be made for a condition use permit .and will meet the area standards but is located about 45' from the lake shore. The accessory structure will be removed as it is located on the lot lines and will not meet the standards. Mabusth stated that the issue involves how to treat the upgrade of the road and whether a driveway access would be allowed. Winston informed the Commission tnat Tract E has an easement to use Fox Street but does not currently use it. He also noted that the tract is not less than 2-1/2 acre lots as required by restrictive covenants. Mabusth asked if the covenant restricts the number of units. Winston said the limitation is only to the size. Mabusth said this would allow an addit'onal unit to be served by Tract F for a total of possibly seven. Mabusth informed the Commission that the entrance to the area is 25' width and surrounded by retaining walls. She noted that it would be difficult to upgrade the roadway. The City Engineer reviewed the access and determined that it should remain a private road to a minimum width of 24'. Mabusth said it would be difficult for this to occur within the 500' due to the wooded nature cf the property. The fire and police departments will also review the plan. Winston said it was his desire to retain the gate and amenities along the entry. Lindquist agreed that it was a beautiful entrance. Mabusth said the plan calls for an innovative approach to an upgrade, and if the Commission supports it, it would be difficult to envision a 24’ width with a ditch. The Commissioners all agreed to support some flexibility regarding this issue. Winston reported that the division would result in lots of at least 4 acres in size. He noted that the most northerly lot would be accessed directly from the street and several 'ots would not utilize the entire length of the access. Only three lots w ould use the full extent of the driveway to include the Fullerton homestead. Tract E and Lot 1 almost immediately e.xist off of the private driveway. Lindquist indicated that the private road would be maintained by the property owners. MI>njTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 I (#12 - #2190 James G. Fullerton - Continued) McMillan inquired about the no build area. Winston said the no build area is to protect the main views from the Fullerton residence and would be protected by restrictive covenant for 30 years. Winston noted that it did not appear to hinder a potential buyer. The no build area could become a buildable site In the distant future as there is adequate area. Mabusth asked what the no build restriction included. Winston said no above grade building would be allowed, such as a pool house or tennis house, but a swimming pool was feasible. Mabusth informed Winston that building in that area may require an average lakeshore setback variance to include a swimming pool or any additions to the existing house. It was indicated that the caretaker residence is hooked up to septic. It appears that access to the caretaker residence is from ?. gravel access Mabusth reported that the application would again appear before the Planning Commission in January, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#13) REPORT OF PLANNLNG COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 (ELIZABETH aAWN) AND NOVEMBER 12, 1996 (JAN BERG) No report was given. (#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No additional issues were discussed (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MLNUTES OF THE OCTOBER 21, 1996 MEETING Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 21, 1996. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 25, 1996, DECEMBER 9, 1996, AND JANUARY 13,1997 November 25, 1996 - Stoddard December 9, 1996 - Lindquist January 13, 1997 - McMillan e-1 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources METRO WATERS, 1200 Warner Rd., St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 (612) 772-7910 Fax - (612) 772-7977 December 20,1996 Mr. John B. Winston 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, NCN 5 '^402 DEC 2JB1996 RE: Project Notification, Fullerton Property, 3350 & 3400 Fox Street, Lake Minnetonka - Maxell and Stubbs Bays (27-133-24 and 27-133-23), City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Winston: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is in receipt of your project notification for a propos^ five-lot subdivision located in SEVi, Sections 5, T117N, R23W. Based on our review of the notification form and maps of the area, we have determined that there are no activities proposed that are under DNR protected waters permit jurisdiction and therefore the project dOfiS not require a DNR permit. If &ture alterations of the Lake Minnetonka shoreline are proposed, a DNR permit may be required and this office should be consulted. While the DNR is given an opportunity by the city to comment on land use proposals (such as a subdivision) within the “Shoreland District,” we do not have direct jurisdiction on approval of subdivisions. As long as the proposed subdivision meets the city ’s zoning code (for minimum lot sizes, building envelopes that meet all setbacks, etc.), as appears to be the case here, we are unlikely to submit written comments to the city. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at 772-7914. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c:James G. Fullerton, IQ, 3350 Fo^treet, Long Lake, 55356 City of Orono, Mike Gaffironv/^ U.S. Army Corjis of Engineers, Joe Yanta Hennepin Conservation District, Ali Durgunoglu Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Dionne King Wayne Barstad, Ecol. Services w/PNAF DNR lnforniaiion:6i:-:%-6l57. I-800-766-60(M) • TTY: 612-296-54S4. |.S0()-6.57-392y An Equal Opporiumi) EmpUncr Who Valuer DivcrMiy Printed i»n Re^.ycltfJ Paper Coniainini: a Minimum ol HP/ Posi-Con^umcr Wj%ie F TO: FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Planning and Zoning Administrator Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager January 10,1997 SUBJECT: Septic Rc v lew for Application #2204, Fullerton Estates - Subdivision The proposed five lot subdivision includes four existing septic systems. All of the existing septic systems are non-compliant (failing) due to the lack of three foot separation between the drainfield and the seasonal water table. Although none are an eminent health hazard curre itly, each of them must be replaced at this time or be properly abandonea. For this reason each of the new lots has both primary and alternate drainfield sites located on them. The existing septic systems ser\ e 3350 Fox St., 3400 Fox St., the caretaker residence, and the garage facility. All proposed septic systems meet Cit>' and State standards. The drainfield sites are designed for five bedroom residence* on lots 1, 2, and 5, while lots 3 and 4 have eight bedroom designs to accommodate the large existing main residences and a caretaker residence. The drainfield sites on lots 1,2 , and 5 must all be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration due to their proximity to the access road. Also, the driveway for each of these lots will pass 20 feet from many of the drainfield sites, so the sites must be accurately fenced to protect them from damage. Based on the above infor don, staff recomends approval of the application. The applicant should note that the 20 foot setback between the drainfield areas and the driveway must be maintained. Bones ’'oo. ffoscne Anjerhk c*nd A isoc>.*tes Inc is ^ AffirmMtve Ac non BquJ*i Opportunity Frrp/oyor PrncipiVs Orio G Bonc>?roo P£ • Joseph C Anderhk PE • M.irvin L Sorv^Ja PC • Richard E Ti'rner PE • Glenn f? Cook, PE • Thomas E N'oyes PE • RoPert G Schunichi PE • Jerry A Boui'ion. PE • Robert W Rosene PE and Susan M Eberfm C PA. Senior Consultants Asjooafe PnnaptUs Howard A Sanford PF • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie PE • Richard W Foster. PE • DavdO Loskota PE • Robert C Russtk A! A • Mark A Hanson, PE • Michael T Rauimann, PE • Ted K Field PE • P Anderson PE • Mark R Rolfs, PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul Rochester Wiiimar and St Cloud M\ • Mequon Wi '-m;. A 71.‘i: • y ij - ^ • ijOf. V I n Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects November 12, 1996 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Offic Box 56 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55.323 Re: Fullerton Trust File No. 139-2190 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposal to subdivide the Fullerton property at 3350 Fo.x Street. The property is located west of Leaf Street on the north shore of Maxwell Bay in Section 5. The property access is presently provided by a 1,650 foot long paved private cul-de-sac that serves three existing residences. The subdivision will add four additional lots to the private street. The existing pa' cment varies in width from 18 to 20 feet. The Subdivision Code requires a 24 foot minimum paved width for private streets serving up to seven units. The pavement section is 8 inches of class 5 100% crushed aggregate and 3 inches of pavement. The maximum cul-de-sac len.eth is 1,000 feet. We offer the following comments in regards to engineering issues. It appears feasible to widen the roadway to 24 feet in most areas west of the first 500 feet by shifting the centerline north or south to avoid trees. Tne roadway could be either rural (with ditches), or urban (with 4" bituminous curbs), or a combination of the two. The first 500 feet of the street west of Leaf Street has stone retaining walls along both sides, 24 feet apart. In this area it would be besi to widen the road to 22 feet with bituminous curbing to avoid the walls. At the intersection w ith Leaf Street there are two stone monuments with an 18 foot wide iron gate between them. One or both or the monuments should be moved to allow u 24 foot wide roadway. The new cul-de-sac location should be staked in the field to determine if treev will need tc be removed fc: t!:e •.C'n.-t.iiclion. Drainage and utility easements should be platted 5 feet wide along the lot lines and 10 feet wide along the right-of-way. A 20 foot wide drainage easement should be shown across Lots 3 and 1, leading northwesterly from the existing culvert tc Stubbs Bay. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 • 612-636-4600 Long Lake Volunteer Fire Dept. 1964 Park Avonu v Long Lake, Minnestota 55356 Office: 612-473-9701 • Fax: 476-9622 December 16,1996 TO: FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator Jim Cox ^^0 1 7 1995 SUBJECT: Fullerton Property Located at 3400 Fox Street The I8V2 foot opening between entrance monuments to the Fullerton property is adequate to cerve fire emergency vehicles. The straight alignment of the drive commencing at Fox Street intersection and for several feet beyond entrance gates will enhance the use of fire vehicles. The width of the drive is approximately 20-21 feet and is inadequate for the first 100 feet into the property. There is a need to maintain a minimum of 28 feet up to approximately the beginning of the retaining wall along the north and south side of the road. This will allow for the use of emergency vehicles entering or leaving the property via the 1814 foot v/ide corridor restricted by stone entrance monuments. We would ask that the private road be upgraded to a minimum of a 24 foot width. Special care should be v n at the sharp curve at the end of the corridor restricted by the retaining walls so as to allow for an adequate turning radius for emergency vehicles. It may be of help and assistance to the City if I am present at a staff inspection of the roadway in determining specific upgrad»?s of the private drive. / I ::r * ■ • • 0 • • , • •• •I. ' COMBINED JOINT NOtTFICATION FORM - WATER RESOURCE APPLICATION ^ppi U<c this formTo notify/apply to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), their engineering consultants, the DNR, and the Hennepin Cbnservation District of a proposed water/V-etland project or work which may fall within their jurisdiction.. These agencies should advise you of their jurisdiction or permit requirements \yithin 10 days. Fill out this form completely rr.ail a copy, with plan, maps, etc... the MCWD, Gray Freshwater Center, Navarre, 2500 Shady'wood Road, Suite 37, Excelsior, MN 55331. Keep a espy for your records. YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK. _______________________________________________ 2 Location of proposed project (Attach drawing w/directions to site): COUNTY . QTRSECTION(s) SECTION(s) TOWNSHIP(s) PANGE(s) Lol Block, Subdivision Se ........ ^ ^''7 '13 i.'J/Jsf PROJECT ADDRESS: AfO. .'i'IDO FoX. *5TfiBET — OI2DA(0 /CT a , f.u /3U 3. LENGTH OF SHORE/U-FECTED (in feet): VOLUME OF FELL OR EXCAVATION (Cubic yards), q AREA F1LLEI><^ EXCAVATED IS O Acres. OR Square Feet. 4. TYPE OF PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR: (Check all that apply): • * • ^STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN □ aOODPLAIN ALTERATION □ WETLAND ALTERATION □SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT QSTORM SEWER OUTFALLS □ EXCAVATION (DREDGING) a.GRIPRAP . 3.G WILDLIFE b-GSANDBLANKET GlCE RIDGE REMOVAL b.Q NAVIGATION c.GRETAINING WALL c □ BIOENGINEERING . . . QBRIDGE & CULVERT CROSSINGS . OTHER-fOESCRlBE) • .......... ' ............ ‘ • 4a. APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: (Licensed Contractor. Engineer, etc...) Include name, address & phone number . CCfPjf-' t //A/C. ri s «-ner 6. ALTERNATINES (describe .any other sites or methods that could be sued to achieve the purpose of your project while avoiding or minimizing watcr/wctland impacts. Attach additional sheets, if needed . , f -r/» a r r a »a . njtA-ri AJO cuirCAy^S AA-C , C otS AA( /AAC^f Ta tJOU'jd a ^^'t oA€rUAyAj. 7. DATES: Proposed start of activity: . Sfi/i/AjlS- ^~7- Proposed completion. J'AfMHf/t. "^ 7 '■ (Identify any.completed.work oad’ltachcd.drawing) . . 8 NAMES & ADDRESSED OF AD.IOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Attach list if more) A-TTA<CU^G U-^ . . • . . . » . . Q PFPMIT«^ have BEEN RECEIVED (R) OR APPLIED FOR (A) FROM: DNR ARNY CORPS OF ENGR COUNTY- >d^QET{ MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY • • i 1. i • t • I nouiy uic una aviiu v* --------— w. —^ .......---------------- detenninations coric.erriipg.Uiis project that I must obtain. I understand that proceeding with work before all required autnorizations arc obtained may be subject to Federal, State and/or local administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties. /rr-nsRiyg-y ^^SnjUure^ Person ft-opo Project or Agent AFPu XTt Date • • • • • • • ♦ .V •^4 t •« t« • • - H t « * i *• V- ** *. • • •. “ V. k . • • • • INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY A copy of this form, with copies of aJl plans, drawings, etc... should be sent to each agency indicated below. Plea ‘ the appropriate spaces below to show everywhere you arc sending this form. Remember to keep a copy for your LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT (LGU) city, county or waters management organization -X SOIL & WATER CONSERV ATION DISTRICT ^ HENNEPIN SWCDQCARVER SWCii' — MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MDNR) Regional Office — US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ACCE) at: DepL of the Army. Corps of Engineers. St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East. St. Paul. MN 55101-163; N2tc: The above agencies may provide a copy of your completed form to the Minnesou Pollution Control Aeenev (MPCA). MPCA water quality issues may apply to your proposed project ^ ^ • * * * * . • • ATTENTIONIFrqm USPAL Any activity including drainage, dredging, filling, leveling or other manipulations includtng maintenance, may affect a landuser’s eligibility for USDA benefits under the 1985 Food Security Act as’ amended. Check with your local USDA office to request and complete Form AD-1026 prior to initiating activity. i.^^I!ORTANT: Some agencies, including the Corps of Engineers and the MDNR accept this fo'rxfi as a permil’' ’ ' application form. If you wish this form to constitute an application to the Copts and/or MDNR for any necessary perr for your proejets please carefully read the following information and sign where indicated * ( t « •WWvWWVVWWVWWVWWVWVVWWVWVVWWVVWWWVVv • • . - I. ^ Application IS hereby made for a permit to-authorize the activities described herein I ceni^ that I ^ familiar with the information contained in this applicauon. and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true • wmplete and accurate. I further certify that I possess '-he authority to undertake the proposed activities or I ani acting as inc duly authorized agent of the applicant. ’ . Signature of Applicant Date ’ i.., • • \i^jnj0[b Date Note The application must be signed by the person who desires to iJndertake the prooosed activity (Xpplicaht) or ,t may bfe'signed by a duly authorizcd.agent Vf the information’ 'requested below ,s provided' * Agem's Name and Title • • Agent's Address Agciii i Tetephone < ^ I*/- ) ^ fe. \A))^JgK3A/ ToQ APPU-d/WT-' DrUlo rCOS CSNligr? So. *' 8 U C Scciioii 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within ihc jurisdiction of any dcparimeni or ajency of ihe t/niied Suios Vjrow.njiy a„j w.lUuUy falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any lock, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, licuilous or l•al.dllkm slatciiicnii or reprcsenialions or makes or uses any false wniing or documem knowing same to coniain any false, riciilioos. or IrigdulciU siaien'cnl or entry, shall be fined not more than J 10.000 dr imprisooed noi more'Uun fivi.ycars. or booi. V. a >tjsr I mm EXHIBIT A .% • .*•#*«• •• • •••« • • flit* 4 » I • *« SKETCH PLAN FOR 4 JAMES FULLERTON I % m • • t l» m0m4%mrntJk, m 0m $n 90T00r mi00tm^km099 €mm mmmrrmh #V«vf Amjr m^»0f fJt 9f fmi mkmvp mftm $mg /Ur#/. Ofif *^j09Tm0mi y rvxi* A^€A • a t % § - H * * Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. ■* I Mv'M.svi*. '‘hr.ns iv Sift' I'hiiiut* ^h2 l.muf hk • Kmi^» |.<Vi*. M\ ^y\\% M2 47MIM I hcrcl^ cvriify IhnI Ihis Survey wns prepnrcJ by me Or ntuler my ifireci super* visiun, aiul lhal I am a iluly rc|;islercil Civil l.uy/iMcer aiul I ami Surveyor iiiuler Ihe laws of (he Slate nl Minnesota. T--------rnr—i------1’» * Mark S. Gr(m*>cr|j Minnesota License Number 12755 DA in MAI I /'•-zoo' lOIIN'O ... I 4 . • • • t’*> 15* ’; ■■■ f-'^’■5-' ^•.:.wi . .'• .'.'.."■ i *-'S . *^lN. V^ V K r. :' Ss® \ r-: >y^42^ Ci i v;^ «» ‘ w* >\>vs. r-“> s \if •5^i^.,i*'N'''‘'» > * ^ r;j^'V n \vCV^'- J •',» m ■ -^11^'Vi '/^ t r # r •t'*/ ,*V .‘V ^'• ‘f-* V M >'. "S •Vi. ^ ». ^ ,-i ,• / Xi X>1 %c- '-4'^-'V'V*'^/ 'tif"7*'*Oy* S.^ wi^ / ,V\ 'N». •r*^' i'. """■Q■^V‘>-7.«'V>*.-.. •''*:••“•■•; • ?’;:lVVU)VV:,t'vK »'iV :-t''-^;'7v >>A^ fSflte ‘f- ,;„. ■ • Vv'' v^;7r.V'^^ iW. • ; •: ’^■'V: / ;.W';:7 -7' :■ Vi- '^5.’":: '' '4'''^-^^i0 ? i /'•. I'^ 4 1 - J »,« '* J. M; -<*r?rN>'...'ri?^’r • ' - ' fT» , •'-' '.» ^ . -VI '‘■'cr^ '=»/-^/7' » ia r3m'A .•!'. ^ « ’ M-P I •' ■ ^ ' ?r ■V 3r o &- aH n “L<*3 2 N \ V' / ' 'A- ;'*'»l'''v>'T-''^!a^A' \® ' * , ''1 ''''''•Vv .'^'Y/i/ / / " ^ ^ ^ xNw X ^ If '• ' / > .o«*> ccc 4r < < 'h cF / i ' ' / / '. ; I ' # • / , » • * * / ' P ‘ i ‘ * i , /''/'/• V / ' ' p if' '^ , CT/ • iJJ //0-. '* V ' '. .. ___ ' ' ' ^ *rr ' '(S'/ g // ^ •/I .7 *7- V* ^0 •.< > 5» F c 1 ' i/>• sA^' 01/15/1997 13:12 473-4435 CCFFIH £ '3F'Ot IBEP'3 PA.3E 02 * to • t < •K wetlands delineation cementation FOR JAMES FULLERTON IH. PROJECT IN ORONON. MN jonn Anderson. ENVIBODAT^ Wnn«^^ ol wetlands dominant sr/.sr.ur£«;^;rs^^ (lelotenced m repon and site plan) A skotcn o. tncluded «n the report location 3400 Fox Street Orono, Minnesota methodology wetlands were .dent,l,ed and -e^neated W-;* orengineers" C'h?n PuOHcalion 79/31 Cowardin et a1.1979). characteristics of wetlands investigated This^ Type Two (PEM1B) wetland checksite. Dominant species a Grass (FACW-*-). Blunt Spikerush (OBL) and Bugle (U^U . Soils are L^o Beactws. a wetland son Surface hydrology evidence Is met, as soil is in a wetland drainage pattern Th^^ Tv^>e Two (PEMIB) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-) and Blunt and Spikerush (OBL) Soils are Uke Beacnes. a wetland soil Surface hydrology is met. Site is »n a wetland drainage pattern. 01/15/1997 13:12 473-4435 / Oi COFFIN i'. CFOtlEEPO t*.tLBT)Lib IWIO P*3E 03 PA‘£ 03 Thi?^TOn'' ««wand ehacksite Dominant spedOS •'« and Bugle (UPL) Soils are Haydon. a non-welland soH Surtax Siio »8 not flooded, ponded Of saturated Of in a wetland drainage patter pattern. limitations of wetland assessment My opinions conclusions and recommendations were based in part on information I obtained and evaluated from current sources Including state and federal agencies, verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information is not warranted and is not included in the scope of my services Wetlands delineated under winter conditions may not be accurate and should be reinve$tigat€Kl during the growing season. I appreciate this opportunity to present this analysis Sincerely. 01/15/1997 13:12 01/15/1997 13:00 473-4435 61254417&1 COFFirJ S- ijPOMBEPG ^CTLB^^DS DATA DATA FORM ROLTriNE VVerUANO DETERMINATION (1967 COE O0)in««Uon Manual) PA<3E 04 PAGE 04 I Projaet/Sit# 3400 Fox Street. 0<ono AppUcantrQwner Jainas FuHe<lon Inveftigator John C Ar)derson • ENViROOATA 00 rtormai environmental conditions ewet? yes Is the site significantly disturbed'’ no •s the ares e potential problem Ares') rio VEQgTATlON Date. 7/?4/96 County. Hennepin State. MN Plant Community i O Tyf)e2(PEMlB) Transect i O a Plot I.D. t I Oomlnant Plant Soedas Stratum Indicalar Oomlnani Plant Soedes 1 Phtlans arunainteea Heit FACW*40 9 2 Effocnerfs ootum Harp OSL 40 10 3 Alug$f9pfans Hem UPL 20 11. 4 Carex sp.Hem facio Obl 1 12 StfSturp indicator % 5 9 7 8 Percent of Soecies that ore OB l.facw . enoror fac 66 RemerKS. 13. 14 15 16, HYOHOLCXxY Recorded data(deacrtoe in remarxs) - Stream or Lake Oauge • Aerial Photographs/siides • other * PEMC • NWI. Msr»h • IJSOS Field Otservahons/measuremenls' Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Free Water m Pit' Depth to Saturated So«l No Recorded Oita AvailaPle Primary Indicatora Inundated- Saturated in Upw«r iz inches- Orn Lmos- 8<Kl>manl Oepoaita- Dtam^ Petlarn in VMbttan Secondary indicators (2 or more required) Oxiditad Root Channels (n Upper 12 Inchaa- WOter-Stained leaves- Local Soli Survey Da FAC-Neutral Test-x Other (txpiam m Remarks) Remarks SOILS Map Unit Name (Senes and phase) Lake Beaches Taxonomy (SuPgroup) not known Profile Daacrip|i^n Depth Horixon* 1 -4" 4 8 ’ e-16* Matrix ffgierr moj^) 10YR4/2 10YR5/1 10YR2/1 Drainage Cfass: very poor Confirm Mapped Type? n/a Mottle Colorsfmoiat) Mottle Ahundance/Contra^ 10YR3/4 10YH4/e 10YR3/4 1%/feint 20%/prominent 50%/distincl Aduic or Praaquic Moisture Regime • not determined as investigator is not certified soils scientist. Hvdric Soil Indicators Organic soils. Hisfic Epipedon Sulfidie material* Iron or Manganese Concretions High Organic content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils; Reducing Conditions (Confirmed by Measurement) Gleyed. Low Chroma, and Low-Chroma mottlad Soils x Other (Explain «n renriarks) Remarks Texture. Slrueiure (pencratio Silty day silty day •ityclay l^NDSCAPE POSITION (Sec attached (tiagram showing location of sampling point on landscape) wetland determination Hydrophyite Vegetation Preseni7 yes Wetland Hydrology Present? yes Hydric Soils Presenf> yes Remarks. Ail three parameters present Is the sampling point within a wetland? yes 01/15/1997 13:12 01/15/1997 13:00 473-4435 &125441781 •XFFIn 3 GPOUEERG Page f)5 WETLBnC‘5 I'ATA DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE 0«linMtion Manual)K PfOjKt/Site 3400 Fok Street, Orono Applicant/Owner Jernet Fuiierion tnveetiflator JohnC Anderson* ENViRODATA Date 7/24/96 County HannofMn State MN Do normal environmental condKtone «ixist'> yes Is the Site signitiCBntly disturbed 7 no ts the area a potential proOlem ar«a'> no f*iantCorYM?HjnllylD Type2(PEM1B) Transect t 0 A PkJtlD ».tt Stratum Herb Herb Hem VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species 1 . Pot pnttosis 2. ei0oehart$ obtiftt 3 Csrex sp a 5 e 7. 6. Percent ot Specie^ that are OBu.f a CW. and/or Fa C lOO Ramarhs IndteatOf FAC- OBL FACtoOBL % 60 20 1 Domirtafit Ptanl SpeOee 9 to. 11 12 13 14 15 16 SUittyn tntficetor % hydrology Recerdid data(deecnbe m remarks) * Stream or Lake oaupe • Aerial Photograohs/slides ■ Other • PEMC • NW5. Morsn * USOS Field Obsaryetlona/measurementt Depth oi Surface water OeMh to Free water m Pa Depth to Saiuraied Sol): No Reconled Data Avaiiimie Primary indicetars Inundated- Saturated in Upper 12 Inches* Drift Lines* Sediment OapoaKa* Orslne()e Pattern In VUbtaiY Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Oxidued Root Crianneis In Upper 12 inches* Water‘Stained toives* Local So# Survey Oa FAC-Neutral Otrier (Explain in Remarks) Remarks SOILS Map Unit Name (Senes and phase)- Lake Beechee Taxonomy (SubQreup) not known Drainage CtoM very poor Confirm Mapped Type’ n/a Profile Description Mafrw^C^lof/ntoist) Mottle Ck)iofs(moiat> Mottle Abundanne/Coniraat y*’ 10YR2/1 10YR3/4 1%/telnf * not determined as investigator's not certified soils scientist Hvdne Soil Indicators OrQanic 80il$. Histic Epipedon Sulfidic material: Aquic or Preapuic Moltiura Regime. Iron or Manganese Concretions High Orgemc content in Surface Layer in Sandy ^lia. R^ucing Conditions (Confirmed by Measurement). Gieyed, Low Chroma, and Low*Ctirom§ mottled Solis x Other (Explain in remarks) Remarks Texture. Sl£UfilUrf Concratk Pity clay silty clay LANDSCAPE POSITION (See attached diagram showing location ol Mmpling point on landecape) WETLAND DETERMirMTiON Hydrophytic Vegetation Present’ yes Wetland Hydrology Presem’ yes Hydrie Soils Present? yex Remarks All three parameters present Is the sampling point wtthin a wetland? yes 0lVl5/1997 13:12 473-4435 COFFIH S GFOJBERG 01/15/1997 13:00 P,125^4l7P.I WETLBIID'S DATA DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1907 COE D«iin0ation Manual) PA'3E 06 PAGE 05 Projact/SiW. 3400 Fox stfeet. Orono Aoplteant/Owner James Fullerton inveshoalor Jotwi C Andefsan- ENVIRODATA 00 normal environmental cononions «xisi*» yes Is the site signittcantty dtsturtvid'^ i^o Is ll>e area a potential proDtem area'’ no VEOETATION Qomirwnt Plant Species Stratum 1 Po9 pfalensis Hem 2. Afugm mptans Melt) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8 Percent of Species that are OBL FACW, and/or FAC 50 RemarVi. Irwlicator FAC* UPL Date 'T/24/96 CoiMity: Hennepin State: MN Plant Community I D : uci8nd Tranaect i.o A Plot I D 4‘ ill Jfe Dominant Plant Soecies 50 0 so 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. stratum Indicator % HYDROLOGY ReccKdeO dala(d«sciib« m remarks) Stream or Lake Geuge • Aerial Photoomphsrsiidas • Diner* Field Observationft/measurements Depth of Surface Water Depth to Free water in Pit- Depth to Saturated Soil. No Recorded Data Available . -S— Primary indtcalors tnundated' Saturated in Upper 1 2 inches- Drmunee- Sedimerit Deposits* Oreinaoe Pattam in Watlar Secor^ry Indicalors (2 or mote requited) Oxidized Root Charinels in Doper 12 Inches- Waler*Stamed leaves- Local Soil Survey D-' FAONeutral Teat* Oihet (Explain in Remarks) Remarks SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase) Mayden/loem Taxonomy (Subgroup) Typic Hapludaffs Drainage Cteaa well Confirm Mapped Type? yet Mottle AbundaneeAContraet 1%/feint Profile Deecnption Depth Horizon* Matrix Coior(moist) Mottle golorsTmoisn 1-6* 10YR2/1 n/a 6'18*' 10YR3/2 10YR4/6 * not determined as investigator is not certified soils scienitst. Hvdrte Soil Indicetere Organic soils- Histic Epipedon S'jlfkJic material Aqu'ic or PredOuic Molature Regime' Iron or Manganese Concretions High Organic content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils: Reducing Conditions (Confirmed by Measurement): Qleyed. Low Chroma, arvd Low-Chroma mottled Soils x Other (Explain in remarks) Remarirs; LANDSCAPE POSITION (See attached diagram showing location of sampling point on landscape) T exture, SlryfitUgf Coneretir loem loam WETUND DETERMINATION Hydrophyiic vegetation Present'’ no Welland Hydrology Present-’ no Hydrte Soils Prasent? no Remarks None of three pararr>eters present Is tha aampllrkg point wlihin a wetlahd*’ no 01/15/1997 13:12 473-4435 XFFIM GPQMBEP.3 WC» I 4. m » r-«Ol ^ { oi DATA FORM ROUTING WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE OelinMOion Manual) Page *07 Pro)*c</Sita: 3400 Fox Street OfOno ApoliCtnl/Ownef Jtmes Fullerton ir^vectlQator' John C Anoerson • EN vipooata Data 7/24/96 County. Hennepin duie- MN 5.. Do normal envlronmenlal conditons existyes Is the sle siflntficiniiy diftufDert'’ ro IS tne area a potential problem area'’ rtu Plant ContmuNiy 10.: upland Transect i D.’ A Plot I D f IV VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species 1. Pepuiu* d«Hoid»s 2. RnBtmu9 catbarfica 3 Atugar9fX9n$ 4. Poa prat9n»l$ &. P*rth0noelssu$ incana 6. Vita rtpana 7 8 Percent ot Speci» that ore OBL eacw . and/or FAC 40 Remerks' Stratum Tree Shrub Herb Herb Herb Herb Indicator FACt FAG- UPL FAO FACU fACW. *A 100 100 60 40 10 too Drymirant PlaniSpedeg 9 10. 11. 12. 13 14 15 16. StratucP IJttfICtttet % hydrology Recorded dataidascribe m remark^) Stream or Lake Qeuoo - Aenat Phoiographs/siidas • Other • Field Observations/measurements Depth 01 Surface Water Depth to Froo Water m Prt: Depth to Salutatad Soil No Recorded Data Avallabio Primary Indicators inundated Saturated in upper 12 inches- Drft Lir^s- Sediment OepoeKs- - Drainage Pattern In wetiar SecortOary Indicators (2 or rrofn reouired) Oxidized Root Channels in Unoer 12 Inches- Water-Stained leaves- Local SOH Survey D FAC-Neutral Test- (>hcf (Explain in Remarks) Remarks; SOILS Map Unit Name (Series ano phase) Hayden/loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Typic Hapiudaifs Drainage Clasa. welt Confirm Mapped Type?, yes Mottle Coiors(mol5tl n/a 10YR4/6 Mottle Aburidance/Contraat 1 %/Teint Prr^fila Datonpliorr Depth Horizon* Matrix Colon moist) 1-6* '10YH2/1 6* 18" 10YR3/2 • not determined aa invastigator is not cerlified soils scientist Hvdne Soil Indi^^tors $ullk)lcni«tefi.l o. Pr«,ule Me.«ur« ir^or Mangane» Concretions High Organic content in Surface Layer m Sandy Soils. OtIw*^(Ex(x2n Measurement) Gleyed. Low Chroma, and Low-Chrome mottled Soils: x Remarks Texture. Stfuctun Concreti loam loam LANDSCAPE POSITION (Sco attached diagram showing location of sampling point on landscape.) WETLAND determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present'? no Wetland Hydrology Present”? no Hydric Soils Present? no Remarks None ol three parameters present Is the 8ampllf>g point within a wetland? no T Ir% n ■V. o ^~:/'/ // J J-/ ■ I,'/ //.'.(r' // /'■ ■ , Li—i -"^•f> /:::■//: /: / v • ( '. •- 'fC^ -f*! V* ' ’ '1 V '•■- ■• ■.{'■.it % ' 1 / ‘' • / i‘9i~ ^ i 'f ►/ /////571 ocr«^5*^ ^ , liot\ 'i' "’i ■ 1 i^.i\ •. V ' * '* V S'- xA\ A/. /J. \ X '* ' :r. \i*- /A.V^A '' / '' ^V v'/ ..rJ ^ 's -v> --'. ll.—^"TCa*^j:k>A ' ^ ^ - --^. ^ :j:-; H* oi UD 1-^ CO u -•J CO I 41 U CO Ol T1 »-H \ \7^ ^0, 0j: .— ^ /. / X4ICI I bM *0r* inn •:o r- o TO: FROM: DATE; 3- Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Projects Coordinator January 15, 1997 SUBJECT: #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North - Variance and Conditional Use Pemiit - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, Shoreland (Natural Environment Lake). Application: Request for conditional use permit for guest apartment, and variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and street setback. Applicants have revised the proposal reviewed in November, and have increased the proposed street setback from 18' to 24' where a 50' street setback is normally required. List of Exhibits A - Revised Site Plan/Landscape Plan B - Revised First Floor Plan - Scheme A C - Revised First Floor Plan - Scheme B (Proposed) D - Revised Second Floor Plan - Scheme B E - Old & New Site Plans (Sketch) F - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/25/96 G - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/96 H - DNR Comments 11/19/96 I - Memo and Exhibits of 11/14/96 Discussion At the November 18th meeting. Planning Commission voted 4-0 to table the application to allow the applicants to revise the proposal per the following recommendations: 1. 2 Reduce the street setback encroachment to stay in line with the existing front line of the house. But do not, in so doing, increase the proposed encroachment of the required lakeshore setback. The easiest way to compare the previous and current proposals is to compare current Exhibit A with Exhibit F of the November 14th memo (See Exhibit E). Applicants have not changed the lines or location of the rear (south) side of the proposed additions, but have reduced the total depth of the west end addition by approximately 10'. However, the proposed Scheme B layout (Exhibit C) Zoning File #2187 January 15, 1997 Page 2 includes a staiiA\ay apparently providing seconds.y access to the basement, which wasn't included in the original plan. This adds nearly 4' to the encroachment of the street setback, i.e. without the stairway the street setback would be approximately 28'. However, that 4' stairway also has a more important purpose and that is to offset the garage from the house so that a car entering or leaving that garage stall will not have to bend around the projecting great room (compare the line of car travel in Exhibits B and C). Without the 4' extension, ingress/egress for the garage will be difficult. Recall that the applicants felt strongly that the garage stall is an important facet of this project given the intent to create a guest apartment that may at some point need to be handicapped accessible. Items for Discussion 1. Referring to the November 14th memo. Planning Commission should determine whether the following requested setbacks can be supported by adequate findings of hardship: a. Required east side setback = 30', proposed east side setback = 5'. b. Required lake setback = 150', proposed lake setback = 126'. c. Average setback encroachment (reducing from 90' to 80'). 2. Is the proposed garage stall necessary? Is the proposed street setback of 24' instead of the required 50', justified by hardships? Could the garage stall be reconfigured (for instance, angled outward with the pivot point at its southwest comer) to allow a 28' street setback and still accommodate easy ingress/egress for a vehicle? WTiat impact would such an angle have visually and structurally? Is that concept worth exploring? 3. Reviewing the DNR comments received November 19th recommending denial of the lakeshore setback variance, does this affect Planning Commission's view of this project? 4. Given the magnitude of the additions to the west, are there still suitable hardships for granting the east side setback variance? 5. Under the new plan, can Plamiing Commission find that all of the code requirements for a non-rental guest apartment have been adequately addressed? Can Planning Commission find that the guest apartment is designed to functionally and visually be a part of the principal residence rather than an entirely separate unit that could become a rental unit? 6. Does Planning Commission have specific concerns about the lack of an alternate drainfield site (see discussion of this in November 18th minutes)? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that adequate findings of hardship can be made in support of the Zoning File #2187 January 15, 1997 Page 3 requested side setback, street setback and lakeshore setback variances, then a recommendation for variance approval would be appropriate. It appears to staff that the proposed guest apartment meets all the standards of Section 10.20, although it may be arguable whether the separated garage stall creates the appearance a duplex, which the City is intending to avoid. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the revised proposal, slating findings ip support of each variance requested. 2. Recommend approval with specific revisions. 4. 5. 3. Table for further information or revision (give applicants specific direction), Recommend denial. Other. 9i>'s \ wm • • ^CkW 'G % *01 r^I 1 K) _r v/^ 'Tr li. '. i s II ^ u. rfN I -> n ] \nn \ I\n N Z P I c i 1 r - 3 lA r^ ?t/> 5< s I 2 ^\J5 lA fm 1 f. 1 tn . F CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2187 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 25, 1996 TO: Lonald and Robin Helgager 3265 Sixth Avenue North Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OI MEETING:11/18/96 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant to revise proposal per the following recommendations: 1. Reduce street setback encroachment to stay in line with existing front line of house. 2.But do not, in so doing, increase the proposed encroachment of the required lakeshore setback. The enclosed letter from the DNR was received prior to the meeting but I believe was not reviewed. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 21, 1996; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Due to there being no Planning Commission meeting in December, the normal 60-day review period (which would have ended on January 24, 1997) is hereby extended to February 21, 1997 to allow the normal Planning Commission/Council review process to be completed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION NfEE'i ING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 . c (#2 - #2180 Peggy and Frank Pichelman - Continued) Lindquist suggested an outer limit be established for hardcover. He said he is not comfortable setting a precedent of allowing 41% hardcover. Stoddard agreed asking that hardcover be maintained in the 30% range The Planning Commission set a upper limit of 35-36% hardcover. Pichelman noted that the structural coverage was reduced by the amended plan from 18% to 17.1%. Mabusth noted the different hardcover calculations that exist and that were proposed The Pichelnians indicated with a hardcover range, they could work with their plan to decrease the size while still meeting the setbacks. Berg suggested 38-39%. Mi’cisth asked that the applicant prepare an amended plan with reduction in hardcover in tt»’'»5-250' setback. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2180 contingent on receipt of an amended plan received by Staff prior to the Council review with hardcover maintained at 38-39% in the 75-250' setback zone. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Planning Commissioner Stoddard left the meeting after agenda items I and 2.) (#3) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGACER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:32-8:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present along with Architect, Neil Heupel. Gaffron reported that the applicant received approval in June, 1996, for removal of a garage and construction of an attached garage to the residence within 5' of the side lot line. The addition was not constmeted, and the applicant is now requesting approval of another application. Gaffron noted that the property in question is located on Lake Classen, a Natural Environment Lake, requiring a 150’ setback. '1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18. 1996 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) The current proposal calls for the removal of the garage, one small addition, and another large addition to the west side of the residence. The proposal would result in a 32' encroachment in the right-of-way, a 24' encroachment of the lakeshore setback, a 5' side setback variance, and encroachment of the average lakeshore setback. The neighboring residence to the east would define the average lakeshore setback. The encroachment of the right-of-way is considered extreme in comparison to any other properties on CoRd 6. The lakeshore setback is similar to what was proposed with the original application but with added bulk. Gaffron noted that the east side setback variance was approved in June with the finding that it would be difficult to build to the west Yet this proposal calls for the addition to be to the west of the residence. Also included in the improvement is a proposed guest apartment to accommodate a mother-in-law living at the residence, which equires a CUP. The proposed constructions appears to have addressed the specific issues of being within the principal residence structure, use for a relative, and a single common entr>n,vay serving the entire structure with the e.xception of additional accesses to the decks and garage spaces. Parking will be provided by a two-stall garage on the east end of the house replacing the existing garage and a third separate stall at the northwest end of the house to serve the apartment use. The plumbing will share the existing septic system installed in 1988 to serve a 4-bedroom home. The residence will still have 4 bedrooms but will be larger in size. The septic inspector has reported that there is apparently no alternate drainfield site on the property. Borings were taken but no alternate site was found. Helgager reported that their plans were changed after receiving approval for the initial proposal in June due to his mother-in-law's plans to move into their residence. This proposal is an attempt to accommodate her and her needs. Helgager noted that a single level home is desirable as she is getting older. He understands that the home is close to the road and would like to accommodate the concerns for screening. He noted the building envelope to be about 1800 s.f Helgager indicated that the current home would not meet the setback standards. He said he attempted to balance the distance between the lake and the roadway after hearing the discussions from the previous proposal. Heupel addressed the issue of building to the west of the addition. He noted that the problem was not being able to build to the west but the approach to the garage would have required changing, and it had been their desire to maintain the approach from CoRd 6. Hawn said she felt with sophisticated landscaping and removal of fence and dead trees, evergreens and other screening could be done. She did feel the residence was too close to the well noting a 2' separation where 3' is required. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Lindquist asked the applicant if the garage on the front side of the house was necessary. Helgager said the intent was to provide a garage for his mother-in-law so she does not have to walk through the entire house to gain access to her accommodations. Heupel also added that this garage addition would be at the same level as the slab and would not require stairs as would be the case with the other garage. Lindquist said he understood the need but noted the elimination of the garage would aid the problem of setback. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the conditional use permit for guest house would be reviewed periodically. It was noted that the CUP requires no annual review and stays with the house with restrictions as required GaflVon reported that if the Commission recommended periodical reviews, it could be written to only apply to this owner, if desired. Lindquist inquired about the lack of alternate septic site GatTron reported that the property is not close to sewer and the problem would remain the same with the number of bedrooms if there is no alternate site Lindquist agreed but noted that the house size was doubling with the improvements as proposed Helgager responded that he understood the septic issue but saw it as a distance in the future with the ability to go to a mound system if necessary Helgager added that he was informed the life expectancy of a mound system is 15 years and could be replaced to an alternate site postponing replacement for 30 years. Lindquist was concerned that the potential problem would only be prolonged Gaflron said it was not the City ’s experience that a mound system would only last 15 years, but probably twice that time. He noted the pump or rock bed of the system may have to be replaced at some point GaftVon reported that the vast majority of new systems were of the mound type due to the soils and seasonal water tables. A maximum slope of 6% is required for a mound system which is a problem with the many steep lots in Orono. Lindquist asked if the applicant could make the home smaller in size. Helgager asked for some guideline. Berg asked and received confirmation that there would be a full basement under the residence. Noting the 2200 s.f. on the main level, Berg said it is an e.xtensive size considering having the main level and basement. Hawn suggested that the home not be extended forward of what currently exists. Lindquist suggested removal of the single garage addition and a reduction in the house size. p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18. 1996 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Berg suggested moving the garage back to the line of the house. She said she would be in support of the garage if it was moved and saw the garage location as the most logical site. This suggestion would result in a reduction in the footprint and attachment of the garage at the same side as proposed. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2187 for further review. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2188 MARY K. RICE, 1570 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:54-8:59 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth indicated that the property is located along the "S” curve of North Arm Drive and consists of 6,883 s.f The application presents two options involving an attached single stall garage with upper level deck (Option 1) or a detached garage located in the south side yard (Option 2). Both options involve street setback variances of 2' or 3'. Structural coverage would not be exceeded by either option Hardcover within the 250- 500' setback area would increase from 23.9% to either 25.6% for Option 1 or 30% for Option 2. A 10’xl6’ deck also exists along the south side of the residence. Mabusth noted that Staff prefers Option 1 as the topography slopes to the east and would have the minimal impact on areas of existing plantings. The applicant said Option 1 was also her preference. There were no public comments Hawn inquired as to how the residence was entered. Rice said the residence can be entered from either the deck or the basement. Mabusth noted that the access to the front of the residence was removed. Berg moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2188, Option I, for a 2’ street setback variance. V'ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#5) #2189 STONEGATE FARM, INC, 2940 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICANT WITHDRAWN The applicant withdrew this application prior to the meeting. i i ■ H- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources METRO WATEB5 - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 (612) 772-7910 - telephone (612) 772-7977 - faximile NovoS^ 15,1996 ,r Mr. Mike Gaffiron CityofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Minnesota 55323 SOM 'i® LAND USE APPLICATIONS, CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Gaffitm; I have 1996. fits on the following land use applications on the Planning Commission agenda for November 18, #2187. Donald and Robin Helgager. 3265 Countv Road 6 (Lake Classen 27-162P). The applicants are proposing to increase the footprint of the existing house signiflcantly (essentially double), with most of the addition extending into either the 150 foot mininium lakeshore setback or the 50 foot minimum road setbadc An existing garage that does not cun’ently meet the lakeshore setback would be replaced by an attached garage that would meet the lakeshore setback except for a small portion of the comer. We recommend that the city deny the application as currently proposed. There is reasonable use of the lot without the extensive encroachment into the lakeshore and road setback areas. However, we would not object to the replacement of the garage as currently proposed. #2196. Genmar (Miimetonka BoatworksV 1449 Shoreline Drive CTanager Lake 27-H IP), The applicant requests to remove the top 18 feet (approximatley 5,000 cubic y'ards of material) of a hill in order to construct a parking lot for a marina facility on Tanager Lake. The “hill" meets the definition of a bluff in the city’s shoreland management ordinance. We recomment that the city deny the request to significantly alter a natural bluff area in order to build a parking lot. The need for parking on the Tanager Lake side of County Road 15 was created when the Tanager marina facility expanded by 42 slips in 1990. We feel this is a self-created hardship. If the parking on the Brown’s Btty side of Coimty Road 15 was inadequate to serv e the Tanager Lake facility, the Tanager Lake facility should not have been expanded by 42 slips. Please contact me at 772-7914 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c:Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Tanager Lake File (27-141P) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Lake Classen File (27-162P) Minnetonka Boatworks File DNR Informaiion. 6i:-296-6l57. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929 An EqujI Opponunitv Employer Who Vjlue^ Divervitv Printed on Recycled Paper ConiJinm| a .Minimum of I0*t Post-Consumer Waste i J X TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator November 14, 1996 SUBJECT: #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North - Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, Shoreland (Natural Environment Lake). Application: Request for conditional use permit for guest apartment, and variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and street setback. List of Exhibits A - Applications B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey, Existing F - Architect’s Drawings Al-1 Site Plan A1-2 Grading Plan A1-3 Landscape Plan A2-1 Basement Floor Plan A2-2 First Floor Plan A2-3 Second Floor Plan A3-(l-4) Exterior Elevation and Perspective G - Hardcover Calculations H - Code Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G) - Guest Houses and Non-rental Guest Apartments I - Resolution # 3737: June 1996 Variance Approval (3^ J - On-Site System Manager ’s Comments and Septic System Inventory Card Pertinent Code Sections 1.Sections 10.22, Subd. 1(B)/10.56, Subd. 16(C-6) - No encroachment of average lakeshore setback allowed. 2. Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B) - Required front (street) yard = 50', side yard = 30'. rrw««pw Zoning File #2187 November 14,1996 Page 2 3. 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-1) - Required structure setback from Natural Environment Lake is 150’. Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G) - Guest Apartment Standards Summary of Request The applicants were granted variances in June, 1996 for side setback, average setback, and lakeshore setback to allow construction of additions to the east side of the existing residence. However, those additions have not been commenced, and applicants' family situation has prompted them to request approval of a CUP for a guest apartment to be used by Robin Helgager ’s mother. This involves major construction on the west end of the existing house, with a slight scaling down of the additions proposed to the east end. Variances requested to accommodate these additions are as follows: 1. Required east side setback = 30'. Proposed east side setback = 5'. 2. Street setback required = 50’. Proposed street setback is 18'. 3. Required lake setback = 150'. Proposed lake setback = 126'. 4. Existing average setback encroachment of approximately 90' will be reduced to approximately 80'. East Side Setback Variance As per the June 1996 approval, applicants propose a 5' east side setbac *. Resolution No. 3737 included five findings in support of this variance, some of which may no longer have validity if the new plan is approved. Specifically: A finding that "additions of the same magnitude as those proposed (on the east end of the house) could not be located elsewhere on the property without encroaching the 50' required street setback or the 150' required lakeshore setback", is still true but the magnitude has now changed. The legal buildable envelope due to required setbacks is still only 1,800 s.f. The additions now proposed are generally to the west and southwest of the house, with the intent of maintaining the flat back yard area south of the house. It is still true that the close proximity of County Road 6 makes it appropriate to retain a usable yard on the south side of the house. Zoning File #2187 November 14,1996 Page 3 The new proposal reduces the depth of the garage adjacent to the east lot line from 44’ to 38’, resulting in less of an impact on neighboring properties' views of the lake. The drainage impacts of the east side setback variance are probably less than with the proposal improved in June. Perhaps tlie question to be asked about this east side setback encroachment under the new proposal, is whether the magnitude and scale of the proposed house has increased to a degree where a S' side setback might not be appropriate. Street Setback Applicants' earlier plan proposed no new encroachments into the 50' required setback from the front (street) lot line. The existing house encroaches approximately S' into the street setback. The proposed additions will enc.oach as much as 32' into the required street setback, placing portions of the house 18' from the street lot line. The proposed additions are approximately equally balanced between encroaching the street setback and encroaching the required lake setback. A review of the street setbacks for existing houses on County Road 6 between Highway 12 and Orono's eastern boundary, indicates that no other existing houses are closer to the County Road than applicants' existing house, and the proposed encroachments would make it by far the greatest encroachment in that five mile stretch of road. This also holds true heading west of Highway 12 on County Road 6. It can certainly be argued that approval of a street setback variance could be considered as out of character with the current "open" feel of County Road 6. The question tnen is whether the addition can be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation to eliminate the visual impact of the encroachment. Lakeshore Setback When the existing residence was constructed, there were no required setbacks from Lake Classen. The City adopted a 75' lake setback in the early 1970s, and this was increased to ISO’ for Natural Environment lakes in 1992 when the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted. The existing house does not encroach the ISO' lake setback, but the existing detached garage encroaches approximately 27' into the 150’ setback. The proposal approved in June included the removal of that garage,with new additions encroaching only 10'. The current proposal eliminates a majority of the lake setback encroachment at the east half of the house, but proposes a 24' encroachment at the west end. The square footage of structure encroaching the lake setback appears to be significantly more than was approved in June. Hardship findings in the June approval resolution in support of the lake setback variance, suggest I r Zoning File #2187 November 14, 1996 Page 4 the removal of the detached garage located 123 ’ from the lake and the construction of new additions located 140' from the lake is a positive improvement to the conformity of the property. It may be more difficult to make the finding that removal of that garage and construction of new additions involving greater square footage than the garage and located 126' from the lake, is a positive improvement in conformity. Perhaps it is at best an equivalent tradeoff. Average Lakeshore Setback As with the June application, since there is no adjacent lakeshore residence directly to the west, the encroachment is reasonably defined by the lake setback of the house to the east. Resolution No. 3737 found that removal of the existing garage and construction of a new attached garage and room as proposed would result in a reduction of the existing average lakeshore setback encroachment from 90' to tqyproximately 75'. The current plan similarly provides potential additional views of the lake to the neighboring property, and does not provide any additional view encroachments. The proposal, therefore, has a positive impact on the neighboring property based on the intent of the average lakeshore setback ordinance. Guest Apartment Conditional Use Permit Please review Exhibit H, the standards for a non-rental guest apartment. As a guest apartment which is within the principal residence structure, there is no "double lot area" requirement. However, the requirements for a guest apartment conditional use permit were developed by the Planning Commission and Council in 1987 to make sure that guest apartments do not become rental units, and that such apartments are constructed so as not to be construed as duplex units either visually or functionally. The guest apartment standards in Section 10.20 include the following: 1. The apartment must be within the principal residence structure on the lot. 2.It is for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. 3.There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. 4.Application for a guest apartment CUP shall address parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access methods. 5.Apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Zoning File #2187 November 14,1996 Page 5 The proposed construction appears to have addressed each of these specific issues: The apartment will be within the principal residence structure. The intended use is for a relative of the applicants (who presumably will not be paying rent). The floor plans indicate a single common entryway serving the entire structure, with additional accesses to decks and garage spaces. Parking is provided by two stalls at the east end of the house to replace the existing garage, and a third separated stall at the northwest end of the house to ser\ e the apartment use. The existing septic system is conforming, and was installed in 1988 to serve a four bedroom home. The proposed residence will include one bedroom in the apartment and three bedrooms in the second level, for a total of four bedrooms. Like most other homes being constructed in Orono, the total square footage includes areas that could possibly be converted to bedrooms at some time in the future if the septic system was expandable. A concern, however, is that tliere is apparently no alternate drainfield site on the property (See additional discussion below). The entire residence will continue to be known as 3265 Sixth Avenue North, and it is intended that the utilities be metered as part of the principal residence. Septic System & Well Concerns The area proposed for the new addition could not be used as an alternate septic site due to its close proximity to the existing well, and because this area has been cut/filled. Per Exhibit J, Steve Weckman has concluded this property has no apparent alternate drainfield site. While the existing system should adequately serve the proposed new construction, the City must consider whetherit is appropriate to allow the proposed additions and expanded use of the property absent a future septic site. An unknown factor is whether separate living quarters will result in redundant water use (2 loads of dishes instead of 1,2 loads of laundry insted of 1, etc.) which could overload the system... The well is shown approximately 2' from the proposed foundation, and would either have to be moved, or the house slightly redesigned, or a variance obtained from the Minnesota Health Department, due to the requirement foi a 3' setback from any portion of a building including overhangs. This likely can be easily resolved. Zoning File #2187 November 14,1996 Page 6 Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Given the magnitude of the additions to the west, arc there still suitable hardships for granting the east side setback variance? Have sufficient hardships been demonstrated to support the granting of a street setback of 18* where 50* is normally required? Will this street setback encroachment be in keeping with the surrounding area? Should additional screening be required? Does sufficient hardship and justification exist for the granting of the requested lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances? Can Planning Commission make a finding that all of the code requirements for a non-rental guest apartment have been adequately addressed? Is the guest apartment designed to functionally and visually be a part of the principal residence rather than an entirely separate unit that could become a rental unit? Does Planning Commission have specific concerns about the lack of an alternate drainfield site? Staff Recommendation In order to recommend approval, Plaiming Commission must make findings in support of the requested variances and conditional use permit. If the degree or magnitude of certain requested variances is considered excessive. Planning Commission may wish to offer the applicant a chance to redesign. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as proposed, stating findings in support of each variance requested. 2. Recommend approval with specific revisions. 3. 4. 5. Table for further information or revisions (give applicants parameters, if possible). Recommend denial. (i) PMs- ^ '-''a J-pAOA-Vtfil, //J - /JO- fA krf )T S ' b £- • 5Tp^-£/vr / r.J1/ ^ Application # _____ Date Received tj- a Amount Paid s’O, c i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 * i ^ (no change from original application) . • Variance for non-confonning structures S220.y^'^^ ? les (Double application fee) '-w** 'M' ji y/ 3 * •*. 4 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) » ' • «•V t > -'. V v .V r' PROPERTY INFORiVUTION Site Address ^i. Property Identification Number (P.f^.) ^9 ___________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d C C-tr r r _______________________(month/year) 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:____________________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home) J7^ - (n ZZ^_____ t- i Phonefwoik^ _____ AHHress! -.IJC>!. _________ City: Z\p:_^J^ Name * j») )> ^~rr l. ♦. A-k-1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name--------------------------------- Phone (homeX Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ "'/ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage V Setback: Front Side Rear ^ Average Lakeshore A Vf Other (specify) / hJf^ruQ^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:___________________________________— ('ATTACHBS) (attach additional sheets if necessary) :>Yy Application # _____ Date'^Receiyed f*<* Amoimt Paid * I'lK’.tst CITY OF OR oIn O - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION /A -H- ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address fa.-Hv, ^»v Type of Application to be Filed ^ C Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name*~"^ n Address ^iZCr*T (r ^ Phone (home’) ^/^-lo?.Z. _______ Phone fwork’l 4f>A • Citv Zip£S'(g- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______v*/' Address ______ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City Zip. Date Proper^lAcquired r I ^ —-------------------------- I (do^^o n^ also ov»m the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEIUVHTS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP applicauon * ^ 7 SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use ( 5250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg 5300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use 5250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaimng walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change firom original application) ~ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS , r ^ $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) " $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _______ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS .. ^ ^ ^ • O) 1. 2. 3. M : % “• • _s - .r ■■^-/'f j 4. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. 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, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. imonuauwu. .... • j Attach legal description to application if not included on requned st^ey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve ~ changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest m " the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owners). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ■ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. * __ t 1 __* _An f c r>l riM C AfP nCSUBMITTED. (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:_----------------------------------------------------------- m Applicant hereby agrees to provide all informabon required or AdmiidLator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coveted by onginal fee unusual expenses incurred in review of this application Md certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature lx Ay'Date u//'?/? and Council members for purposes of investigauon and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date >3/<i C 7 Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i % RUN DATE 05/23/HBATCH BOS HCftCRlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5A01 PAGE 7PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB EP-llS-ES 41 00050SE40 SIXTH AVE N KIP ALLISON KENNETH I PHYLLIS ALUSON SE40 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55S54 SO 24-118-23 42 0004 03440 SIXTH AVE N HENNEPIN CO PARK DIST HENN CO PARK RESERVE ATTN CHUCK BELLINGHAM 3800 CO RO NO 24 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 29-118-23 44 0001 03225 SIXTH AVE N N C HEUPEL ft D R HEUPEL NEIL C ft DENISE R HEUPEL 3225 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 29-118-23 44 0002 03245 SIXTH AVE N D R ft R A HEL6A6ER DONALD R HALGA6ER 3245 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 29-118-23 44 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO P R ft M M CRADDOCK THOMAS ft NANCV SANYER 3405 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 TOTAL BATCH 503 00005 i'l I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO. THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE •>::'j2z5b u j qc 0 October 22.1996 #2187 Gluts Obrien 6trother ADCHITEOT) Orono Planning Commission CITY OF ORONO PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Helgager Residential Remodeling Dear Commissioners, The proposed residential additions to the Helgager home at 3265 6th Avenue North is being considered for several reasons. First a guest apartment is being proposed on the west end of the existing house. This guest apartment is for use by Robin Helgager's mother. She recently retired and is planning on living with Don and Robin. She would like to have approximately 1,000 s.f. of living area. It is important that the living area be as accessible as possible. The addition is designed so that her living area is all on one level, and on the same level as the living area of the existing house. The single stall garage is also on the same level as the floor to accommodate wheelchair accessibility if it should become necessary in the future. The guest apartment addition will extend into both the 50 foot road setback and the 150 foot lake setback. The distance that the addition extends into the road setback is 32 feet. The addition extends into the lake setback a distance of 24 feet. Extensions into the setback were kept to a minimum as much as possible yet retain the square footage desired. The double stall garage and addition on the east end of the house has been revised since being reviewed and approved by the planning commission and city council in June. The three season porch has been deleted from the addition. It has been incorporated into the guest apartment addition. Also the separate work shop area has been reduced and incorporated into the garage. A small entry area has been added, which includes a half bathroom and a coat hanging area. This area is called the mud room. The extensions into the lake setback has been eliminated for this addition. The east side yard setback encroachment of 25' is the same as before. If you have any questions, please contact Neil Heupel of Gluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects, Inc. The office phone number is 941-4822. Respectfully, GLUTS, O'BRIEN, STROTHER ARCHITECTS Minnesota 55344 Phone; 612/941-4822 • -• • r CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER IN 60VERNMENT LOT L SEC. 29-118-23 / MED BY REVISION OAH OESCRirrioN NOS COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. f.uD.u.Kk /\\tiuu‘ • Innj; Like. M\ 3\45(i hi2-4:.v-ii4r I herein certilv that lhi\ Mimn* na!k prr|vired tn* mr ur under m\ dirrcl super* viMttn. and lhal I am a duly re)(islf red Civil Enf;mrer and Land Surveyiir under Ihe laws 111 Ihi* SUile i»l Minnesola Mark 5 CnmK rj; Minnes*»U l.Kense Number 12753 SCALE IMTE ee-9¥ mo NO 9¥-309 i 11s I Sh «s ▼Iy>n T)=1o ifiii £ • • 35! : i’ ‘.t » ! O -a Tt: A. > •* >'t Itl j- ■ 4 • •• •• • # 1 R •. •-% ■J % I 'B % rv s^c™s ‘:4i« Z1p: r P y"' '• '■••■ ''^- L- |( ••'i '}•'«• ,(£ ^' ' i''I)ii CH I '*»’Vsi •*.'* *o L • O I Fb^tefi lA 1 —</ .......- 'IT — 9 1 m. i .J I as *1 jj .j < a » . . .* ' li!5li!;^£!?fi!?f!!sli!t MS!ltS!;!r=2»Mi!M5i lisS!II S!i SlililliSlisilisSiisS :f MlHt,cE'as ;:|a;5|l;:|2 ;u::i?ls; siJSa ii*r* ^ 1 \' \ iSgsEPS Wmm m n J ?)V .>«,;•' V mH ri- <• . ('WVlC'W aL'-v'li'-V'1*14IS m.k: •-*... .-v^. IlM W'VV.V,;S'®S lES f^M •^•vi.-?_ m i I 1 fiJ ••_ TT» rfif »rn • hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTINO hardc over IN ZONE A- House ______________ 0-75’ 250-500* 500-1000’ 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 X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE */^3S * B l?Q_ pROPO.^Fn HARnCOVF-R IN ZONE A. House A/' Length </3. ^ /9tuO ^ /?♦ / X X X Width 3J- B. Garage C. Driveway . /V •z-y. 7S X gsr 2.^.^ 23 /2^ X X D. Sidewalk X X r'Kd'SKart ^ muo 3 S_ X X /V F. Landscape — Lfnderlaia — By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE X 100 - X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. SJf. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. / /J?2> S.F. % / S.F. S.F. _I S.F. viT* S.F. //JL 7/7-^_fi^_2JLs.F. A lO S.F. S.F. /I S.F. S.F. /t2^ S.F. S.F. / 2 3,^1 _ S.F. __ ____S.F. S.F. JOS' /77 Ck. a A B S.F. "y^&L ^ S.F. A g I /P.D, O S.F. B m <{»,v to» (, S6:,27-;/g- NAKSCOVER CALCULATION WRKSH SETBACK zone; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' • * * Existing Hardcover IN Zone *• *’ . . . . : • *v. • A. ‘ House LENGTH ..._jvea^o 9$^';' ■rt('f>' iftity;'-' -.I,- S-' • •..%• . ■ Garage 8 12. i • • ;• • - ; -' . ^ ^ IVEWAY C ohc .^lA q ♦ ‘i ^ i •# • - #A . t^'iS •• • •.* • • \ / \ / \ V •’••■•.* • V • _i2 0.. Sidewalk * ♦V ‘ 1 • • • ’ »*•** •;.l • . , « E. •. * •‘■•r .>••■ E. Patio/ D eck ' V7-\ • •:••; ,L 14 ••• ^ -• ■ F,Landscape V3r^ r *: ' * AOCAC *v • • ‘ AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , , PLASTIC SHEETING • 1 •• 4- ♦ • • • •• • # * V* Cone, frpL0 5WMf >v/*u. 6. Other i.43 V- ' - X x\ X . X 250-500' 500-1000' WIDTH V f.i 83 .1.5- • • •• ■•; Total Hardcover- in Zone' . - * Total Property Area in Zone /25-Z « S.F. S.F., 5tS S.F no « S.F, 525*S.F Re'''dv'J6 2/39 .S • F • •• • i4/S.F.f?C«*A*Vf a1 Cs 35'S,p, 7^er.'ovl.'-i(» 15 S.F. S.F. i/0 S.F. • I • 84 27i< - S.F. A • « 5 • F • S.F..1 24-___S.F. 65 )>• B S£e»Vffvi»i^ 3uzot .... m w ••1%0 X lio - 15.SS %•mmm »m "•'1 r.. *• .. .i ..• i.* •: • t: c .' •. • • • ;• •• • ? * "** • • • -r^ 5: V ■•> ■ -h -t ^6 •m ••♦•1 •*/ • L\?i -u-v av. * K;*>• • ^ * - •••■ . ^ • • > • ^ • *•« •• .: VVr • i.'i ■‘•••I* /• •* »,« .• *V • ' / ' * • r w ' • • ir<y ** * •: I.*** /.#*• .’.* • • • * : >*!/ ^ *r>; .-:• • t %■ * * - . «• ►•: ■• • •:• ••*■' 4 •• . *1. * * • •:?• •I ‘•'V . .# • • • ;*• . ■ ; iV A • * .* % i . • ..•••• • •• 1 •• • .• ** •. •I . • \\ • k* i • < IM ^9vr ioT t, Sft. HARDCOVER CALCUIATWH WRiSHEET OBIBM.K zoMfti UiMCLfe oiie)^^75^ 75-250 * 250-500 * 500-1000* • ' *, Ex 1ST I MG llAnOCOVER IM ZoNE A. ’ House ,• --------------------- X .fti • • • • length • width • •• ••# ■------------------------ X . ft ta ft ft ft• • • • •• -------------------X _ • • . •ft •••Xt 1ft Si ft ••• • • • -------------------X _ % • B. • Garage • -------------------X _ • • C.Driveway . • .. X •* • • • * * ' \ • • y • • ft i 0.. • Sidewalk /.. X ^ft c ft y c E. ft . , X c::ATio/Deck ft ft ft X ft ft • - F. Landscape X • 0 • eAREAS UNDERLAIN• by • , ft ft y • • ftmm • • ePLASTIC SHEETING ••• . . X s Jft - . . X • . • SB *• ft. 1 6. Other ft • X •S.F S«P JO s.oc S»F» S.F. S.F. ! • I w • Total Hardcover in Zone Total Prop.brty Area in Zone ^2 f.Ft m B 4[H 27.33g> Jm . •%X 100 - A* Adopted: 2-23-87 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area, and are subject further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. 2) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series 2-23-87Adopted H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building. J. Apiaries. K. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. 1 GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. B7S ? A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, 10.28; SUBDIVISION 5(B); AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) FILE #2145 WHEREAS, Donald Helgager and Robin Helgager, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3265 6th Avenue Noilh within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The west 327 feet of the east 542 feet of that part of Government Lot 1, lying south of the road. Section 29, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a 5' side setback for construction of a new attached garage and room additions, where the required side setback is 30', and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C-6) to allow said additions to encroach the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) to allow new structure to be located 140 ’ from Lake Classen, a Natural Environment Lake, where a 150 ’ structure setback is nonnally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City C(<uncil of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2145. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 6 GlTYofORONO mA\UiX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 378 7 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17. 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variances on a vote of 7 to 0 based upon the following findings: A. B. Since all proposed additions meet the 50’ street setback, no street setback variance is required. Tlie location of the proposed additions to the east of the existing house and as near as 5' to the east side lot line is appropriate based on the following unique findings: 1. Additions of the same magnitude as those proposed could not be located elsewhere on the property without encroaching the 50’ required street setback or the 150’ required lakeshore setback. 2.While the property is approximately 1.5 acres in dr>' buildable area above of the OHWL of Lake Classen, the buildable envelope due to the required setbacks is only 1,800 s.f. j.If additions were constructed to the southwest or south of the house, they would eliminate the existing flat back yard area, resulting in a steep slope directly behind the house. Given the proximity of County Road 6, it would be appropriate to retain a usable yard on the south side of the house. 4.Topography is generally sloping towards the applicants' property, hence any additional drainage near the lot line caused by the proposed additions will only impact the applicants, not the neighboring property owmer. 5.The proposed proximity to the lot line may have a negative impact on existing screening between applicants' house and the neighboring house to the east, however the neighboring property owner has indicated this is not a concern. Page 2 of 6 I .. S’ GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7 7 4. D. C. D. The average lakeshore setback for this application has been def.ned as the lake setback of the neighboring house to the east, since the neighboring property to the west is nearly one-quarter mile distant. The proposed removal of the existing garage and subsequent construction of a new attached garage and room additions will result in less encroachment of the average lakeshore setback than currently exists. The existing encroachment is approximately 90’, and this will reduce to 75'. The neighboring property will have no additional views encroached by the proposed construction, and may have additional views of the lake opened up by the proposal. The existing garage encroaches within 123’ of the OHWX of Lake Classen. The proposal to remove that garage and construct new additions which will encroach only as near as 140’ from Lake Classen, is a positive improvement to the conformity of the property in relation to setback from Lake Classen. 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. The Cit>' Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser\'e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessaty to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of th^ Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 37 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono Cit>’ Council hereby g-ants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a 5' side setback where a 30' side setback is normally required, and grants variances to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdivision l6(C-6) to allow a 75’ encroachment of the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is normally allowed, and grants a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow a 140' setback from the OHWT of Lake Classen where a 150' setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicants shall adhere to the proposed plans submitted with Application #2145. 2. The existing detached garage stnicture shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new additions. 3. 4. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the properly not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be c.xercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that d iune 24, 1997). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolu;i k shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terrr aate 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 6 • r-V' GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^737 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of June, 1996. Edward J. Ca^han, Jr., Mayor ■'0 ' ' I /• I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENTs'EPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of June, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ’ ( '\ ' ' X . V /Lc ^ y ) JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PU8UC-MINNES01A HENNEPIN COUNTY ... — My Commission Expires Jm. 31.2000 Notary Public Page 5 of 6 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .8 7 7______ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this /^ day of C , 199^ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed me-foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMIE L. BOSMA NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA K HENNEPIN COUNT t B |y>y Commission Expires J»n. 3<.2000 ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ____ NOTARY PUBLIC X • * '.CcJ / , 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) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. 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 e.xecuted the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 I T'l TO:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE;November 14,1996 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2187, Donald & Robin Helgager Variances/Conditional Use Permit The applicants propose the addition of a guest apartment to the existing three bedroom residence. The puipose of this review is to determine if the existing septic system is of adequate capacity for the proposed one bedroom addition and evaluate the potential for a future drainfield site when the existing system fails. The existing septic system is a filled trench system which was installed as an "alternative system" in 1988 since no other "standard system" was viable on the property. Due to steep slopes a mound system could not be used, but the seasonal water table w as w ithin 36" of the surface and the sandy loam fill was used to gain a separation from the water table. The septic system appears to be functioning properly at this time. The system is sized for a four bedroom residence, but no area is available for future expansion if the system fails. All areas of sufficient size for the installation of a future drainfield are filled or excavated and are unacceptable for constructing a "standard system". The proposed expansion will not destroy any potential drainfield sites, however, expanding a residence with no future septic system options but the use of holding tanks seems short sighted. On one hand, the existing septic system should be adequate for the additional bedroom; on the other hand, should the system fail holding tanks are the only apparent option. No sewer mains are near the property so municipal sewer could be a long time in coming. Orono's municipal code does not require that a future site be available before such an addition be made, however. In summary, although the addition is allowable per the septic code requirements, the City must carefully consider the ramifications of allowing such an expansion when no alternate site is available. 1 SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY Addr: 3265 Sixth Ave. N. PID; 29-118-23 44 0002 Building Type: residence # BRs/GPD: 4 # Systems/units: 1/1 Permit No: 1557 Date of Permit: 12/19/88 Installer: E. J. Peterson Co. System Type: gravelless fill trench Appliances: Indry SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 1 Failure Pot: low Tank Condition: 8 DF condition: 11 SEPTIC TANKS Material: precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 20 Capacity: 1000, 1000 DRAINFIELO Length of Lines: Treatment Area: Tile Size: 10 Setback DF-Bldg: 390 No. Lines: 5 Trench Width: 1200 Type of Filter: fabric Under Tile: 30 Perc Rate mn/in: 11.1 35 DF Ht above WT: 0 Soil Type: loam, clay loam Limitations: water table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 100 Well-DF: 110 Report in File?: y Pump Type: subm. Depth: 149 Diameter: 4 Method: drilled INSPECTION RECORD Date 12/19/88 installation 8/13/91 no surfacing 10/26/93 no surfacing-pump tanks 7/22/96 no surfacing-nsed risers,pump tanks Compliance 1 1 1 1 PUMPOUT RECORD Dat^ Gallons 12/18/92 1000 I TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron. Projects Coordinator DATE:Januarv- 16. 1997 SUBJECT: #2195 Genmar Industries. Inc./Minnetonka Boat W’orks. 1449 Shoreline Drive - Variance/Commercial Site Plan Review - Continuation of Public Hearine Zoning District: B-2, Lakeshore Business District. Application: Revised request for commercial site plan review approval and variances for construction of a new building to replace the existing building on the property. The revised proposal requires variances for lakeshore and street (front yard) setbacks. 0-75’ and 75-250' hardcover, lot area and depth. Additional variances related to parking stall numbers and location, and tree removal within 75' of the shoreline, may be necessary depending upon which of the two parking plans is adopted. List of Exhibits A - Applicants' Transmittal Letter of 1/7/97 with Accompanying Exhibits: 1 - Letter of Requesl'Hardship Statemcnt'Summaiy Table Hardcover Calculations for 2 Parking Area Options NURP Calculations Existing Conditions Plan and Enlargement Proposed 10 Stall Site Plan ana Enlargements Proposed 3 Stall Site Plan and Enlargements Proposed Building Perspective Proposed Building Plans and Views B - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/96 C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/26/96 D - Letter from Louis B. Oberhauser 12/2/96 E - City Engineer's Comments 1/16/97 F-Staff Memo of 11/15/96 'y, 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- Synopsis At the November meeting. Planning Commission reviewed Genmar ’s proposal to replace the existing 30'x80 ’ building with a smaller 24'x46' structure to serv e as a boat sales and slip rental o.Tice for the Zoning File #2195 Januan ’ 16, 1997 Page 2 marina. During that review. Planning Commission raised a number of concerns which resulted in tabling of the application. Those concerns include: The visual appearance of the proposed building. The proposed storage of boats displayed for sale within the lakeshore yard adjacent to the proposed building and in an area proposed as non-hardcover. The lack of adequate parking to meet the letter of the code. The lack of public restroom facilities for use by r'ip customers. The lack of a boat head pumpout facility. The fact that this propert> has never connected to the a\ ailable municipal sewer. The need to upgrade stomi w ater facilities as part of this overall proposal. The general intensification of use of the site. Revised Proposal Applicants have submitted a revised proposal including the follow ing: Increasing the proposed building length from 46 ’ to 4H ’, resulting in a proposed lakeshore setback of 47 ’ (c.xisting building is 20' from the shoreline. 75' required). Proposed 15' side setback meets 10' minimum. Proposed street setback of 17’ where c.xisting building is 12' and required is 30'. Revised facades and roof lines to create a more residential looking building. Provision of men ’s and women's restrooms for use by slip customers, within the east end of the building. Proposed enclosure for continued use of satellite portable toilets on the Tanager Lake side of the property. Provisions for sanitary head pumpout system and sewer connection. Proposed parking lot expansion of 3 stalls, w ith an alternate plan for 10 additional stalls. - Detailed grading plans for stormwater ponding for both 3 stall and 10 stall alternati\es. Revised hardcover calculations. In addition, applicants have provided a detailed analysis of their proposed use of the site and their expectations for how it will operate. Applicants have provided their position regarding parking needs for the 12 slips proposed to be used for boat display purposes. Applicants have also provided information regarding the hardcover trade-offs invoked with both the 3 stall and 10 stall parking expansions as well as impacts on trees. Planning Commission is requested to review applicants' commentary as well as their application summary table. : ‘i; -feii Zoning File #2195 Januan 16. 1997 Page 3 Hardcovci/Stormwater/Tree Removal Impacts The hardco\ er impacts of the proposed building under the 3 stall and 10 stall altemati\ es are summarized in the table below. These numbers do not include any hardcover w hich might occur as a result of displaying boats on the green space east of the proposed building. (East Side) SITE AREA EXISTING HARDCOVER PROPOSED HARDCOVER 3-STALL ALTERNATE PROPOSED HARDCOVER 10-STALL ALTERNATE 0-75'69.044 s.f 23,854 s.f (34.55%) 23.215 s.f (33.62%) 25,630 s.f (37.12%) 75-250’12.176 s.f 9.003 s.f (73.94%) 8.916 s.f (73.23%) 8,926 s.f (73.31%) The 10-stall alternative results in a net 1,776 s.f increase in 0-75’ hardcover, while the 3 stall alternative results in a 639 s.f reduction. With cither alternative, hardcover in the 75-250’ zone is reduced by about 80 s.f Both the 3-stall and 10-stall alternatives include significant expansion of the small existing storm water pond in order to meet NURP standards. The area of the storm water pond is not considered hardco\ er. but w ill result in the con\ ersion of green space to an open water pond. 1 he increase in pond size will result in either case in the removal of 4-5 trees in 0-75’ zone, and both proposed plans indicate 2 new replacement trees in the pond area as replacement. Planning Commission should consider whether additional vegetation replacement is required in this location. The NURP standards were adopted as part of Orono ’s Comprehensive Plan a few years ago. and are intended to provide for a high degree of phosphorus removal from storm water before it enters the lake, in addition to removing suspended particles and debris. The ultimate efliciency of NUR ponds is a function of their large size and permanent pool of standing w ater. The existing pond on the site does not meet NURP criteria, and functions merely to remove sediment and debris Iroi.i storm water entering the lake. The City Engineer has suggested minor revisions to the grading plan for the proposed stormwater pond. Site Landscaping AS indicated in November, the proposed site plan shows existing and propo.sed landscaping materials. Planning Commission should review the revised plans and detemnne whether additional landscaping is necessary'. Zoning File #2195 Januan' 16, 1997 Page 4 Sales Operation and Intensification of Site Uses Boat sales is a permitted use in the B-2 zone, and has been since 1975. The 1989 parking lot expansion for this site was approved based on no retail sales occurring at the site. The expansion of parking to ser\ e the currently proposed new retail sales use requires a number of variances. It is staffs position that parking lot expansion would be required if applicants were to merely remodel the existing building and commence a retail sales operation. Planning Commission should carefully weigh the intent of the code and applicants' analysis of parking needs, including whether expansion of the parking lot should occur at a 3-stall or 10-staIl level. Consideration should also be given to the potential enhancements to the site as well as to its operation as a result of this application. A new smaller building with more confomiing setbacks and a more effective storm water control system, as well as the provision of sanitan. facilities for all users of the site, are all positive improvements to the property. Yet. Planning Commission has raised the concern that providing additional parking spaces could lead to an intensification of use of the site. CertainI). it could be argued that if 10 additional parking spaces are provided and then the retail operation disappears again, the propcrt> owner might use the enhanced parking as justification for expanding the number of slips. We cannot predict w hat the current or future ow ners of tlie property will do in the future. We can assume, however, that access to Lake Minnetonka w ill become more dear as the population of the metropolitan area increases. Issues for Discussion 1.Are the lot depth and lot area variances Justified by the historic and current use of this property as a marina? Does the extremely nonconforming location of the existing building pro\ ide sufficient hardship justification to ?llow its replacement with a building that will be more conforming in location, even though \ ariances arc still required? 3.Does Planning Commission have a concern regarding the use of green space betw een the new building and the lake, for boat display purposes? If this is a concern, how would the placement of those boats in required automobile parking stalls impact the site? 4.Is there any justification for granting a variance to the required number of parking stalls? Does Planning Commission agree with applicants' analysis of the parking code requirements? Should applicants be required to increase the parking lot by 3 stalls, by 10 stalls, or not at all? Does Planning Commission acknowledge the continued variance for parking stalls across the County Road from a portion of the slips they serve? _____ Zoning File #2195 Januar>' 16. 1997 Page 5 5.Given the proposed decrease or increase in hardcox er on the site (dependent on the level of parking lot expansion ultimetely required), does Planning Commission feel there is adequate hardship justification for hardcover expansion if required? Does the expanded storm water ponding facility adequately mitigate any additional hardcover that will result from parking expansion? 6.If the variances needed for this project are not granted, applicants intend to remodel the existing building. However, the potential uses of that building are still limited by parking requirements for various activities occurring at the marina. Is the proposed office/sales building, and proposed parking lot/stomi water rev isions. ultimately a better use of this site than simply remodeling the existing 2 stoo ’ sfucture? 7.Does Planning Commission concur that the operational aspects of the applicants proposal should be incorporated as conditions of approval in the resolution if this project is approved? Tliis would formalize both the applicants' intended use of the site and the Citv's basis for approval, which would be beneficial infonnation for future site o'vncrs and'or City Councils.. « • 4 •• .. Staff Rceommendation As noted in November. Planning Commission should consider v\hether each of the proposed/requested variances is adequately supported and justified by hardships. Planning Commission should consider whether the alternative of not granting the v ariances results in a lost opportunity to bring the site into some degree of greater conformity. Because Planning Commission has recommended denial of expanded parking on the west side of County Road 15. there obviously is greater pressure to accommodate parking needs on the east side. Planning Commission should address the following items in your recommendation: Lot area and depth variances. - V'ariance for number of parking stalls, or requirement to expand parking lot by 3 stalls or 10 stalls. Continued v ariance for parking on opposite side of road from area served. Lakeshcre setback variance for new building. Street setback variance for new building. Hardcov er variance. - Variance to allow boat st'>rage in required yard. - Landscaping prov isions. - Confirmation of proposed amenities, i e. sanitarv' facilities tor slip customers, screening and continued use o^satellite toilet: on the Tanager Lake side, provision of boat head pumpout facility, provision of ctorm water management facilities, replacement of trees, building facade and design, etc. Site operation proposal as a condition of approval. Any other specific conditions of approval Planning Commission feels are necessaiy. Zoning File #2195 januar>' 16, 1995 Page 6 Options for Action 1. Recommend approval, with specific conditions defined. 2. Table for further discussion or further information (give specific direction). 3. Recommend denial. 4. Other. This application as 'veil as Planning Commission's recommendation for denial on the west side blulT rcmoval/parking expansion, will be presented to the Council for action at their Januar>' 27th meeting. rv. 'Sesmm I N O U S T R I I S January 7, 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 RE; Additional Information for Variance/Commercial Site Plan Review Genmar Industries. Inc./Minnetonka Boat Works 1449 Shoreline Drive Dear Mr. Gaffron: Genmar has revised its initial request related to the referenced property. These items were discussed with you during our meeting on December 18, 1996. In preparation for the upcoming January 21, 1997. planning commission meeting. Genmar is providing the following informatiori as an addendum to our initial submittals. The items are referenced as exhibits using the designations provided in your November 15, 1996 memorandum to the planning commission. The items are as follows: • Letter of Request/Hardship Statement (including ta6.1e). (ExhibitsjD • Hardcover Calculation Worksheets (for two parking area options) (Exhibit F) • NURP Calculations (new exhibit) . Existing Condition Plan (3 - 24" x 36 ’ copies and 1 -11" x 17" copy) (Exhibit H) • Proposed Site Plan -10 Stall Grading, Storm Sewer, and Landscaping Plan (3 - 24 ” X 36" copies and 1 -11" x 17 ” copy, and 1 -11" x 17" copy each of an enlargement of the building area and parking area) (Exhibit I) • Proposed Site Plan - 3 Stall Grading, Storm Sewer, and Landscaping Plan (3 - 24" X 36" copies and 1 -11" x 17" copy, and 1 -11" x 17 ’ copy each of an enlargement of the building area and parking area) (Exhibit I) • Proposed Building Perspective (Exhibit K) • Plan View, Elevation Views, and Isometric View of the Proposed Building (Exhibit J) 612 339-7600 Fax 612 33 ’-1930 100 South Sih Slreel. Suite 2400 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 If you have any questions, please contact Mary McConnell at 337-1803 or me at 337-1859. Sincerely, Director, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs enclosures cc; Mary P. McConnell - Genmar - - ♦ ..c. EXHIBIT D& n Exhibit 1 to Variance Application-Genmar Industries, Inc. Genmar proposes to remove the existing building at the property known as the Minnetonka Boatworks, 1449 Shoreline Drive, Orono, Minnesota and replace it with a smaller building. Genmar also proposes to increase the number of parking stalls, provide sanitary facilities to the boating slip renters (restrooms and a pumpout system), construct an enclosure around the portable sanitary facilities on the Tanager Lake side, and increase the size of the present stormwater runoff basin to meet NURP standards. Existing Conditions. The current building occupies a building footprint of approximately 30 feet by 80 feet. It is a two-story building and is approximately 4000 square feet in size. The lakeward portion of the building is located approximately 20 feet from Lake Minnetonka, the portion of the building fronting on Highway 15 is located approximately 12 feet from the property line and the side of the building is located approximately 15 feet frorn the property line. The current building is authorized for storage and light boat maintenance. Genmar currently has 68 authorized parking spaces to accompany 111 rented marina slips and the building. Proposal 1. Building Dimensions and Setback. The proposed building is greatly reduced in size from the existing building. It will occupy a footprint approximately 24 ■ — reetbv24f€feet by 48 feet with a roofed canopy at the entrance approximately 5 feet by 24 feet; The building will be one story and approximately 1,152 square feet. Because of the reduced size of the building, we will be able to improve the setback from the lake by 27 feet and from Highway 15 by 5 feet. We propose to place the new building on the current side setback. We have attached a copy of an artist ’s rendering of the exterior of the building which should replace the previously submitted sketch identified as Exhibit K in the city’s November 15, 1996 memorandum. The building will be served by the existing well on the property and existing city sewer connection. The existing building will be demolished prior to placement of the new building. The present building is equipped with a basement which is located under the western 1/3 of the building. The basement will be filled and existing utility connections appropriately routed to service the new building. The building will be a wood-framed structure designed and built by Lester Building Systems. The building will be built slab-on-grade, wood framed with sheetrocked walls, and equipped with a cedar lap siding exterior. The building layout along with side and end-elevation views, and an isometric view are provided and should replace the previously submitted Exhibit J. 7vr 2. Building and Site Use. The proposed building will be used for boat sales. It will have two offices, a storage room, reception area and a restroom. We have attached a preliminary floorplan for the building. The maximum number of employees at the site at any time will be three; two salespersons and a receptionist. As shown on the building plan view, in addition to a restroom inside the building for employees/customers, the building will be equipped with two, disability-accessible restrooms (male and female) for use by the marina slip rental customers. The restrooms will be connected to the sanitary sewer and will be accessed from exterior doors on the east side of the building. These restrooms will replace the porta-potties adjacent to the parking lot which will be removed from the site. A sanitary cieanout will be located along the building to provide a discharge for a portable head cleanout system which will be utilized at the site for the slip rental customers. The portable sanitary facilities on the Tanager Lake side of the property will be improved by installing a wooden, 3-sided, 8-foot high enclosure around them which will shield them from view from County Road 15. This structure will be stained or painted a natural tone. Genmar will lease the site to a dealer to sell Genmar boat products and manage the marina. We are currently negotiating a lease with a dealer who has a major marina operation in the east metropolitan area. The dealer would sell boats and a small number of parts and manage the marina. Of the existing 111 slips on Minnetonka, the operator would use the twelve slips closest to the building for in-water boat displays. These slips would no longer be rental slips which would result in less activity at the site. We propose to increase the existing parking lot by 3 stalls (71 total stalls). VVe have also included information regarding a 10 stall increase (78 total stalls). As discussed in a later section, there is a tradeoff in hardcover for the increases in the number of stalls. The operator would display up to six boats on the property between the lake and the building in the area presently covered by the east end of the existing building. This area wnl be returned to green space. The boats would be stored on trailers. Alternatively, some of the additional parking stalls that would be added could be used for the display area. This is discussed in a later section.- r- The operator does not intend to establish permanent facilities for the performance of oil changes, maintenance or other significant boat-service related functions on the property. The property is currently authorized for this activity. The operator may conduct some light boat prep to ready the boat for delivery such as light assembly i.e., installation of a rail, fly bridge or prop replacement. The operator will not be open on Sundays during the boating season. With the exception of the items listed above, the marina would continue to be operated as currently authorized. In the future, the property will not be utilized for winter storage of boats as it Is currently used. Changes From the Previous Proposal This section identifies the modifications incorporated into this proposal from the previous proposal submitted October 25, 1996 (Application #2195). The modifications include: • Provision of sanitary facilities to serve boat slip customers. Thus, no variance to Section 10.41, Subd. 11(A) will be required. • Expansion of the parking lot on the east side of County Road 15 to either 71 or 78 parking stalls (addition of 3 or 10 stalls). Thus, no variance to Section 10.41, Subd. 8 will be required. This is further detailed in the next section. • As part of changes to the existing east side parking lot, the existing stormwater basin will be expanded to meet NURP standards. • The construction of the office has been changed from the original modular design to a wood frame building. • A portable head cleanout system will be integrated into the marina services. • An enclosure will be constructed around the porta-potties located west of County Road 15. The variances are described in the next section. Variances Required. 1. Setback (10.41 Subd 12(B) and 13(A)) Lake: The current building is located 20 feet from the lake. The proposed building would be 47 feet from the lake, a 27-foot improvement. This would still require a 28-foot variance from the 75-foot setback requirement. Frontvard : The current building is located 12 feet from the Highway 15 right-of-way. The proposed building would be 17 feet from the County Road 15 right-of- way, a 5-foot improvement. This would still require a 13-foot variance from the 30-foot setback requirement for front yard. 2. Hardcover (Section 10.41, Subd. 13(D)/10.56, Subd. 16(L)) The attached hardcover calculations (existing and proposed options), which replace the previously submitted calculations listed as Exhibit F, reflect the portion of the Genmar property located east of County Road 15. Due to this property’s uniqueness (shallow lots with County Road 15 bisecting the property), the green space retained on the west side (Tanager Lake) should be considered in any discussions pertaining to hardcover on the east side of the property. The portion of property on the west side (Tanager Lake side) consists entirely of green space. There is approximately 45,100 square feet of green space in the zone from 0 to 75 feet on the west side property and approximately 17,360 square feet of green space in the zone from 75 to 250 feet. In total, 77.1% of this entire property is green space. Genmar currently has a variance for hardcover in both the 0-75 foot and 75-250 foot zones. The reduction in the size of the building would reduce the amount of hardcover by a total of 1,301 square feet. However, the addition of parking stalls to alleviate the need for a parking variance would increase hardcover. Parking The total number of parking spaces required under the ordinance based on the proposed project is 71 spaces; 61 spaces for the marina (6 spaces per 10 rented slips) and 11 spaces for the building (eight for the business and three for employee parking - 3 employees). The current site configuration (an updated existing conditions plan is provided to replace Exhibit H) provides 68 parking spaces so a variance for 3 spaces would be required if it is determined that the parking required for the retail operation will adequately serve the 12 in-water boat display slips. Genmar currently has 68 authorized parking spaces to accompany 111 marina slips and building. Based on the proposed project, we will be converting 12 boat rental slips to in-water boat display. These slips will be devoted t't the sales operation only, which will reduce the amount of parking required. This is so oecause the 12 slips will not be used for normal unrestricted boat access. Only two of these slips could ever be used at one time because all customers who test drive must be accompanied by a salesperson at the site. There will be a maximum of two working salespersons at the site at any time. Further, because the sales facility will be closed at 6:00 p.m. including Saturdays (normal business hours will be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and closed on Sundays, employee and boat sales customer parking will not be needed on evenings and on Sundays. Thus, the entire parking lot will be available to service the 99 rental slips during evenings and 2/3 of the weekend-the busiest time of the week. Consequently, it is our belief that the parking related to the sales function is adequately considered with the need for only 11 parking stalls to address the new use As indicated by Michael Gaffron ’s November 15, 1996 memorandum to the planning commission, it is his opinion that the ordinance identifies parking requirements based on the number of slips without distinguishing use as boat display suggesting Genmar would need 18 parking stalls to address the new use at the site. While the ordinance does not address slips used for rental as distinguished from storage or in-water display, it is clear that the ordinance contemplated unrestricted use of slips where the slip user would use the slip at any time of day or night. This is clearly not the case with the proposed 12 slips to be used as boat display as discussed above. Consequently, it is not appropriate to require 7 parking spaces for the 12 slips which would be used for in water boat display. To do so would result in requiring the facility to duplicate the parking requirements for boat-sales customers and rental slips even though the display slips would be totally devoted to the boat-sales customer for whom parking has already^ been provided. To duplicate the parking requirements .would be-an illogical readlngiOT.^S the ordinance. Ordinances can not address every situation so they at times need some logical interpretation as is the case here. Genmar has evaluated the expansion of the existing parking lot while considering hardcover requirements and the number of trees which would require removal. Evaluated were the alternatives of increasing the lot by 3 stalls and 10 stalls. The grading plan, stormwater plan, and landscaping plan for each option are provided to replace Exhibit I. It should be noted that the 10-stall option would meet Mr. Gaffron ’s initial version of the parking requirements or allow for the use of 7 stalls for boat display and provide for the 3 stalls necessary to alleviate a variance under Genmar ’s interpretation of the parking requirements. If the parking lot was increased by 3 stalls, the resulting increase in hardcover (parking lot only) would be 450 s.f. in the 0-75 foot zone and 125 s.f. in the 75 - 250 foot zone. This alternative would require the removal of two trees. The existing pond would be expanded and would result in the removal of 4 to 5 trees. It should be noted that the increase in size of the existing pond to meet NURP standards would require the removal of these trees even if the parking lot was not increased in size. If the parking lot was increased by 10 stalls, the resulting increase in hardcover (parking lot only) would be 865 s.f. in the 0-75 foot zone and 135 s.f. in the 75 - 250 foot zorie. This alternative would require the filling of the existing pond to allow for the increase in the lot and construction of a new stormwater retention pond. A total of 5 trees would require removal. It should be noted that the decrease in the size of the building would completely offset hardcover increases created by the 3 stall option and partially offset hardcover V-. increases for the 10 stall option. The comparisons to the existing conditions are provided in the attached Genmar Application Summary table (replaces Exhibit E). 3. Storage of Boats, Vehicles, Etc. Within Required Yard (Section 10.41, Subd. 9) A variance to this 1995 ordinance amendment is required because the parking lot extends into the required lawn areas (street and lake). 4. Variance to Required Lot Area (Section 10.41, Subd. 12 (B.1)) A variance to this section is required because the lot area of this tax parcel of property is 1.86 acres. 5. Variance for Lot Width Perpendicular to Lakeshore (Section 10.41, Subd. 12(B3)) A variance to this section is required because the lot depth is less than the required 200 feet. Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions. The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 45 years. The property is not deep enough to allow an expansion of the parking area that would meet the current ordinance parking requirements without resulting in significant overall hardcover increases. The lajority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover Is allowed so essentially any developed use would require a .. ^ r. hardcover variance. The existing building on the property Is In need of repair. As an alternative to repairing the building. Genmar proposes to demolish the existing building and replace it with a substantially smaller building which will substantially diminish the size of the variances required and bring the property closer to conformance with current road and lake setbacks and hardcover requirements. Attached is a table comparing the current conditions with the proposed improvements. This table cleady shows the significant improvements to the property in terms of compliance with current ordinance requirements and a reduction in use of the property. In addition, Genmar will be reducing the amount of marina traffic and the accompanying parking needs by converting twelve slips to in-water boat display and increasing the number of parking stalls. This reduction in rental slips reduces unrestricted marina activity at the site by over 10 percent. The use at the site will also be diminished because of the restricted business hours and the elimination of a permanent maintenance facility and winter boat storage. The addition of a small sales office with only three employees with restricted business hours and reduced unrestricted marina activity will clearly deintensify the currently authorized use of the property. Finally, Genmar is also bringing the property more into conformance with the provision of sanitary facilities for boat slip rental customers (including pumpout facilities) and upgrading stormwater retention structures to meet NURP standards. Presently, approximately 77.1% of the entire property is green space. The proposals by Genmar would only slightly decrease the amount of green space; 76.7% total green space if the 3 stall increase is constructed and 76.4% green space for the 10 stall increase. s . Building Setback Lake Side Front Marina Slips Hardcover 0-75 feel zone 75-250 feet zone Stormwater Sanitary Facilities GENMAR Application Sunimaf7Current Conditions Old In i^leed of Repair 30x80 2 story 4200 square feet 20 feet 15 feel 12 feel 111 Rental slips 23,854 square feet 9.003 squa'^e feet Does net meet NURP Porta-potties cn both sides of County Road 15 I ii!•• - V; Proposed New 24x48 1 story 1152 square feet 47 feet 15 feel 17 ^eet 99 Rental slips 12 in-water boat display slips 3 Parking Stalls 23.215 square feet 19 Parking Stalls 25.630 square feet 8,916 sauare feel 8,926 square feet Compliance with NURP Restrooms installed in proposed building Shield installed around porta- potties west of Co Rd 15. -I -I M I A I m PO Q l?'3U36 07:34 10 miLlNCReASe no. 816 P04 PROJECT : MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS LOCATION : ORONO. MINNESOTA DECEMBER 30. 1996 EXHIBIT F PREPARED FOR: GENMAR PREPARED BY ; SATHRE-BERGQUIST. INC /-/I*' ■ / NOTE : ALL AREAS DETERMINED BY PLANIMETERING SUBJECT : HARDCOVER CALCUATION WORK SHEET LOCATION : EAST SIDE OF C.S.A.H NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 2 ( I ^ STAU-S) SETBACK ZONE ; I 0^75-250 ’250-500' 500-1000 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER ITEM LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) = SQUARE FEET (SF) BUILDING PARKING LOT BOAT WELL DOCKS EXISTING POND 1.585 SF 21.300 SF 625 SF 344 SF 0 SF TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75') =23.854 SF TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (0-75 ’) = PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75 ’) = 69.044 SF 34 55% ! FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION LOCATION ; EAST SIDE OF C.S.A.H. NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 2 SETBACK ZONE :0-751 75-250 ’250-500 ’500-1000 ’ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER ITEM LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) = SQUARE FEET (SF) BUILDING PARKING LOT BOAT WELL DOCKS POND 496 SF 24.165 SF 625 SF 344 SF 0 SF TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75’) = TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (0-75’) = PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75’) = 25,630 SF 69.044 SF 37.12% FOR THE PROPOSED CONDITION iz-'ziyse 07:34 MID. 8lb PROJECT : MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS LOCATION : ORONO. MINNESOTA DECEMBER 30. 1996 PREPARED FOR: GENMAR PREPARED BY ; SATHRE-BERGQUIST. INC NOTE : ALL AREAS DETERMINED BY PLANIMETERING SUBJECT : HARDCOVER CALCUATION WORK SHEET LOCATION : EAST SIDE OF C.S A H. NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 2 (^10 STALLS^ SETBACK ZONE ;0-75' I 75-2501 250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER ITEM LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) BUILDING ___________ _________ PARKING LOT ___________ _________ SQUARE FEET (SF) 820 SF 8.183 SF TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250') =9.003 SF TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (75-250') = PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250 ) - 12.176 SF 73.94% FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION ! i LOCATION : EAST SIDE OF C.S.A.H. NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 2 SETBACK ZONE 0-75' I 75-250^ 250-500'500-1000' PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER ITEM LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) = SQUARE FEET (SF) BUILDING PARKING LOT 608 SF 8.318 SF TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250') = TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (75-250) = PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250') = 8.926 SF 12.176 SF 73.31% FOR THE PROPOSED CONDITION . 12/31.^96 07:35 'J ^TALU TtlCREA'aE re. 816 EXHIBIT!* 006 DECEMBER 30. 1996PROJECT : MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS LOCATION ; ORONO. MINNESOTA PREPARED FOR; GENMAR PREPARED BY : SATHRE-BERGQUiST. INC. NOTE : ALL AREAS DETERMINED BY PLANIMETERING SUBJECT ; HARDCOVER CALCUATION WORK SHEET LOCATION : EAST SIDE OF C.S.A.H. NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 3 SbTDACK ZONE: I oTsl 75-250' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER ITEM BUILDING PARKING LOT BOAT WELL DOCKS EXISTING POND LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) = TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75*) = TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (0-75’) = 250-500' SQUARE FEET (SF) 1,585 SF 21.300 SF 625 SF 344 SF 0 SF 23,854 SF (3 ^t(^lls) 500-1000* PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75*) = FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION , ci 69.044 .SR.;. _ 34 55% 4! r LOCATION ; EAST SIDE OF C.S.A.H. NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 3 SETBACK ZONE ; I 0^75-250* PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) =HARDCOVER ITEM BUILDING PARKING LOT BOAT WELL DOCKS POND ^ mm mm ^m mm mm mm mmm mm mm mm mmm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm ^m ^m ^m mm m TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75*) = TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (0-75*) = PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (0-75*) = 250-500* SQUARE FEET (SF) 496 SF 21.750 SF 625 SF 344 SF 0 SF 23.215 SF 69,044 SF 33.62% 500-1000* FOR THE PROPOSED CONDITION 12/31/96 07:35 hO. 816 DO? PROJECT : MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS DECEMBER 30. 1996 LOCATION : ORONO. MINNESOTA PREPARED FOR: GENMAR PREPARED BY : SATHRE-BERGQUIST. INC. NOTE : ALL AREAS DETERMINED BY PLANIMETERING SUBJECT : HARDCOVER CALCUATION WORK SHEET LOCATION : EAST SIDE OF C.S.A.H. NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 3(3 s) SETBACK ZONE :0-75' I 75-2501 250-500* EXISTIN G HARDCOVER IN ZONE SQUARE HARDCOVER ITEM LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) = FEET (SF) 500-1000* BUILDING PARKING LOT TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250*) = TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (75-250*) = PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250*) FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION 820 SF 8.183 SF 9.003 SF 12,176 SF 73.94% LOCATION : EAST SIDE OF C.S.A.H. NO. 15 - ALTERNATE 3 SETBACK ZONE :0-75* I 75-2501 250-500*500-1000* PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER ITEM LENGTH (FT) x WIDTH (FT) = SQUARE FEET (SF) BUILDING PARKING LOT TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250*) = TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE (75-250) = PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER IN ZONE (75-250*) = 608 SF 8.308 SF 8,916 SF 12,176 SF 73.23% FOR THE PROPOSED CONDITION liU. too new exhibit SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWAY (612) 476-6000 WAYZATA. MN 55391 FAX 476-0104 PROJECT : MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS LOCATION : ORONO. MINNESOTA PREPARED FOR: GENMAR PREPARED BY : SATHRE-BERGQU.?'. INC DATE DECEMBER 12.1996 .-r. NURP POND DESIGN . u P = Aw = Building & Boal Display Area = Parking & Boat Well Area = Ponding & Water Area = Total Hardcover Area = Grasscover = Hardcover For FI = . CN- Fi = S = R = R = V = 2.5 “Slorni 1.73 Acres 3174 sf 30380 sf 2166 sf CN 35720 0.62 Acres 0.91 Acres 0.75 Acres 90 70 . •: * 79 0.43 1000/CN-10 =2.58 PFI+(P..2S)(P-.2S)(1-Fi)/(P+.8S) 1.57 RAw/12 =0.23 Acre-Feet REQUIRED PONDING DEAD STORAGE VOLUME - PROPOSED PONDING AREA Contour 923.4 BOTTOM 924 925 926 927 928 929 929 4 NWL Square Feet 0 600 1000 1300 1800 2500 3200 3600 DEAD STORAGE / POND SURFACE AREA CummulaOve Storage(CF) 0 180 980 2130 3660 5830 8680 10040 NWL 2.79 (Acre-Feet) 0 0.00 002 0.05 0.08 0.13 0 20 0 23 ss Z Zo o i § *0 2 o !!' M i s - -8 !i s L'1 2 PROPOSED 10 STALL ORAOINO. ST( SEWER. AND LANDSCAPE PLAN GENMAR ORCMa lINNESOTA C30 H • ^ ! X. > u 1 i 9 — 8 mk n PROPOSED 10 STAU GRADING* ST SEWER* AND LANDSCAPE PLAN GENMAR I ORONO. MINNESOTA SATHHE-BEHOainaT. me. s.F 180 Kum BKMnKYOlMKUl^ MN. 008M*(ltD 470-0000 9 %8 1 n St?1^1 1 1 GENMAR ORONO. MINNESOTA ss o o ^ iS o o •D <8 Gi 8 8 <6 m XX a H 8 - -1 1!5 (itr 1 i PROPOSED 3 STALL GRAOMa STORM SEWER. AND LANDSCAPE PLAN 6ENMAR ORONa MMNE80TA aum-BiBGQPiBr. me. UO «MH ■nos ML »!•{»« i 9 • • I / A l//v /\v ^9 :^t.v. / *7#;?/ // •‘*.1 .• 'V >y M ^ V?■\' V <^/ '1 ili .-b'- / / \i/ •N s:-? .V 5?'>o. 7' •425 X) / .. n" O •■'X' .'V S^.4)^ 'c5> ir>M' // li. “V r' 'A • •JQ'' 1 s> 0 ..■p 1^ m.\ i-Nv; ■'+<b'1^ .■1^' V ■'+O* V i&> i; •% /.AU /. V A /I Jf'i U .Oc; A \J'c^ A#y#V" A^+-d;O ■'+■Q /,'+.<V z\•;/-'A !V €- !il t' '■>. • ••«)<& II II II II II "D *0 "D m m ;d:d ?□ X X oo o (/> (/>T3 TJ T3 H ^ OO O z z mm m^ c/)o o Q G X o m ? Q :d 2 o m o c :s 5 c: ”3§|| m =-d 5 PROPOSED 3 STALL GRAOINC. STORM SE^. AND UNDSCAPE PLAN GENMAR ORONO, MINNESOTA m \ BATHHK-BBRCamaT. IWC. ISO Burn MQioiNrcMnaAs im. e63ii*(ii3) 4t»-«»o 5 mm 8 N Mi I GENMAR ORONO. MINNESOTA SATHRB-E IH lUisT. me. s./ IBO aoum MOMMMYSWKUn. IM. B(WI«(ai2) 47»-«)00 5 -m '^v/'-'r i^i - S£l is^sips ' '* V. %. ‘ • V wS-TI ' *\ ;; /-r.Ci ^yz : >. •-'-.ku- • '7-' - V* AvV,:f:',j'i:‘e+;;;sl Jl‘ ■’- ■v..-v->.«.; w • * -w- m • • * ■ . : '. * ^ • .'i # * * • , , • *’ • • ’* '• * ' •• ••/ •* life/M m mi Mf i'5?J< ■ii‘.';;55£i!ai>^:! f>gi '■'fta i;; ::■ ’if' «• •*“ ^ -x/ 4$V' '.ir;« iK •: ■iSf ■- ■:■■■■ u-..r-M^V i% \ U'.' {4't:.-.-- ' 'ii- -*‘V -j m K\n i ♦^*« • * , % . i « • •:• •*. . .'. •-* - • . •'• V' • **...... ** . ' ‘' •;. : -•;-:v ;. ■••••• . -■ ; ’::;.i-\: ■. I *' * . . • %, s 1 ‘ • • . • • . ' ’ * .^’ *•' • • • ^ ♦ . ; ■'.' . • -... .-A r , ^ • 4---V • •*. ■ • ■•■.'';• '• :■: ■ ■'" ♦ . ' ^ • ^ • •.• ••#• ■/ • . ^ ^ .V- : f;^ ,V: V./ % ... • ..» •- V ^ • •• . • ■■• . V ■• ■.' ■■. . r ■■ -V.. .•■■vV'^'-:.-;^ • „ • •*. •■• , .• ••* .• ■ . 1 • ^ * •• V***.. • » '“v' ‘. • *•*• '•* •'V. •■ *. *..' “•* * *. • ' • 1* . • . • ♦ *'.*.•-•* • •’ • . . • . •,.,•■.* ..- •, . S|. ■. . • »: ' • •.. . . • '• •> '. 1 . ■ • • « ^ • . » i- •• •• .r *,^;.•■.■■■.-^v ■ . . - . . ••• . I. • • . % • . , ■ • * ; ;»•'.# V... ;.’ . • . ^ •:*.•: .^.- .% • ■ # *» # ^ . * * • * * ' • - * . V . » * . •• ■* ' s . * • . ’ . • . V*.* ' *V‘, , . . *. . ^ . .. .•.»•*. »•■•}»•. * • . * .; .'•* ‘ •.... .• .* .• ••* •.;.V.: . . J .. .; •“• > • .**; ■. . • • * .. . , C.. t * «* • * * . V *.. '■>■• . • •■•> .. •.. * • . f •0 tTJ •—I 2 H ? .-j J:\\ i V> MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 X r 'arr - (#9 - #2 David Alan Sutherland - Continued) Mabusth repoHed that the plat map indicates the lot to be 7,000 s.f. in size. The applicant is proposing con^tmction of a partial second level over the single story re^dence. The existing single stalPgarage is located 3' from the residence The applic^ion does not require any structural\overage variance. The residence is located irv^he 500-1000' setback area allowing 3^o hardcover. There will be no change pyfhe hardcover which exists at 28.26%. Setbaclry^ances are required due to the Ipdation of the existing structure at 18' side setback ai^d 29’ rear setback. The bedrt^m expansion results in an intensification requiring to wrapHhe e.xistlng variancesyMabusth indicated that she has not received any comments after noti^tion from the accent neighbors. A neighbor did request a copy of the application. The applicant had no additional comment^ Smith was informed that the constru<;tion woulb\be contracted out. There were no public commen^ The applicant plans to complete the second story construction in about four years which will require a new perrpil The applicant informed Berg thart|ie currently proposed improvement will be^mpleted within the one year time limit aHowed. It was noted that there were severakevergreens to the east and south of the proposedconstruction which will be lost. 'H»e applicant informed Smith that it was his intent to aod,more landscaping and trees acr<«s the back and side of the property. McMjH^ moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2194 for side an^ear sejirack variances. Vote: Ayes 5 , Nays Q. (#10) #2195 GENMAR INDUSTRIES, INC., 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE - COMMERCIAL SITE PLANA^ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:51 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Mary McConnell and JefFMelby. . I . • i . . - v, .* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #?2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application is for a commercial site plan review and variances for a property in the B-2 lakeshore district which has been operated by Minnetonka Boat Works. The applicant plans to replace the existing 30'x80' building with a smaller 24’x40‘ building The property will be leased to King's Cove Marina based out of Hastings. Variances requested are for lakeshore setback, requiring 75' and proposed at 49', and street setback requiring 30', existing at 12', and proposed at 17'. The required side setback is 10' and is proposed at 15'. The plan calls for a grassy area to the lake side of the new building to be used for boat sales and display purposes Park and hardcover variances are also needed, in addition to lot area, lot depth, lack of sanitary facilities and boat storage variances. The existing building has been used for storage. Retail sales occurred on the property in the past but the current parking does not accommodate retail sales There are no changes planned for the parking lot Any alternative use of parking stalls would require a variance Gafiron indicated that there seems to be an over usage of the site. He noted that it could be argued that the proposed use of the grassy area might convert it to hardcover at some point due to the heavy pedestrian traffic. In reviewing the parking, Gafl'ron indicated that the code requires 6^stalls for every JQ. - boat slips. The property currently has 68 parking stalTs for its Tn~§IipS!"A3^i5haf*'^^ parking spaces are needed for the planned uses, as well as three spaces for the employees, for a total of 78. Gaffron reported that the applicant proposes 12 slips currently used for rental to be converted to use for display of boats for sale, which the applicant considers would bring the parking requirement to 71. The code, however, does not differentiate between the two uses resulting in a 10 stall variance required to accommodate the retail sales. Also, if the green space is not used for display, and display boats are placed on the parking lot, then additional spaces would be required. There has also been a tendency to park the overflow on weekends at a neighboring marina Gaffron said the use could be limited to include no weekends or holidays. Gaffron said the applicant has agreed to close the sales operation on Sundays except for four Sundays per year chosen by the applicant. Gaffron noted that the slips on the west side of the road have been served by parking on the east side of the road through a variance granted in 1989. Gaffron reviewed the hardcover calculations for the property on the east side of the road. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback currently exists at 36.9% and is proposed to decrease to 35.4%, but noting that the green space will be used for storage, which is not included in this calculation. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback exists at 73.9% and is proposed to decrease to 72.2%. The overall result in both zones is a 1300 s.f hardcover reduction. 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Gaffron reported that there is a lack of sanitary facilities on the property. Portable toilets have been used but no indoor facilities provided for slip customers as required by code. Sewer was brought to this area in the mid 1980’s and is available to this property. GafEron recommended that this issue be addressed. The City required a pond in 1989 for stormwater management, and the parking lot discharges to that pond. The City Engineer has not reviewed the pond. Gaf&on indicated that the pond probably functions as planned but without meeting current codes He added that the site plan calls for additional plantings on the property noting that the current landscaping has met City approval. Gaffiron indicated that there has been a long standing discrepancy betvseen the comprehensive plan and the zoning code regarding boat sales. The comp plan says that boat sales are not an appropriate use for the B-2 district. The zoning code has allowed boat sales as a permitted use since 1975. The legislature changed its view on the hierarchy in 1974 stipulating that the comprehensive plan takes precedence over the zoning code. Gaffron noted that all of the other Orono marinas have had changes but have continued to have retail use which requires more parking. The applicant was asked to respond. McConnell addressed the concerns brought forward by Gaffron.^5he not^lKaffric building has not been fully utilized. The applicant reviewed whether minor repairs should take place or w hether a more viable use would be to minimize the size of the building with a new building. The building as proposed was said to be environmentally friendly with no use of chemicals and contain only office space with two sales people and one secretary. With regard to the green space losing its pervious ability, McConnell said the boats would be on trailers and would not affect the drainage. She noted that the applicant had considered asphalt in that area. McConnell said 12 slips would be used for water display of boats. King ’s Cove would store the boats in those slips for test driving by customers for retail sales with rental slips provided by other stalls. McConnell viewed the lack of separating the retail and rental stalls as "double dipping". It was her opinion that only a 3 stall variance would be required for parking. She noted that the applicant was willing to close on Sundays with the exception of four Sundays per year. As to the parking conflict between the two marinas, McConnell recognized the problem as being in the past but improvements have generated more parking on the Genmar site. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 ' #2195 Gerunar Industries - Continued) McConnell informed the Commission that they have never received any complaints regarding the use of "Satellites" for sanitary facilities. She indicated that the office wUI be served by sanitary sewer but only for use by the employees. Customers will not be allowed past a certain point in the office building, and it will be closed on Sundays. McConnell said to accommodate sanitary facilities for all customers, it would have required a larger building built toward the lake side. McConnell noted that the property has historically been used as a marina, for storage, and for retail and views the proposal as an improvement to the property. Lindquist opened the meeting to public comment. Doug Schmitt, 1475 Shoreline Drive, reported that he lives next door but across the channel from the property. He inquired if there was a difficulty in connecting to sewer. Gaffron said the property is served by sewer now noting a nearby injector station. Gaffiron said connecting to sewer is not an issue noting that the sewer assessment has been paid. Lou Oberhauser indicated he was representing a neighboring property owner. He asked . - - what would4)tevenltJ^appbcanLfj:Qm^e9tj that require parking stalls. He cited examples of boat clubs, launching facilities, transient launching, charter boat port of call and caretaker houses. Permitted uses under the code include slip rental, marine sales, repair, storage, and marine fuel sales. Gaffron noted that without a review, the rental situation could happen. McConnell indicated that it was not the applicant's intent of renting any boats and noted that such a condition could be stipulated. Oberhauser said he w'as concerned with an increase in the commercialization of the area and intensification in use not in keeping with the residential area. It was clarified for Smith that Genmar owns the property and would lease the facilities to King's Cove for use as a marina and office space. Hawm asked for clarification on extended parking granted in the 1980's. Gaffron said the variance was granted writh the understanding that the number of spaces did not include retail, and no retail was proposed at that time. McMillan asked for comment on what minor repairs would be required to the existing building. She said the building looks as if it would require major repair. McConnell said the building was in good structural condition and felt the building could be usable with only minor repair. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Smith inquired about how the 78 parking stall configuration was derived. Gaffron said he did not believe the e.Kisting parking could be reconfigured to meet the 78 stall requirement. McMillan inquired about the sales hours for the business. The owner of King’s Cove said the ofifice would be open from 9:00 a m. to 5.00 or 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, all year around. McMillan asked how the applicant proposes to keep the slip rental customers from using the sanitary facilities within the building. McConnell said the building plans situate the receptionist area so that the facilities would not be available. She said the applicant proposes to keep the current satellite toilets in the same area as they have in the past. McMillan was informed that the satellites have not been screened in the past. Berg asked the applicant what type of construction would be used for the building. Melby said the structure would be a double wide manufactured modular. McConnell said improvements would be added to the building such as shutters, different roofing, and awning. Lindquist asked if there was any requirement that the property hook up to sewer. Gaffron said the code was fairly specific and read the requirements including providing for sewer and water, waste dump station and pump out Gaffron indicated that these issues were not discussed in 1989 review. Lindquist asked if a boat pump out was planned. McConnell said no. Gaffron said the pump out was previously provided at the Genmar’s Wayzata facility which has now been sold. Lindquist asked if there was any problem with providing a pump out. McConnell said she would look into this possibility. Lindquist asked if there were other code requirements that were not being met. Gaffron said no CUP is required as the proposal does not include any of the uses which require a CUP. He noted that additional parking was allowed on the Brown’s Bay side in 1989 to serve the slips on Tanager Lake across the County road. From a landscape standpoint, Gaffron said there were no problems. Gaffron said the property is in general compliance and has been a low activity property. He noted that the previous boat storage in the winter was maintained at a low level. McConnell said winter storage is no longer being provided. Lindquist inquired about the 8-10 parking stall shortage. He noted that the code is specific as to the number required and does not discern the type of use. McConnell said she understood the code to be concerned with high turnover noting that the proposal calls for retail customer, not rental slips. Lindquist informed McConnell that slips are required for both retail and rental. - • t . f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNE'JG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18. 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Mabusth clarified through questioning McConnell that the rental slip customers will not have access to sanitary' facilities when the boat sales office is closed. She asked the Commission whether the new use should be allowed if no permanent sanitary facilities are available and in light of the closmg of the Wayzata facility. The boat slips will continue to be used on Sundays when the office facility is closed. McConnell said the use of the bathroom facility within the building would not aflfect any customer as the facility is not open for use at all. Smith noted that marinas provide such sanitary facilities for their customers. McMillan asked if there w'ere any other changes for the boat slip customers. The only other change noted was the lack of providing winter storage, w hich McConnell said would result in less activity on the site. Smith questioned the grass area becoming more like hardcover rather than a permeable source for drainage with heavy pedestrian use. McConnell agreed the grass would mat but said she did not expect alot of activity but saw' the display as visual. No walking stones will be laid. Smith asked how the stormwater facilities would be positioned oathe prop^y.^ _ McConnell said the requirements would have to be reviewed with the plansr She also. indicated that additional parking stalls may be found if the existing pond is moved elsewhere. Berg inquired whether the applicant intended on maintaining facilities in Hastings. King's Cove owner said he did. The Commission and applicant discussed the number of slips and stalls comparing retail and rental. McMillan said she was concerned with the intensification of the site. She also noted that the site would generate more traffic into an area that is already overburdened with traffic. McMillan also questioned what would result if the property were sold if the applicant was allowed to differentiate between rental and retail slips. McMillan said she saw the old building as being part of the history of old Orono. While acknowledging the applicant had the right to build, she did not see the proposed building as fitting in with the new Orono. Hawn agreed that the proposal was an intensification of the site. Noting the plan for a double wide mobile, no public toilet facilities, Hawn questioned how the applicant could ask the City to extend the limits of the code while not offering anything back to the customer. Hawti said she would like to see toilet facilities and an attractive building. Her major concern was with the density of the site. Hawn said she was not in favor of the application as presented. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Lindquist said the application as he saw it calls for a 10 stall variance to the parking code. Lindquist said he would not differentiate between the uses Lindquist said the facility should provide toilets and pump out. Smith agreed. He noted he did like the green area. Berg said the old building showed a character not present with the new building proposed Lindquist asked the applicant if the application should be tabled for further review or if a vote should be taken. McConnell asked for additional comments before tabling. Hawn said she would be interested in viewing the City Engineer ’s report on the pond to see if it was adequate to meet the current standards. Lindquist noted that the proposal should meet the ordinance changes made in 1995. Mr. Schmitt asked if there were any building codes that must be met. Gafffon said the building must meet the B-2 standards, but those standards do not discuss how the building should look. Berg said she traveled the road daily and is concerned with the traffic and number of people using the facility on the narrow, busy roadway. She saw the site as being the..,- • m-m -.; entrance into Orono and said she was adamant that the building be a good representation of Orono. Berg cited a nearby example of a remodeled building that the proposal should emulate. Gaf&on indicated there were licensing standards that are required to be met. He noted that the property has been open during the winter and summer to include storage and asked if there was further intent to add storage. McConnell said the applicant had looked at that possibility, but it was not their intent to provide for storage at this time but possibly in the fliture. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2195 to allow for further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be reviewed at the January, 1997 meeting. (#11) #2196 GENMAR INDUSTRIES, INC, 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA^ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:51-11:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of MaUing were noted. The Applicant was present. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Genmar Industries, Inc. 100 South 5th Street Suite 2400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Mary P. McConnell C‘ I ^ 1 ZONING FILE #2195 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 26, 1996 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETLNG:11/18/96 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following; Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order that applicant be allowed an opportunity to make revisions to the proposed site plan <• • Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; Planning Commission, Tuesday, January 21, 1997, meeting starts at 7;00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Because there is no Planning Commission meeting scheduled until January 21, 1997 and because the normal 60-day application review period will expire on January 25, 1997 which date would be prior to the next scheduled City Council meeting, the review period is hereby extended to February 12, 1997. li hlU-11 OBERHAUSER & NEVEAUX A PARTNERSHIP Of PROfESSlONAl CORPORATIONS ATTORNfrS AND COVSSllORi AT LAW 1421 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD - SUITE 210 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 OEC 5 i m LOUIS B.OB[RHAUSER- JACK NEVEAUX* •A Froftuioful AsiOCMion (612)47^2521 FAX (612) 473-7863 BACKUP FAX (612) 473-0265 December 2, 1996 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent a residential property owner in the vicinity of the Genmar Industries, Inc.'s Marina. For personal reasons my client would like his identity to be kept confidential. My client is concerned that in the past this marina has been given variances which has resulted in more traffic and more hard cover and land destruction than allowed by the zoning laws. - •-*• My client sees no reason for the City of Orono ("City") to grant any variance as it relates to hard cover, destruction of protected property, or the number of parking spaces. Also, the suggested building, if constructed, should be a permanent structure which provides for the marina customer as well as the employee^ and the marina should provide for proper disposal of the waste products from the boats kept at the marina. To even suggest the continuation of the outdoor toilets as a viable alternative, causes me to question the applicant's motives. Would you please put me on the mailing list for future information regarding these two requested variances. If you have any questions, please let me know. LBO/ejw BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 01/16/97 10:00 0 :02/02 N0:239 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects January 16, 1907 Ailiftiri# wS,l4<( Miifr*. »»|< /*. Ml </»'• ••.t/f i», 1 •••ii c’, ii< t |,*, I k •Mtr.'Ai If • k»wh.»iCl ^ r ' » • tiH'f'n » • ..i * * | • ft.oitt#; t N *>*•. !*► •kt.rr$ti», V • Jc'«y A Kf • K’tiliri? *J/ r»r.rnr Tf ,«ij M Srivn' ( ; f'rini;/'.»/% i-t.ivk *ij A '.vifu’wl PC • Kr f* A ».»*i s^'.o P^pifr i«* *'C • 7 •M,v«io .M »oi.. »r • V. !**.•.»• z'• A • M irii A »*f • ^ kk • li‘.i k Ki • I* At•«!••'**•• • “t « v* '•% !f u,\it\ **► • r PI i • C. .hi *1 f iirY.if . Pj.rr'.r-t »«inJ \*N • Mi-ij.i, • Ai E s.* # 4 40, Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administr.itor City of Orono P<)si Office Box 66 Crystal Ba>. Minncsoiu .S5323 Rc: Gcnniar File No. KIO ^IO.*) ^ #»/♦» • »*r% • » • f •» f, * r*,. ♦ e ^ A Dear Mike. Wc have reviewed the grading plans for the proposed NCRP ponds for Oenmar (Minnetonka Buatwurks). The two pond designs submitted are based on expanding the existing parking lot by either three or ten parking stalls. Doth pond designs meet NURP criteria and are acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Storm sewer inlet inverts should be set at the NWL (929.40) for both .,, pond.s. The invert ot the exisfing-outlet pipe-should be extended to 028.0 on th«rfHmd sideTof lhe”**^ three stall design to provide skimming of flo.i.ables and debris The grading plan should be revised to .show a drainage swale near the pond outlet pipe set at the pond HWK (930 8). The .south end of the parking lot should K' raised to an elevation of 9.11 ..T (o prevent w'atcr from ponding in the parking area. Please contact me at thi.s office if you have any questions regarding this matter Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDHRUK ^ ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.F,. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 3898 • 612-636-4600 To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gafiron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator November 15, 1996 Subject:#2195 Genmar Industries, Inc./Minne»onka Boat Works, 1449 Shoreline Drive Boulevard - Variance/Commercial Site Plan Review - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-2, Lakeshore Business District Application: Request for commercial site plan review approval and variances for construction of a new building to replace the existing building on the property. The proposal requires variances for lakeshore and street (front yard) setbacks, 0-75' and 75- 250' hardcover, and a variance to the number of required parking stalls, and a number of additional variances as noted below. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H I J K L M N Plat Map Property Owners List Letter of Request/Hardship Statement Applicant's Summary of Request (Table) Applicant’s Hardcover Calculation Worksheet 1985 Survey 1996 Existing Conditions 1996 Proposed Site Plan Proposed Building Plans Proposed Building Perspective Resolution No. 2638 (5/22/89) Comprehensive Plan Excerpt: Lakeshore Commercial Land Use B-2 Zoning Code Section .. s . f. Background/Summary of Request A marina has been operated at this site for at least five decades and perhaps much longer. Minnetonka Boat Works began operating at this location in 1955. The City has been licensing this operation since 1962. The existing 30' x 80' building likewise has existed for many decades. Use of the building in the 1970's and earlier included retail sales and service. By the late 1980's the retail use had ceased, and the building was used for winter service work, storage, and a caretaker apartment existed in the second floor. The building in recent years has been used mainly for storage. I I Zoning File #2195 November 15, 1996 Page 2 Applicant proposes to replace the existing building with a new 24' x 46’ one story boat sales office. Slip rental and boat sales would be operated from this building by King's Cove, who will be leasing the site. Site Plan Review Please refer to Exhibit I, the proposed site plan, as well as Exhibit D, the applicant’s letter of request. The applicant has requested the following: 1. Section 10.41, Subd. 4 - Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit. 2. Section 10.41, Subd. 8 - Variance to parking requirements. 3. Section 10.41, Subd. 12 (B) - Front yard setback variance. • 1 a*4. Section 10.41, Subd. 13 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance for building. 5. Section 10.41, Subd. 13 (D)/10.56, Subd. 16 (I.' Haiv^ over variance. In addition, staff has identified the following as issues requiring variance consideration: 1. n/ 3. 4. Section 10.41, Subd. 9 - Variance to allow storage of boats, etc. within required yard (B-2 required yards are Lakeshore: 75' Side: 10' Street: 30'). Section 10.41, Subd. 11 (A) - Variance for lack of sanitary facilities to serve slip customers. Section 10.41, Subd. 12 (B.l) - Required lot area = 2 acres; existing lot area (east of County Road 15) = 1.86 acres; total site area = 3.29 acres; property exists as two tax parcels. Section 10.41, Subd. 12 (B-3) - Variance for "lot width perpendicular to lakeshore" (lot depth) less than the required 200'. A number of additional variances were granted for the existing parking lot when it was expanded in 1989, including the following: Zoning File #2195 November 15, 1996 Page 3 1. Section 10.41, Subd. 8 (E) - Parking spaces separated by public roadway from the dock they are designed to serve. 2. 3. 4. 5. Section 10.41, Subd. 8 (G) - Parking within required yard or landscape area. Tree removal within 75' of the shoreline. 0-75' and 75-250’ hardcover variances for parking lot. Variance to 75' lakeshore setback for parking areas. Setbacks for Proposed Building The proposed building will be within the footprint of the existing building. Existing and proposed setbacks are as follows: Building Setbacks: Existing Building Proposed Building Required Variance Lake 20'49’75’26’ North Side 15’15’10’ Front (street)12’17’30 ’13 ’ Because the existing lot depth at the location of the building is only 115', it is impossible to meet the 75’ lake setback and 30' required street setback without a variance. The proposal provides additional setback from the street with an increase in open space of 5'. The side of the building facing the street will have windows but no doors, hence that landscape/yard area will have no traffic, but according to the drawings provided will contain a sign identifying the site. The increase in lakeshore setback from 20’ to 49’ is a positive improvement to the property. While applicants intend to turn that 49’ into green lawn area, they also propose to use that lawn area for displaying boats for sale in the summer (See below). Exhibit I indicates some additional 2’ high shrubs for landscaping around the east and west sides of the building. Use of the Lakeshore Yard for Boat Storage Applicants propose to use the 49’ lawn area east of the new building for storage of up to 6 boats for sale during the summer months. This use and the potential pedestrian traffic it Zoning File #2195 November 15, 1996 Page 4 generates may work at cross purposes to maintaining a green open space within the lakeshore yard. The alternative is to devote additional parking spaces for storage of boats for sale, which will eliminate needed parking on the site but will allow the green space to ser\’e its purpose. Clearly, the need for this variance results from the lack of space on the site to accommodate the existing and proposed uses within the constraints of the code, i.e. the site is overused. Most of these constraints relate to the physical layout of the site. Staff would conclude that although boat storage has historically occurred within 75' of the lake on the parking lots at this site, new boat storage in a space formerly occupied by a building and now proposed to be credited as non-hardcover is not allowed by code hanece a variance is necessar> for this to occur. Parking The code requires 6 parking stalls for each 10 boat slips on water or on land. The site currently contains 68 stalls to service 111 slips. With the newiy proposed sales function, an additional 8 spaces are required, plus 3 for employees. The total required number of spaces is (.6 X 111) + 8 + 3 = 78 parking stalls required, with only 68 available. . . .. However, applicants propose that 12 of the 111 slips be converted to in-water boat display, which applicants then suggest no longer should be counted in the slip parking requirement. Under their calculation, the required parking then becomes (.6 x 99) + 8 + 3 = 71 spaces. Because the current configuration only provides 68 spaces, thej’ request a variance for 3 spaces. The code does not discern between slips used for rental purposes and slips used for display of boats for sale. It is staffs opinion that a 10-stalI variance is needed. If the proposed boat display area was moved into the parking lot, it would likely reduce parking by another 8 spaces, leaving only 60 spaces and a variance of 18 spaces. This site has a potential on busy weekends for overflowing its parking facilities. The natural tendency would then be to park in any spaces remaining in the Windward Marina lot, which has its o erflow parking in the residentially-zoned parcel to the north of the service building. One way to minimize the potential parking problems would be to limit the sales fimction to non-weekend/non-holiday days. Applicants have indicated that the sales fimction will occur on Saturdays, but will agree to being closed on all but 4 Sunday's per year, to be determined by King's Cove. Applicants have proposed the construction of 28 additional parking stalls on the west side of County Road 15 (see Application #2196) which would eliminate a variance for number of stalls, but would still require a vaiiance to the requirement that parking serve uses on the same Zoning File #2195 November 15, 1996 Page 5 side of the road as the parking. WTiile this additional parking area adjacent to Tanager Lake would clearly benefit slip customers who now must walk (dash) across County Road 15, the impacts of creating that parking lot may be significant. Hardcover Applicants have provided hardcover calculations separately for the east and west side of County Road 15. The property east of County Road 15 contains 81,220 s.f., of which 69,044 s.f is in the 0-75' setback zone. Existing 0-75' hardcover is 36.9%. Proposed 0-75' hardcover reduces to 35.4%, but a portion of this proposed reduction is in an area proposed to be used for boat display. The non-hardcover status of area used for boat display is questionable. Likewise, existing 75-250' hardcover is 73.9% which will be reduced to 72.2%. The net overall result is a proposed reduction of 1,301 s.f., bringing the property slightly nearer conformity. Lack of Sanitary Facilities The zoning code has long required that marinas provide sanitary facilities connected to public sanitary sew'er where available. This marina has had sewer available since the early 1980's but has never complied with this requirement, only providing portable toilets on each side of the road for slip customers. Further, the code was revised in 1995 to require provision of head pumpout facilities and a porta-potty dump station. Again, this marina has not provided those facilities at this site. The proposed boat sales/office building contains a single restroom which is clearly intended to sen'e just the employees and sales customers, not the slip customers (remember, this building is proposed to be closed on Sundays). The applicant should be required to provi.le the appropriate sanitary facilities if slip rental is intended to continue at this location. Stormwater Facilities While no changes are proposed to the existing parking lot, that parking lot w^ designed under 1989 standards and does not reflect the current stormwater requirements. The existing ponding area likely does not meet NURP standards, but has been serving its purpose of preventing trash from the parking lot being swept directly into the lake. The City Engineer has not reviewed the existing pond but the B-2 code indicates a stormwater plan must be submitted whenever a building permit or variance is requested. If this proposal is approved, a condition of approval should be review and upgrade (if necessary) of stormwater facilities on the site. -------{ Zoning File #2195 November 15, 1996 Page 6 Site Landscaping The proposed site plan indicates existing and proposed landscaping materials. Planning Commission should review these plans and determine whether any additional landscaping is necessary. Zoning Code/Comprehensive Plan Inconsistency Minnetonka Boat Works has not had a retail sales operation at this site for many years. The magnitude of the 1989 parking lot expansion was approved based on no retail sales occurring at the site. The proposed new retail sales use not only requires additional parking, but illuminates a long-standing inconsistency between the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan since 1980 has indicated 'boat sales' is not an appropriate use for the B-2 district: "Lakeshore commercial areas are not intended for typieal retail activities, ineluding boat sales, which could be accomplished away from the lake." In contrast, the Zoning Code has since 1975 allowed boat sales as a permitted use in the B-2 zone. Issues for Discussion 1.Are the lot depth and lot area variances justified by the historic and current use of this property as a marina? Note that this type of variance is required whenever a residential or commercial site is redeveloped by total replacement of the principal structure... 2.Does the very non-conforming location of the existing building provide sufficient hardship and justification to allow its replacement with a building that will be more conforming in location, even though variances are still required? 3.Should the green space created by reduction in the size of the building, be used for boat sales display? If not, those display boats would take up required parking spaces, increasing the magnitude of parking variance requested. 4.Is there justification for granting a parking variance? Does the fact that any expansion of parking will also require variances, suggest an over-use of the site? 5.Does Planning Commission agree with the applicants' concept that devoting slips to boat display should reduce the need for parking stalls serving those display slips? If so, perhaps the code should be amended to reflect this... i Zoning File #2195 November 15, 1996 Page 7 6. 7. 8. 9. If parking on the west side of County Road 15 is approved, the parking stall number variance is eliminated. If that parking lot is not allowed, is there sufficient justification to allow the retail sales operation to occur, if done so in a manner that does not increase the potential weekend parking problems? Under what conditions would that be the case? Is the suggested Sunday closing a viable control? Is the 1,300 s.f. reduction in hardcover on the site sufficient justification for the necessary hardcover variance? If boats for display are parked in the new non-hardcover area betw'een the new building and the lake, how will that ultimately impact the non- hardcover status of that lawn area? If the variances needed for this project are not granted, applicants intend to remodel the existing building. However, the potential uses of that building are still limited by parking needs for various activities occurring at the marina. Is the proposed office/sales building ultimately a better use of this site than the existing two story structure? Is there any reason why this marina should be exempt from providing sanitarv facilities for its slip customers? Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should consider whether each of the proposed/requested variances is adequately supported and justified by hardships. Further, Planning Commission should consider whether the alternative of not granting the variances results in a lost opportunity to bring the site into some degree of greater conformity. Note that this application is separate from the request for a parking lot on the west side of County Road 15, yet the outcome of that application impacts the degree of variances requested for the east side. Planning Commission should address the following items in any recommendatio*'- Lot area & depth variances Variance for number of parking stalls Variance for parking not on same side of road as area 'terved - Lakeshore setback vaiiance for new building Street setback variance for new building Hardcover variance Variance to allow boat storage in required yard Lack of sanitary facilities for slip customers Landscaping Stormwater management Specific conditions of approval Zoning FUe #2195 November 15,1996 Page 8 Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Isv Recommend approval as proposed, without specific conditions Recommend conditional approval. Table for further discussion or further information, or for specific revisions. Recommend denial. Other. ^ * To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:Januar>’ 16, 1997 Subject:#2199 Richard Bloomquist, Super Valu, 3333 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site PlanA^ariances - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-3 - Shopping Center Business District Lot area = 124,420 s.f. or 2.85 acres (Required = 2 acres) Application: Applicant seeks approval of side and street setback variances for a proposed 6.688 s.f. addition at the north and east sides of the existing supermarket structure. The B-3 zoned property now subject to hardcover standards will require a hardcover variance within the 500-1,000 ’ setback. The increase in net floor area results in a more intense parking stall variance. The addition will provide an expanded loading area, warehouse/cooler areas, satellite bank, pharmacy, offices and break room. All proposed uses are either approved, permitted or accessory uses within the B-3 zoning district. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1, Section 10.42 - B-3 Zoning District. 2.Section 10.42. Subdivision 7 (B) - FAR. Allowed = 28% Proposed = 29,481 s.f. or .67 acres or 23.51% No variance required. 3.Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (B) - Required fronl^street yard. Required = 20' Existing = O' Approved in 1988, Resolution No. 2482, Exhibit L 4.Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (F) - 'West side yard adjacent to street. Required = 20' Existing = 10' Approved in 1991, Resolution No. 2923 No change proposed. Zoning File #2199 January 16, 1997 Page 2 5. Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (G) - Structural setback requirements. Required = 60' A. West side setback Required = 60' Existing = 10' Proposed = 38' Variance = 22' or 36.6% B. South side setback Required = 60' Existing = 24' Proposed = 18' Variance = 42' or 70% 6. Section 10.42. Subdivision 7 (M) - Landscaping. Required = 14,930 s.f. or 12% (12% of existing lot area must be devoted to a green area) Existing = .Approximately 22,000 s.f. of open space area to immediate south of structure is restricted by an open space covenant required by City to restrict all future additions to a permanent 100' setback from residential lot line to southwest. Other green areas on property are approximated as follows; 3.400 s.f. of green area along Kelly Avenue 3,200 s.f. along higher elevation at southeast side lot line Total = 6,600 s.f. ± 7. Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (I) - Drives. Minimum required width for drive = 22' Proposed = No drive shall be less than 24' in width. 8. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) • Hardcover variance 500-1,000' setback area. Total area = 124,420 s.f. Allowed = 43,547 s.f. or 35% Existing = 89.547 s.f. or 71.97 s.f. Proposed = 91.179 s.f or 73.28% Increase = 1,632 s.f or 1.31% Hardcover variance = 47.632 s.f or 38.28% (Existing = 46.000 s.f or 36.9%) Zoning File #2199 Januar>' 16, 1997 Page 3 9.Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (O) - Off-street parking requirements - Retail Sales. Formula = 1 parking space for each 150 s.f. of net floor area. 29,481 s.f - gross floor area 2,948 s.f - subtract area of hallways, offices, utility closets, etc. (approximated at 10% of total structure) Net floor area = 26,533 s.f* Required = 177 parking stalls (26,533 s.f 150) Existing = 108 parking stalls (approved variance in 11/91, required = 134 stalls, variance = 26 or 19.4%) Proposed =117 stalls (4 diagonal stalls at west lot line not included) Variance = 60 or 33.8% * Warehouse areas, loading docks, retail floor areas, freezer areas are included within net floor areas. 10. Section 10.61. Subdivision 4 (F) - Size of parking space. 300 s.f total area required for single stall and maneuvering area. Proposed = 324 s.f No variance required. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Hardcover Inventory E - Existing Hardcover Plan F - Proposed Hardcover Plan G - Designated Wetland Map H - Oman Report 1/8/97 I-l Proposed Site Plan 1-2 Drainage Erosicn Control Plan 1-3 Existing Site Plan 1-4 Elevations 1-5 Floor Plan J - Amended Site Plan (I-l) K - Gustafson Report L - Resolution No. 2482, Application #1304, Approved 8/8/88 M - Resolution No. 2923, Application #1600, Appro'.ed 2/11/91 Zoning File »2\99 January 16, 1997 Page 4 Description of Request The appl. :ant, Rick Bl-' quiSt, advises that in order to meet both customer and community needs, the proposed expansions arc needed to improve existing sendees and provide area for new seirices. Bloomquist notes there is a definite need for a pharmacy since the loss of Keavney Drug. The satellite bank may not be classified as a community need but will serve as a major convenience to the Super Valu customer. The applicant is not able to provide a name of the primary bank at this date. Background on Former Variance Appi ovals In 1988. the County completed major safety improvements at the intersection of 19 and 15 in Navarre. The Super Valu lost some 8.120 s.f of area to the County improvements. This loss had a major impact on the parking lot and pylon signs adjacent to roadway. The City granted setback variances fir the relocated pylon sign at the adjusted lot line and in addition, granted a 0 ’ front yard ^xr.hack (required = 20 ’) for the parking lots adjacent to County Roads 15 and 19. In 1991. Mr. Bloomquist received setback and parking stall variance approvals for a 47 x 120' addition at the west side that included a 28' x 15' receiving dock and retaining wall at a maximum height of 17'. In 1991 the required number of parking stalls was determined to be 134 stalls. The variar ^vas approved at 108. The City has received no reports of parking problems within the S Valu parking lot. Since the approval of the variance in 1991, staff has limited accessory c. independent sales operations within the parking lot which had been the p:. ’Vs. in previous years. Discussion on Current Variance Request A. Hardcover. In former variance reviews, the commercial property was not subject to hardcover controls. Since 1992. the City adopted the Shoreland Regulations that would now subject r.ll commercial properties within 1,000' of a protected lake to hardcover regulations. Hardcover nas increased 1,632 s.f or 1.3% over what the Cit) had apf roved in 1991. The increase results from the conversion of green area to paving alcig the southeast side lot line adjacent to the ban' property in r der to provide ade.]uate area fo' maneuverability of trucks backing up to loading dock. . 1 Zoning File #2199 Januar>’ 16. 1997 Page 5 B. The City Engineer (Exhibit K) advises that the increase of 1.600 s.f. '•f additional hardcover in this area will have a negligible impact on total surface runoff that drains to the south of the supermarket eventually to the extensive wetland area and drainageway adjacent to Kelly A\enue. Bill Stoddard, a resident of Kelly Avenue and owner of property that floods in the spring ard fall, is concerned that the impro\ements on the Super Valu property may ha\e an impact on the recent stomnvater impro\ements along Kelly Avenue. Gustafson advises that there will be no impaet c the existing stormwater impro\ement. Setback variances. Review Exhibit 1-3. the existing site improvements. Note the 30' wide utility easement to the immediate north of the structure and the open space conservation easement over the south 100' of the property. Structural improvements are limited to either the east or west of the supermarket structure. Note north side additions are placed right at the south side of the 30' utility easement. No subsurface structural support of the canopy structure can be located within the utility ea.sement. Applicant notes that the setback at the south side lot line is adjaeent to an existing commercial property. The higher elevations of the oank property will minimize impact of encroaching addition and loading dock. This portion of the bank property is occupied by dri\eways and parking area. C. Parking stall variance. In determining the net floor area. stafT has deducted 10% from the gross floor area for non-essential support areas such as hallways, storage closets, bathrooms, offices, etc. Applicant may have the opportunity to analyze in more detail the non-essential areas that would qualify for more reductions in gross floor area. Note applicant has moved the access along Shadywood to the southeast lot line combining as a common or shared access with the bank property. Delivery trucks come from the south and enter at the Shadywood access. Bloomquist advises that each week approximately 6-7 trucks will deliver to either the east or west loading areas. Deliveries are usually made between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Applicant has asked the City to consider the four diagonal parking stalls within the access lane to the loading berth at the west lot line along Kelly Avenue. The Engineer recommends that if the four stalls are approved that signs be installed limiting use to employee parking or "15 minute limit" to avoid conflicts with use of loading dock. Bloomquist notes that certain customers prefer parking in this area, finding it a more protected site. i Zoning File #2199 Januar>’ 16, 1997 Page 6 Note all drive lanes are at a minimum 24’ width or greater. Review E.xhibit J. the amended site plan now shows an automatic teller window with defined curb lane. StafT recommends that if there are any traffic problems resulting from the location or use of the automatic teller lane at the north comer of the structure that City will ask applicant to discontinue the use. 1 he Engineer asks that the parking stall closest to parcel pickup area be eliminated to maintain 33 ’ between building and parking area (proposed parking adjusted to 116). Drainage/Site Improvements City staff and applicant met with the W atershed District to discuss improvement in relation to stormwater concerns. Hie Watershed District found the property to be too small to provide adequate main. ma. ee and treatment area resulting from the intensification of structure on the property. Applicant has agreed to make payment of some $1,700 to contribute to a future stonn sewer tieatment pond. Hie Watershed District noted that the monies would be reserved for future stormwater improvements within the regional watershed. The City ’s code docs not distinguish between structural or non-structural improvements in relation to stormwater requirements. Hie Engineer’s report reconfirms that the additional hardcover will have a negligible impact on the stormwater pond approved and implemented in the 1991 variance review. Landscaping For the public who view this property from the County road intersection, there is little to see in the way of green space or landscaping. The facts abo\ e suggest that there is adequate open space and green area to ni* \2% green area requirements of code. Applicant should be asked to consider plantings in the green areas adjacen* to the bank parking lot and to e.xtend the plantings along Kelly Avenue. Staff has also asked the applicant to consider some plantings adjacent to the pylon sign at the intersection of County roads. Members may have some other recommendation, but in no case should the type ot plantings or the location of the plantings create any sighting problems at intersections of drives to property or along County roadway. Issues for Consideration 1.Should additions be reduced in area to minimize intensity of parking stall variance? Is the parking stall variance of concern? The applicant has used parking standards established for industry ’. Total stalls required 119. If stall adjacent to parcel pickup is eliminated and four diagonal stalls approved, the adjusted total number of stalls would equal 120. r-' I • Zoning File #2199 January 16, 1997 Page 7 3. The hardcover variance is excessive but very consistent with the other commercial properties in the Navarre area now included within the shoreland areas of the City. Review Exhibit 1-3, in the mid-1970's the applicant installed large detention areas to detain runolT with minimal treatment. Additional detention areas to south of structure offset additions approved in 1991. Planning Commission members should note their specific concerns if any. Are the hardships or findings noted above regarding the setback variances consistent with similar variance reviews? Are the hardships valid? 4. How do we improve landscaping on this site? 5. Will the hours of operation change - what is the current schedule? 6. How will the automatic teller at north function with employee of bank at window to south? 7. There is no plan that locates 30' wide utility easement to north and proposed improvements. Updated survey must be submitted including this information. How will automatic teller use of structure impact easement? The partial information submitted confirms canopy and automatic teller are located within utility easement. S. Plans have not confirmed additions will be completed with same exterior finish. The existing structure’s exterior finish consists of concrete paved or covered blocks. This is the largest permanent structure in Navarre. Will applicant consider cosmetic improvements to reduce starkness of structure? 9. Others raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action To approve as proposed or amended. Any recommendation of approval should include some of the following conditions: I.To approve all site improvements as shown on site plan for Rick's Super Valu, Project #2340-70, Sheet #C-1 entitled "Proposed Site Plan" by Planmark dated 11/12/96 and as amended on Exhibit J, Planning Commission Exhibit for meeting of January' 21, 1997. Applicant shall execute a Developer’s Agreement and provide appropriate security written to 150% of the cost of the improvements* to ensure installation. Zoning File #2199 January 16, 1997 Page 8 3. 4. 5. * Site improvements are to include striping as shown on approved site plan, landscaping per approved landscaping plan, drainage and erosion control per approved grading plan, relocation of access drive at County Road 19, etc. Proposed additions as shown on north and east elevations. Exhibit 1-4 of the January 21. 1997 Planning Commission meeting, are to be finished of the same exterior materials as the existing structure. Applicant's architect shall submit plans to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Serxices Department to detennine the exact number of S.AC units to be paid with the building pemiit application As a result of the intensification of the structure, the City's fee schedule will require pa\ nient of Sewer and Water Unit Adjustment Charges. Each Sewer and Water Unit Adjustment Charge shall be equal to the current Service Availability Charge establi.shed by the Metropolitan Council Wastewater Service. Per the Building Official's preliminaiy review, he has estimated two additional SAC units. Applicant to provide a landscape plan including planting schedule, based on directives of Planning Commission. Such plan and schedule to be submitted to the City prior to the Council's review and final action. Applicant shall agree to discontinue use of automatic teller if traffic problems result from either location or use. -U- ft X Application #'0 t tT'A/ /A'' »#’>* ^ ■ V .*“ - V.‘ •* ■ ■.• J Date Received /•'" Amount Paid . CO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION /AcLiW rt p 7SCJ PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ t \ \ Site Address Cty. f/7 { S3SS 0tjo/zfL iAt Q/2i\/f] Type of Application to be Filed ^<g^/y^A>f^c ^ </A/' //Jf\jCf^y ‘ Propertv Identification Number (P.I.D.)________________________________________ APPLICANJ 1 o 1 ' -A (home) - ^79- 2. Name ••s^iC.b^Vlv^ iO. V^\ 0! Phone (work) /> /> ~ ^‘7/ 3 Address /*/30 (tftj ^ ^nj ^0 - 7 S' ^^ “XI S'? rjyL4v.-Qvje»»Q. Date Propert>' Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. jtyZip. 56' (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory' Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ^__i $300.00.Commercial/Industrial Use ___$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD(PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application l ee 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 \ j Other - see Fee Schedule \) XXO' T • OO PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify). v.. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. ✓ / 4./ 5. 6. / 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. 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, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic sur\ey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff v iil 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 Xmv and correct to^e best of hiyfier knowledge. Applicant's signature^.^^*^ lenses incurreu in review or mis ap I is Xmv^d correct to^e best of hi^ Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members,/f^ purpo^s of investigation and v^ification of this request. Owner's signature W a^ uerr — 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 Counci’. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Date RUN DATE 10/10/96 BATCH 503 PROP ADDR OHNER WdlE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR Olt^R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OI^R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HEMIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 58 17-117-25 95 0085 00058 ADDRESS Ur4ASSI6NED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 9/13/79 ST DEED 156759 38 17-117-23 99 0006 02380 SHADYWOOD RO GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE NORTH CENTRAL CBA 7260 U1>IIVERSITY AVE N E 8110 FRIDLEY MN 55932 38 17-117-25 99 0099 00038 ADDRESS Ur4ASSIGNE0 CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 17-117-23 99 0102 02365 SHADYWOOD RO ^ H SCHMIDT a S J SCHMIDT STEPHEN H SCHMIDT 2385 SHADVkIOOD RD BOX 15 HAYZATA MN 55391 58 20-117-23 11 0017 02955 SHADYWOOD RD JArUBO INC JARIBO INC PO BOX 95 NAVARRE MN 55392 38 20-117-23 11 0029 03333 SHORELINE DR MGT CCMPAfiY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 MPLS MN 55990 38 17-117-23 93 0098 03916 SHORELINE OR GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP GERM-TO!1 PARTNERSHIP C/O COURT MACFARLANE P 0 BOX 1911 Mir^NETONKA MN 55395 38 17-117-23 99 0009 02377 SHADYWOOD RD MARCEL S DITTRICH MARCEL DITTRICH 2377 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 99 0100 03302 SHORELINE OR GLASS II PARTI4ERS DONALD MCCARVILLE 3382 IHARIIER LA MOUND MN 55369 38 20-117-23 11 0002 02920 SHADYWOOD RO VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD 15 a 19 NAVARRE MN 55392 38 20-117-23 11 0016 02955 SHADYWOOD RD P M ENGLUND ET AL TRUSTEES PAUL M a JEAfJNE M ENGLUND PO BOX 95 NAVARRE m 55392 38 20-117-23 11 0031 02965 SHADYWOOD RO 1ST NATL BK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BK OF NAVARRE P 0 BOX 123 NAVARRE MN 5* 92 REPORT NO. P1935901 PAGE 7 58 17-117-23 95 0099 03900 SHORELINE OP DALE S JOHNSON NAVARRE HARDWARE C/O DALE JOHt4SON 3900 SHORELINE DR PO BOX 90 NAVARRE MN 55392 38 17-117-23 99 0085 03390 SHORELINE DR VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 BOX 65 NAVARRE MN 55392 i 58 17-117-23 99 0101 03360 SHORELINE OR Lac KOEm4EN LEROY a CAROL KOEHNEN 26020 VALLEYWOOO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Mi 38 20-117-23 11 0015 02995 SHAD1WOOD RD 1ST NATL BAf4K OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE CO ROAD 15 a CO ROAD 19 NAVARRE MN S5392 T- !/ V.., ■ • J 38 20-117-25 11 0022 02525 KELLY AVE C E a M C TROYAK CHARLES E TROYAK 2525 KELLEY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 20-117-23 11 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE P O BOX 123 NAVARRE MN 55392 Ar } RUN DATE 10/10/96BATCH 503 PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 11 0036 02500 SHADYNOOD RO FRESKNATER FOUNDATION FRESHHATER FOUNDATION SPRING HILL CENTER 725 SIXTH AVE N NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0037 02509 KELLY AVE CSC NAOLER CHARLES S CANDICE NAOLER 2509 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0066 02505 KELLY AVE PETER CHOH NARY MANAGMENT PO 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORflATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LIST 38 20-117-23 11 0039 00036 ADDRESS UMASSIGNED FRESHHATER FOUNDATION FRESHWATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RD 6 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0038 02515 KELLY AVE DAVID R HARDTEN DAVID R HARDTEN 2515 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0051 02697 KELLY AVE A H EVANS & D EVANS AUSTIN S DIANE EVANS 2697 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55331 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 8 38 20-117-23 12 0036 03623 SHORELINE OR RICHARD M KEAVENY ETAL RICHARD M KEAVENY P 0 BOX 59 NAVARRE MN 55392 38 20-117-23 12 0039 02523 KELLY AVE K A BENSON S J L BENSON KEITH A S JANET L BENSON 2523 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0052 02699 KELLY AVE R V DAHL SMS DAHL SYLVIA A BERTAGNOLI 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELLSIOR MN 55331 .' V \• PROP AOOR OWNER NAJiE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 12 0053 02501 KELLY AVE DANIEL T LINDSAY DANIEL T LINDSAY 100 5TH ST S SUITE 2500 MPLS MN 55602 38 20-117-23 12 0056 02503 KELLY AVE DANIEL T LINDSAY DANIEL T LINDSAY 100 5TH ST S SUITE 2500 MPLS MN 55602 38 20-117-23 12 0055 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KELLY COVE HMOHTmS ASN/ORONO KELLY COVE HMOWNRS ASN/OROTK) C/0 KIM GOEBEL 100 S 5TH ST SUITE 2500 MPLS MN 55602 I » f i . PROP ADDR (M«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 503 00030 RUN DATE 10/10/96 BATCH 503 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATIOtl SYSTEM PROPERTY OFMERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35601 PACE 9 4 1 £ r A ■ r k m • m *• ' »• . Vi"j| 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 KNOtHLEOGE AfJD BELIEF. I u vwLxCr • * ii J ^ /I ..TE'ojHflSf 'fee MiWiA HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’250-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X h. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B tZ«f.42o 5fx 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length W’idth 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 6f -5* B 1Z 4-4ZO 6Fx 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. (o(ff. 11 S.F. .•^- S.F.•4 ,, j • ^ S.F. S.F. y 4, ff ti s.f:^ S.F. S.F. .. ^ S.F.^‘ S.F. 5'^ 8*^'? 4-1 S.F. A / 2.4- 420 S.F. B % -2.^, 4-ei S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. o. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 124^-X.O S.F. 73.2.a % A B > C=J lyyi >•/ ■ e@yiMTY I^OA© Hi 61.698 S.F. PROP PAVE 29.481 S.F. PROP BLDG 124,420 S.F. PROPERTY PROPOSED AREAS \% n i W ’ T-y: vTi ■t - 7J # ^ V ••‘V • ■ Xv '‘X^'rX4 /r^ \-V ‘ " , • • •* "" X'\ •../*iv^'«« •. C^- •-f./'il' I'^;r ^ ‘ - WSV' -n \ kr i-7 ’0 <('fV I vvi 'M^ -'M V.*!M »s ,.V 0m 'Jl »Wvt; ' "t'^.; v. Memo to; Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Administrator Date; 1-8-97 Subject; Preliminary Plan Review Notes Address; 4444 Shoreline Dr, Owner; Ricks Supervalue Inspector; Lyle Oman, Building Official Proposed work; Addition to store % Occupancy classification; M Existing floor area; 22793 sq. ft. Additions; 1456 and 5232 sq. ft. Total; 29,481 sq. ft. Type of construction; VN Location on property; O.K. Allowable floor area; 8,000 sq. ft. basic allowable separation on 2 sides - 100% increase = 1,600 sq. ft. sprinkler system - 100% increase = 3,200 sq. ft. total allowable 29,481 proposed < 32,000 O.K. Height of building; O.K. E.xitine: O.K. E.xterior walls- one hour construction required when less than 20' from property line. -openings not permitted less than 5'. -openings protected less than 10’. •Architectural plans signed by state registered architect required. •Architect must submit plans to Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for S.A.C. determination, Orono Building Department estimation - 2 additional S.A.C. units due i M A 1 RICK ’S SUPERVALU 3333 SHORELINE DRIVE NAVARRE. MN. ^4 T T jfi* 1“ ' IjI'jll I •••••.IiI 2 '|.l| RICK'S SUPERVALU NAVAfVC.IM pfioro6B} rniune n>M T tfum If o€Ota. KMt: l/M* •r-^ T KAIMUUI ■ f snroooo to NTEnonoeenN I arroneplammi imiEUIUIII»dA&5V ■orrPM rmajCinnoM T • / (TfP) *•uu V >0 _J__ 9^CO Vi % HD---,CAmp'< SJDrWALi< !P..‘ zhnr<AH0L .1 . ;■----------39'----------:‘----------'Js’----- UPERMARKET 29 S.F. :V. = 957.0 IkANSFORMCR ( 9 >- C.A^ ktlW : ‘Y"Y d/X ^ \C 4^ . ^' - ^ ^ • o H- O ** CD -I M CW • • ! O •^1 s 7 /.' \7-> :yXjyy/ \r . - .4 '/l ^-<4 tXISTII IG Ki: rAJNW JG WAII & I'l AHTtK r\ A'4\K M Id CD CM 0» CMo V i </> H o oo Id BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES © 612 6361311 01/14/97 10:34 0 :01'v2 N0:214 if i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Januarv' 15, 1997 ffcneirco Fnsf^rttf. AnCtr^f.'k .-«v; triC 4t r^.ffar At O^v* *- ’f *’v Otv.) G >*1 • ' 'srw^C A»*iClr '% ('I • 3** ..*• t • i^icn/i'.T f ^ ♦*'3c* ’’C • ■**. F No>«? r***»r %;•»*•*.■•’ f • A Qou'ficn rc • RcS^f! X’ “E .in.i iu'. **' \* rof r- C -%• Ti ! •. ? AsiOCAtf Prtnc»p>^i\ Howw.«id A Tf • Ke fr A • •^C.***t * • R»c*'*rJ W foster P£ • D«/ U O Los^wl ‘‘E • Rote*! C Rusiv* A’A • V.s*k A Hi-i-.r Tt • T R^sutinern 7E • Ted < »l rc • Kr*'»'e:-i " AivicMu«i M • V>»rk R R-jl*-.. • Sianeji P V4'M i^msoo. PE i % • RoOc*: p- lO/Zicr*. S: Pewl. ^ccnejto* •X .l'V.s ,».*»,■!'• t* -i.id Mr-4»*wd W‘ % ♦ ♦ < ■40d, . -A •* I Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: Rick ’s Super Valu File No. 139-2107 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the site plans for the proposed building addition and acces.s relocation at Rick ’s Super Valu located at the southwest corner of Shadywood Road (CS.AH 19) and Shoreline Drive (C3AH 15) in Navarre. The addition includes a drive-up bank teller. The City and Watershed District approved an addition to the site in 1991 and addressed many of the .storm drainage and access issues at that time. We offer the following comments in regards to engineering matters for the propo.sed addition. The site access is a concern because of the high traffic volumes on CS.AH 15 and CSAH 19. The proposal to close the existing east access and create a common access at the property line is desirable. This change w ill move the east access approximately 70 feet further from the signalized intersection which will improve the traffic circulation in the vicinity. The radii on this access should be revised to show a 25’ radius out to CSAH 19 for traffic entering the parking lot. Hennepin County should review the site plans and comment on the proposed access. The new access location will require a reconfiguration of the parking lot to allow for the turning movements of commercial vehicles. The reconfiguration shown on the plans provides adequate space to maneuver these vehicles, but will add 1.632 square feet of hardcover to the site. This increase amounts to a 2 percent increase in hardcover which we feel is an insignificant addition to the storm water pond approved in 1991. The applicant should obtain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The additional parking lot pavement near the loading dock should be designed for 9 ton loading with concrete curb and gutter. Erosion control measures should be installed around CB#2 prior to beginning the grading operations near the east loading dock. The proposed drive-up bank teller is located clo.se to the main entrance to the store. This location will allow possibly only one vehicle .stacking before a third vehicle blocks the entrance. This may 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113*3898 ■ 612-636-4600 'ii'A '» -■J 5i i I > ."I » p. • ; ^1 ' j • J I 4 I • ft C5ty or ORO.NO ; / • .♦•.•■ ...• ,. t .*..*,>* ■v^ r \ • 5 R5S0L*JTI0%‘ OF THE C»ry COUNCIL \0, 2yj-.2________ A RSS0L0710N G1t^NTIN0 TO KUNICIPAL 20NZVG CODS CBCTIOK 10.42, SU3DIVISrO!l 7 (OJ# SECTION SUBDIVISION 5 (B), AND SSCTIOH I0.€l, SUfiOlVlSIOH 3 (B) PILE 11304 WH2RBAS, P.ichard Bloor^.quirt, en A*JT^iori^ec? aaijnt of Pich*s Sup^sr Valu (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 3323 Shoreline Orive within the City of Oronc (hereinafter "City") and legal.ly described as Tract D, ?.e?istered land Survey Nur.ber 1422, Hennepin Cou.'ty, Xinnesota "hereinafter “t.hc trccerty""); and WBSRBAS, the applicant has applied to the City for verlenees to y.unicital Zoning Code Sections 1C.42, Subdivision 7 O), Section 10.<1, Cubcivitinn 5 (»ij, and Section IC.Sl, Sublivisivt 3 (25 resulting from the up'*P3~i”r os County .((oads 15 and 19 within the Xavarre area; the applicant see.;- a street setback variance of 7" for a pylon sign to be installed 3* fror» tr.e newly aligned property line‘rather than the required 10' and as a result cf the rad-.-signeted parking areas withxn the parking lot seeks a 3 trout •cutback variance for parking proposed at 0* were 20* would be required. vinnestta; MOW, THBkSPOP.B, BB IT ltESOZ.VEO by the City Council of Oror.o, s.» • FINDINGS This €i?p?,ici4ti.on was rovlowed as Zoning Pile #1304. 2.Th'j property is located in the 3-3# Shopping Center Business reciirxn? a ninirr»u.% cf 2 acrec in area. The property tons::;r C/f .I'.nrcxi-r.fetoly 2 acres in aroa. n<j Crnrr; Planning Ccr'niijs: i:.n roviPiwod this arclicnticn on July ^r.vi rocoirir.ended api-roval ot* th*c variances as amenied ba*-.ed M :V..^ lowing findings; A- Tnt! Iccaticn of the sign wi ' I not create a sichtin? 7. r.ler?* •Ml a»:y *j\ the ur.erL ot * :v int»Ts»»v:tion cf County ! . 1 *• ^‘.li . I r*.*r Ic:fait Ion a I*!. •» ? t. n*» I. t • •• e t.. w: ! .% •5 w.: V ORICMNAL OOCUMefr m mm mm M- V •' i; f i' f’. -'•itr • • • ^ -;. v.vi;- ’.-I •■ -v V** *. i: >iV ,.;a. a BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 01/14/97 10:34 (3 :02/02 N0:214 )/T- Ms. Jeanne A. Mahusth City ofOrono Page-2- January 15, 1997 create problems with the store customers. The location of the parcel pickup is too close to the nearest parking stall in that area. We would recommend that this parking stall be eliminated to allow at least 33 feet between the building and parking area. The diagonal parking stalls along the west property line should have sign.s to indicate “employee parking only” o’- “15 minute limit” to avoid conflicts with the use of the west loading dock. When the plans have been completed we will prepare an e.stimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. ' r V % ■I-J Vi ¥ f! -•'i \ I *:•*? * 4 V- •/? • i»* *-• -1, • • ^ I ' V • 'f • ^ m C) Z'r,*: w\ll separated Crorr the county road irj;-c vexents by apt ro:<ira* v ! y 10*, these ir.^rovexentr consist of 1 1/2* -:.:Io biturir.Gus/b-rr', inch bitur.inous curb, sidewal>, and Lou lev ^ *d ar'-'O . Tj) not lot 7h*^ County will :. rovde a ! 1/2* buffer sc thrtt cars will extend cut over the Ww. l<way ad :a'.rent t the north and east « • ^ ^ * _lines of t.‘’le Cu::er ‘/a 1 •; /• rr.inc lot. Tr»e Ions of scn^ , 1 ?t. f . of i lot r.r^a has or •d a rajor hardship !or too i?*:licint. r.:e /cr the setbacks J'.r.s h« ».*n crvat»‘d r ot hy .t use oi t*'*'* nr^'tortv, -»-.*t by a public safety nv.-^ tu -"o*. •• tt-. r. at vr seer ::or-a of IS and l‘J ir: Uc V * rro. *:*.?e City Council has cctsi * ^‘.d this aiclicaticn ir.cludinc the • ir-o in':-; a* *. rr-'-orren i i - i :r.?i n • • *; : *arn-.r.7 Ccxr_nr.cn, rotortc ’•"v Ciiy staff, cc-rer-c oy tt*.- at. ••cant cine tr/e effect of the pretoso: *.*dr 1 d::cfu on the health, lafetv a*.'* wj!r-ire of the cerruni***/. f a 7 h e City Council finds -.-ut t.ne couJitions existing cn ibis t-cto-ty cTv tcculiar to it .md d,> net opply generally tc ether nro . ^rty m this zoni.ig district; that granting the variances would not acv.TSely affect -s. r. : 11 1 or. s, light, air nor pose a fire cr other da.nger to ighnoring property; would not rerely serve o convenience tc the applicunt, hut is necessary to alleviate a . .-.t enstr ji lo r.ardship or ditf* culty; is .necessary to preserve a leant; ar;f would be in heerinrr Conir.c; Cjdu and Coir.|. r«i;o.nsi vc Plan w-!.s\4^*.11. * pronerty richt of th .itr» t.to -*p;rit and intent cf \'t lh*r C * 1 > . •! I •/ CO :c:cvr:!c> fC, o:-i c .: o \\ * T*n -• ir..:..-.'^ r.ctod above, the Orcnc • 4. » . • ^ -: V ^ f « W. «»c< • •• * . •ir - *, • - .o*/ rv? * n.r I V . . . _ -. .* r-.i tr*-r than *: ‘ * I ! nw *. V • t:: n y : . : - W . . :n ’ • • -; 1 a r o •/ wi . pal 2 oning Code Co rtion ' .j . r‘.7 ' 7.» <r 1 1 c - of a nvJcr.Iccj*- ■ ...fa 7* cr ?': •.varia...,* r*. r a . 1 *. 1 . 1 •> » •«•r 0 vt u' ring • • ; ^ < 1 s tine *•.•••. s t, r • *• • f •t • r* • • •• • • - • • •' •• • • • i V.v)•'w . - - . \ * *. • ; U' <x- , • ■ ••r t* •: vr:y?. J-. ‘■V : •'/ ^i\- ^ • • :•-•■•,• K' . • . •••• •. n 4*’ r. yyi^ : Vh • •> . %. . /<• : POOR ORirxiM''’ '•'OCUP/'—" CITY OF ^RDNO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2923 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.42, SUBDIVISION 7 (G) AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 10 (O) FILE #1600 WHEREAS, Richard Bloomguist (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 3333 Shoreline Drive within t)ie City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (G) to permit the construction of a 75' wide addition to be located 10' from the west side lot line instead of the required 100'; and a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (0) see)cing approval of a total of 108 parlcing stalls where based on the total net floor area, the expanded use would require 134 stalls. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1600. 2. The property is located in the B-3 Commercial Shopping District and the LR-IB La)ceshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 19, 1990 and January 22, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; A) A 30' wide utility easement divides the property in half forcing applicant to either expand east or west. A northward addition would not be allowed to encroach over the utility easement. The topography to the east prohibits feasible nsion in light of the impact on adjacent propertyexpansion in ligh and imorovements on that orooertv. Page 1 of 5 City of OROIVO dTY OF i)RONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_________ The only feasible location for an expansion of the existing structure is to the west and the vacation of the northern portion of Kelly Avenue does not appear feasible and would require a comprehensive planning study of the entire area. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions» light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application •including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.42, Subdivision 7 (G) and 10.61, Subdivision 10 (O) to permit the construction of a 47'xl20' addition to the principal structure, a 28*xl2' receiving dock, and a retaining wall at a maximum height of 17' along the west side of the receiving and delivery ramp, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council to direct staff to make the necessary amendments to the official zoning map and legal descriptions of the zoning district boundaries to include 50' corridor along the southern boundary of the existing B-3 zone, the remaining 100' of the southern portions of the property are to remain in the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Approval is based on improvements shown on plans submitted to the Orono Council by Planmark dated 10/10/90, revised 2/1/91, subject to the following conditions: A) Applicant shall agree to provide natural screening/plantings along southern boundary along detention pond where certain land alterations may require the removal of existing vegetation and trees. Page 2 of 5 \ r i Ijdron^ City of 0R0i\0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_________ B) Existing curb cut at Shoreline Drive shall remain in its present location. City Engineer shall approve modifications to access if improvements provide greater safety with ingress and egress to site. The undersigned owner, agent and applicant hereby agree that upon documentation and verification by either the City of Orono or the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, that if accidents (personal injury and/or property damage) have occured resulting from the use of the access at Shoreline Drive, and that the undersigned agree to close off the access at Shoreline Drive withina reasonable period of time from such verification either by written notice from the City of Orono or the County of Hennepin. 3. Applicant shall ma)ce payment for additional sewer/water units and SAC charges to be determined at the time of building permit review. • 4. The applicant and applicant's representatives have been advised that the new addition and existing building shall be served with an approved fire suppression system per Appendix E of the Uniform Building Code. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 11, 1992). 6. Violation of or non-compliance 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. 7. The undersigned applicant, the authorized representative of Super Valu Stores Inc. and President of MGT Company have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of tliis resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 CITY I OF I DRONC^ City of 0R0i\0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_________ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of February# 199' thy Mf Ifallin, City Clerk Barbara A, Peterson# Mayor / . Martin Ehlers# President of MGT Company mAuthorf^d Bepresentativ y/ /pA Super Valu Stores Inc Rivard Bloomquist# Applicant STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ' ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of February# 1991# by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallln# Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono# a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. r /(i -/>// **®hennepin countyl#y commiMion M-92 Notary Public Page 4 of 5 1 "' ■i V I CITY I I OF ] 1 DRONCj City of OROIXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_________ STATE OP-MINNESOTA FLORIDA COUNTY OF -HENNEPIN- LEE ) ) ss. ) On this 25th day of February 199^ before we a Notary Public within and for said county, personalTy appeared Martin Ehlers 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. KOTARY PUBLIC STATE OT FLPRID.t fy COMMISSION EXP. MAY U.1994 BONOEC THRU GENERAL INS. l'K3. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of //X 199 /,before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Qcrd.cr\ Vt/. known to rne to be the person(s) described Tn and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ■ aaaaaaaaaaa^aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.v\.\» BARBA.RA B FAr'll NOTARY HENNEPiS C::*.TY . MY COMM. eXPIRES CCT 22. i NOTARY PUBLIC • VWWWVMAAAAAMVWVWWWWWW^ a STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ; ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 ( , before me a Notary-.Public within .and for said County, personally appeared _ _ _ _ ir~r »•b: ?■. ij)'? l ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) de-scrxbed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. lar'j^ I- NOTARY PUBLIC JEWEL A. CHASE » ^ ,r eNOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA page 5 of 5 HENNEPIN COUNTY I My Comm E«pifes AptJ •*. 1935 ; ^ITY j [ OF Idrond : City of OROINO Exhibll A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2923_________ TrlVWP Registered Land Survey No. 1422, Files of Registrar of titles. County of Hennepin; The boundary lines of said land are marked by Judicial Landmarks . set pursuant to Torrens Case Nos. 17022, 17023, 17024, 17026 and 17065. Subject to an easement in favour of the City of Oronc for sewage# water and drainaoe purposes over the Southerly 16 feet of the West 30 feet of the North 134 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park (Nov as to part of above land) Subject to the underoround utility easement and restriction in favour of the City of Orono over the North 30 feet of the West 100 feet of the South 100 feet of the North 234 feet h* »«M*' «• «• e>MeMh*eii *iMr«snn»iBook 2423 of Deeds, page 138, Document No. 3449560; (Now as to part of above land) Subject to the underground utility easement and restriction in favour of the City of Orono over the South 30 feet of the North 164 feet of that part of Lot 1, Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park, as measured at right ancles to the North line of said Lot 1 and its Easterly extension. Book 2423 of Deeds, page 170 Document No. to part of above land) Subject to the restrictive covenant in favour as contained in 3449578; (Nov as f the Shell Oil in Book 2623 to above part (Now as to part Company, a Delaware Corporation as contained of Deeds, page 454, Document No. 3697134, as of Lot 1, Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park; of above land) Subject to a permanent easement for highway purposes over all that part of Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1422, Registrar of Titles. County of Hennepin which lies northerly and easterly of the following described line; Beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract D distant 16.0 feet southerly of the Northwest corner thereof; thence run easterly parallel with the North line of said Tract D for a distance ofv 177.32 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 239.00 feet for a distance of 88.00 feet to a point herein after referred to as point "A*'; thence continue along said curve for a distance of 40 hereinafter referred to as point "E"; along said curve for a distance of 94.94 feet; thence tangent to said curve for a distance of 106.83 feet more or less to the southerly line of said Tract D and there terminating. Also over all that part of said Tract D which lies northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at the above described point "A"; thence run southwesterly along a radial of said curve for a distance of 7.00 feet; thence run southeasterly along a curve having a radius of 232.00 feet (said curve is parallel with and distant 7.00 feet southwesterly of the above described line) for a distance of 38.63 feet; thence run northeasterly to the above described Point "E" and there terminating. 00 feet to a point thence continue TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator January 7,1997 SUBJECT: #2200 Mr. & Mrs. William Ellis, 2435 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Lot area = 56,938 s.f. or 1.3 acres Application: Applicants seek approval of lot area, lot width, side setback and hardcover variances within the 250-500' setback area to allow construction of a new residence on the developed property. The new' residence will be installed in the approximate footprint of the existing residence. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) A. Lot area variance Required = 87,120 s.f. or 2 acres Existing = 56,938 s.f. or 1.3 acres Variance = 30,182 s.f. or .69 acres or 34.6% B. C. Lot w idth variance Required = 200’ At 75' setback = 120' At shoreline = 127' Variance = 80' or 40% Side yard setback variances Required = 30' East side yard Existing = 16.2' Proposed = 16.2‘ Variance =13.8' or 46% West side yard Existing = 13.5' Proposed = 13.5' Variance = 16.5' or 55% w Zoning File #22f!0 January 7,1997 Page 2 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variance. A. 250-500' setbacK area = 24,278 s.f. Allowed = 7,283.4 s.f. or 30% Existing = 8,889 s.f or 36.6% Proposed = 8,877 s.f or 36.5% Variance = 1,593.6 s.f or 6.5% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List F - Existing/Survey F - Proposed/Survey Gl-4 - Hardcover Inventor)’ H - Dicon Addition, Original Plat Approved by City 10/73 I - Elevations J - Floor Plan Description of Request Applicants seek approval of multiple variances to allow construction of a new residence on the developed lot. As structure w ill be located within the approximate footprint of the existing structure, the residence will be razed requiring a demolition permit from the City of Orono. Three of the variances sought by applicants involve variance to the lot standards of the LR-1A Zoning District. At the time the Dicon Addition plat was approved by the City in October of 1973, the R-IC Zoning District required 1 acre in area. The existing residence constructed in 1974 required no variances to the R-1C zoning standards. Review Exhibit H, note the lot to the immediate west in the original plat was not a lakeshore lot. In 1995, the owners of the three lots within the Dicon addition applied for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement that involved the vacation of the original road platted within the subdivision allowing direct access for the three properties at North Shore Drive. Refer to Exhibit C, Lots 1 and 2 are served by a shared driveway within Outlot A. Lot 3, the subject property, is served by a new drive located at North Shore Drive. Review Exhibit F, the new driveway is shown on the December 1996 survey. The existing access and new access drive will remain. The recent subdivision and vacation application have no major impact on the subject property. Applicants acquired additional area from platted cul-de-sac located within the boundaries of redefined lot. w Zoning File #2200 January 7,1997 Page 3 Review Exhibit F, note the location of the average lakeshore setback and the wetland restricts placement of structure on property'. The lot is 100' wide at the existing and proposed building site. Structure would have to be limited to a 40' width to meet the 30' side setbacks of the LR-1A Zoning District. In the redesign of the residence, the applicants attempted to maintain the same setbacks as the existing residence and maiiiiain hardcover within the 250-500' setback area at same level proposed at 36.5% (existing 36.6%). The City has received no comments from the adjacent residents notified of the proposed variances. Issues for Consideration 1.A 6.5% excess of hardcover exists between the 250-500' setback area. Should proposed hardcover improvements be reduced? 2. 3. Should side yard setbacks be increased? Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit B, hardships are reviewed as follows: 1.At the time of the original subdivision in October of 1973, all three residential lots met the standards of the R-IC Zoning District. 2.In 1974 at the time of the issuance of the building permit, the existing structure met all required setbacks of the zoning code. 3.Resolution #3653 adopted by the City Council on December 11, 1995 granted a lot area and lot width variance to the subject property. 4.The lot measures 100' at proposed building site. If a new residence was installed meeting the required side setback, the structure would be limited to a 40' width. 5.There are no excesses of hardcover within the other setback zones. Applicants have maintained hardcover at the existing level of hardcover proposed at 36.5%, existing 36.6%. 6.The existing residence and accessory' improvements within the lakeshore yard will not extend beyond the average lakeshore setback line. Zoning File #2200 January 7, 1997 Page 4 i 7. Structural coverage will not exceed the allowed 15% at 8,541 s.f. Structural coverage is proposed at 4,680 s.f. or 8.2% 8 The property is ser\ed by municipal sewer. Options of Action 1.To approve as proposed or amended. The recommendation of approval shall include the condition that applicants' contractor shall obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing residence and secure mrnicipal sewer and other utility lines that currently serve the existing residence. > f Application tt c^c^OO Date Received OC- Amount Paid .c^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00/ / After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ^ . * •V . i tf' PROPERTY INFO^IATION SiteAddress sjoti,,. - - . ■ -____ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) IV Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired __________ I (do) (do^^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y residential ___other (specify)__________ Zoning District: L(2.1^._______________________________________ (montli/year) APPLICANT , Phone (home ) 44^ -02^^ Name Phone (work)_________________ Address: \'hnO Citv: \Nl^T^l>^ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ (POO Describe request in detail: ____________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area >< Lot Width Hardcover y Lot Coverage Setback:Front Xs Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: _______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 12-'20/96 FRI 12:00 FAX 612 478 8080 D*e-20-96 10:12A T0L-0->UTIC V V 5 ■ OS / 0 J1\ unQUlKFJ) SUIIMITTALS M ft \ • % rt — All nf tlic follo%vltig inforiimtion must he aubmittetl hv the nnplicntn tlcntllinc tl:ito in nr<ler for VQiir npplicnUon to he considcrcti 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 nod map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center. 348*3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" tor reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x It" Tor reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 1 1"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). 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 Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that voiir variance nnplicatinn i.s not comnlcte If tlic above Information Ins not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses iiicurrct! in review' of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the bes^^^ his/lter knowledge. Applicant's Signature f /> ^ Date ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ / ?_- /2_- OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to (his application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City^>tcff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of^^e^li^tion ancrVprtficQlion of this request. Owner's SipnntureDate Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Mond.iy of each moMlh. Applicants must be present at nil 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. 8 ...u This application for hardship is due to the unusual property conditions required for 2435 North Shore Drive. These conditions are a result of the existing property being platted before being zoned. The zone for this lot requires a 30 foot sideyard setback on a 100 foot wide lot, resulting in a 40 foot wide building pad. We are requesting a variance to allow the sideyard setbacks to be as they exist with the current residence. Another condition to be considered is the zonal hardcover requirements. The present house exceeds the 250-500 foot zone hardcover of 30% by 7%. We request a variance not exceed the existing hardcover of 37% in the 250-500 foot zone with the future residence to be placed on this property. WM DATE 12/24/96 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OHNERS LISTBATCH 001 PROP ADOR QNNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SB 09-117-23 41 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI^D CHARLES I BXRQXTTA SCHOEN CHARLES A BXROITTA SCHOEN 2430 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AOOR OltCR NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR TOTAL BATCH 001 00003 *. • . . ; REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 09-117-23 44 0002 02465 NORTH SNORE DR DUANE A LUKE ETAL DUANE A LUKE 2465 NORTH SIIME DR NAYZATA M4 55391 38 09-117-23 44 0003 02425 NORTH SHORE DR DOROTHY C LEVY DOROTHY C LEVY 2425 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 44 0008 0009 38 09-117-23 44 0010 & 0011 2435 NORTH SHORE DR WILLIAM M TOLES WILLIAM M TOLES 2465 4<0RT4f-SH0RE DR- S S & J C MARFIELD SAMUEL S & JOYCE C MARFIELD 2455 SeOTetf-PINE-tA WAY^ATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 I, ffUU SSJiQ • [ X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORHATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KN0NLED6E AND BELIEF DATE ..fggj vy (612) 941-3031 taen rrairie, mn CettifitaU M SbutV«v Survey For L Cramer Company Book 348 Page 4 7 File 2435 So o teeh Pine Lane-fjfla^ pg/i/iBt. ^ Orono,, Minnesota ^ ?fj> 7 '■A£>4 Scale: 1"=50' oDenotes Iron Mon. Found Topo by Others ^ '^C / ..... Lot 3. Block /I'T^llcon Ad^ll^• I* • *«!• «td eon .ct loptoe^t^on tf • aiavoy «• ••• boondiUe o(____------------------------------------/—*------+--------i _____________IlMUMpIn County. MInnotota ond Iho loeodoo o\a bo»*^ din vlfttbl* •/closclimtnUo If sny oo 2nd doyDecember i»96 Frank R. Cardarello State Reg. No. 6500 CettUicaU Book 348 Page 47 ?f/* .7 +« 9fr>7, I r X ) ‘/ / I' X X /vC> Sq.ft, area In lot 56936 sq.ft. Area In abandoned Incl. (Scotch Pine Circle) Area in House & Garage Area in Playhouse Area in Pool & Deck SidewaIk Area in Driveway Total Area Hardcover 16.7% of lot 3550 64 2520 70 3325 lhtnbye«%ti«IINito«lni«iodeon.€lt»p»»»5(|*J»on^tuiv#yoHh.bowvdri.«ol_;—^ Hennepin County. MinnotoUi and the location ol^ Buw«Mdbinii.on»ii« 2nd dwot December -----,i»96 — vtetbla a/4ioachnienli, M any on tald land. Frank R. Cardarelle State Reg. No. 6508 1! HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X “ 500*1000' Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic or Other X X X X X X X X X X f TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5- B X too / • ( f PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width B. Garage • a \ - C. Driveway ■' D. Sidewalk 1?. -Jj E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5- B X 100 « S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. (> % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B ;/ * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET (250-^0*3*/i-250’500-i 000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deciy^py^v-X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 * ^’^^AtOPOSED HARDCOV ER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width • %X X X rs ss B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X I ■<\ i Underlain By Plastic X X 0 ji-% G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5- B _____X 100 lo T/^20 n(^ 3A4 1-M5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F, S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Z7g S.F. .^7 % A B A B \ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET i /u* / SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 75-250’250-500’ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X 10 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •r B X 100 =Ul PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underla'ui By Plastic G. Other X X X C/4 X X X X X X X X X lo TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4- B 'bLf'hb X 100 = S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. __ _S.F. . % A B A B Ti ^ • •i * ^ .* C » *v%• * •i ta\i'* ■v;\-,. .v.;^;*. .. . '(t • \'*r V .V'J .V •.m ’•# • ♦ • ( ^ t. • • V*'; • .•^•k^y • I V IT' - ■ ■^^0;'' 8 t •'•' '(e< . - : ..r:v'-*v: • •. •. r. ■•■ *>- • .ik-- «* • 1 *• '/I I *>»l V . • r♦ » * . *•■ ’ . ’ - * *< K * • p *t • ♦ p <•; U'\'B-L. ir • 1 VJ ... .. *-*€'(: u o t i■ '" 1 -------------1 t ♦ y 1 L 11 1 • *u Z's''.'v ZL I . V/< ; •* ^ r t . « < ■ ‘ ’ * * { *■ ■ m t i . [ • •• ? : •-*••• • I Cc;>v 'tr ' •L t . ^ tr— W-,UCZvHl— Z’ff^ $ • ^ *• •* • r \A. SAM AND JOYCE MARHELD 2455 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA, MN 55391 VOICE 612-473-3344 FAX 612-473-2363 CELLUIARS 991-3344, 4444, 6666 & 6711 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY P. O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 January 7, 1997 JAN 8 1997 Voice: 473-7357 Fax: 473-0510 Re: Land use application #2200 Ellis/Toles Dear Planning Commission Members: We are the owners of 2455 and 2445 North Shore Diive. They are legally described as Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Scotch Pine Addition. We have reviewed the variances described in the notice the City of Orono mailed to us. This is the notice which shows a proposed publication date of the week of January 6, 1997. We approve of these variances and look forward to the construction of a new house next to us. Yours very truly. SAMUEL S. MAFIFIELD JOYCE) C. MARFIELD V WEST ON 12 PAST ALL WAYZATA EXITS TO WEST 15 EXIT. 3.3 MILES ON WEST 15 TO A MARINA - ONE MORE BLOCK - RIGHT ON 51 - H MILE - LEFT ONTO PRIVATE SIREET 7, TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Administrative Projects Coordinator DATE:Januar>- 17,1997 SUBJECT: ^2202 Hennepin County Department of Transportation - County Road 15 Reconstruction - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA/RR-IB Application: Hennepin County Department of Public Works requests a conditional use permit and variances for alteration of existing wetlands in conjunction with reconstruction of County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road in Orono to Hillside Drive in Wayzata. The project involves the filling of City protected wetlands, filling of designated flood plain areas, and filling in excess of 100 cubic yards. Pertinent Code Sections 1. 10.55, Subds. 8-14 (Flood plain and wetlands management ordinances). 2. 10.56, Subd. 16(J & K) (Shoreland management ordinance). 3. 10.03, Subds 19-21 (General land alteration regulations). List of Exhibits A - Staff Overview of Wetland Regulation B - Application C - Plat Map D - Project Description Narrative E - MCWD Pennit F - Multi-Agency Project Notification Form G - Property Owners List H - Supplementary Application Information and Narrative 1 - Wetland Locations Map (Sheets 1- 2 of 18) J - Wetland Delineation Maps (Sheets 3-8 of 18) K - Wetland Impact Maps (Sheets 9-14 of 18) L - Grading and Removal Plan (Sheets 19-23 of 187) M - Construction Plan (Sheets 25-29 of 187) N- Femdale Cutoff Mitigation (Sheet 181 of 187) O - Flood Plain Impact/Mitigation Narrative and Calculations Zoning File U2202 JanuaiA J7, 1997 Page 2 P - Storm Water Runoff Narrative and Calculations Q - Erosion Control Narrative and Plan Excerpts (Sheets 62-67 of 187) R - Orono 1975 Wetlands Map S - Orono 1997 Wetlands Inventory (in progress) T - National Wetlands ln\ entory Map U - DNR Protected Wetlands Map V' - Soil Survey Map W - Area fopography Map X - Pertinent Code Sections Background Hennepin County is requesting the appropriate City permits and approvals to allow the total reconstruction of County Road 15 from just west of its intersection with Orono Lane, eastward to the easterly outlet of Hillside Drive in Wayzata. a total distance of approximately 1 mile. County Road 15 abuts Femdale Marsh and other wetland areas, a number of which will be impacted by the proposed reconstruction. A major reason for these impacts is proposed widening of the roadway approximately 10-12' northward to accommodate center turning lanes and limit the potential construction impacts to Ferndale Marsh. This 10-12' expansion requires filling of 1.2 acres of DNR protected wetlands and 1.1 acres of other wetlands protected by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It appears that most if not all of the wetlands delineated in the Orono corporate limits of this project were identified in the City's 1975 wetlands inventor) mapping. These wetlands are therefore protected by City ordinance from filling or other alterations. Similarly, portions of the wetland areas to be tilled are within designated flood plain areas below elevation 931.5', and in Orono and Wayzata constitute approximately 1.2 acre-feet of flood plain impact. The County is required to mitigate this impact on a 1 to 1 basis. A portion of that floodplain mitigation will occur in newly constructed ditches paralleling roadway, and partially by removing the "Ferndale Cutoff (east of the intersection of West Femdale Road and County Road 15) and reverting that area to flood plain/wetland. Basis/Timing of HCDOT Application The majority of past Hennepin County road projects in Orono have involved only minimal if any expansion of the roadbed and have not resulted in the filling of wetlands. That makes this project not only unique but subject to environmental permits from a number of government agencies including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and local cities. This County Road 15 project has been in the works for more than two years, and the City of Orono adopted a preliminary layout as early as October 1995. In mid-1996 the original layout was shifted northward and this was reviewed by the Council in August 1996, with the alignment receiving City Council approval in December 1996 absent any input from the City Engineer or B&Z staff. Zoning File # 2202 Januar>’ 17, 1997 Page 3 In November 1996 HCDOT applied for the various agency permits required, and it became clear during the most recent City review process that City protected wetlands and flood plains would be impacted, hence this application. While the City Council has approved this layout, it is appropriate that the City review the flood plain and wetland impacts and give formal approval of how those impacts will be mitigated. Wetland Impacts Please review Exhibits I and J. Exhibit I is a series of maps showing the boundaries of wetlands adjacent to the roadway. Exhibit J shows the areas of those wetlands that will be permanently impacted by the road reconstruction. The majority of the wetland impacts are a result of filling the long narrow wetlands occurring in the ditch area between the existing roadway and the railroad tracks to the north. In addition, there will impacts to the larger wetland to the west of "Molly's Comer" at 1410 Shoreline Drive, as well as minor impacts to the wetlands just west of the West Femdale Road entrance at 1195/1205/1225 Shoreline Drive. The impacted area of the three non-linear wetlands which will experience some filling, is small compared to the total area of those wetlands. Wetland No. 1 at 1410 Shoreline Drive is 10.1 acres in area, while the impacted area is about 0.12 acre. The area of Wetland No. 7 at 1225 Shoreline Drive is approximately 0.8 acres of which approximately 0.02 acre will be impacted. Wetland No. 8 is approximately 1.3 acres of which 0.05 acres will be impacted. A much larger percentage of the linear wetlands between the roadway and railroad tracks will be impacted, experiencing significant filling which will leave them narrower and likely appearing more like road ditches than wetlands. Wetland replacement for the 1.2 acres of impacted DNR wetlands is proposed to be \'ia the creation of 1.3 acres of new wetland in the Painter Creek watershed adjacent to County Road 6 in Independence. The 1.1 acres of impact to WCA protected wetlands is proposed to be certified for replacement by the Minnesota Board of Waters Soil Resources (BWSR) per State regulations. Since the City of Orono has designated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as local government unit for administration of the Wetland Conser\ ation Act, the Watershed District is given authority to approve this proposed mitigation plan with respect to storm water impacts. Staff is advised that the Watershed District has approved the Hennepin County plan, noting that there is no area available near the project site suitable for mitigating the storm water impacts, and is therefore conditioned approval on payment of $38,626 towards a regional stomi water ponding facility which MCWD will be constructing in Excelsior. Zoning File #2202 January 17. 1997 Page 4 Floodplain Impacts The prc eel results in 1 ' .rt feet of floodplain storage loss, which must be mitigated on a 1:1 basis. The County proposes to do this be remo\ ing the roadbed of the 'Ferndalc Cutofl ’. and old roadway connection between West Ferndalc Road and Co. Rd. 15. This will create new lloodplain, and, in conjunction with the new road ditches to be created, is intended to meet the 1:1 mitigation requirement. The City Council has approved this plan. Erosion Control Applicants have submitted a detailed erosion control plan including revegetation plans. These are shown in Exhibit M. Discussion This Hennepin C »unty project is necessarv in order to reconstruct County Road 15 in a manner that will incorporate new safety features and bring this roadway up to current standards. Tnc City Council clearly feels that the project is necessarv from a public heallli^safety/welfare standpoint and has approved liie proposed construction plans. The flood plain impacts, storm water impacts, and wetland impacts have been defined from a volume and area standpoint. The County has submitted plans for mitigation oftho.se impacts to the appropriate agencies for approv al. From my discussions with other agency re ‘■enlaiives today, it appears the other agencies all are supportive of this project and have issu r will issue permits. Coi ^ P; '.:-illy, staff has no problem with filling these specific wetlands in order to accomplish the necv saiW road construction. And. staff has no conceptual problem with the idea of mitigating the fi i.ig at a site outside the City as long as it is in the sap'e subwatershed. We need to think globally. Nevertheless, this is an unusual situation in that the City would allow 2 acres of wetland to be filled for this project, whereas it is unlikely that this much cumulative wetland acreage has been filled in the entire City over the last 3 decades (save for the McCulley Road project in 1980. which had similar public interest aspects). IManning Commission should consider the possible precedent-setting aspects of this approval. The Cit)' has yet to come to an agreement with MCWD regarding payments in-licu of on-site ponding for both wetland and stormwater impacts. The City has a histor>‘ of opposing filling of wetlands e.xcept fer projects clearly in the public interest or where property owners have p.c other options for legal access. It is unfortunate that the City has not yet completed its stonn water pla.«ning. which could have made this review more thorough and comprehensive. The comprehensive storm water plan when completed will give the City a clearer understanding of how these wetlands interact both Zoning File #2202 Januar>’ 17, 1997 Page 5 hydraulically and functionally within the area drainage system, but without such information it is difficult to reach any meaningful conclusions. Further, since the City has adopted Shoreland ordinances that suggest that prior to filling the wetland there should be an analysis of the specific value provided by that wetland, but since the City has never completed an inventory of wetland values for speeific wetlands, again it is at this point rather subjective to reach a meaningful conclusion. Staff Recommendation In the interest of not holding up a necessary project and with a basic conceptual gut feeling that fi’ling these wetlands will not ultimately be a negative thing for Orono, stafTreeommends approval, but with the following topics suggested for Planning Commission to diseuss either generally or in relation to this project: Should the City grant what is a sub.'Jtantial wetland filling variance for this project based on the public need for the project, and docs the public interest served distinguish this project from similar pri\ ate projects which might propose significant wetland filling? Should City approval be conditioned on applicants obtaining all the necessarj' permits from the other regulatory bodics?<^ Should the City accept the concept of mitigating impacts to Orono wetland via wetland/stormwatcr projects in other Cities or in other subw'atersheds? How do you feel about payments for future off-site mitigation in lieu of concurrent on-site mitigation? Does Planning Commission feel more information about the functions and values of these wetlands should be provided before a final decision is made on this project? W'ould you prefer to review the EAW before reaching a conclusion? Options for Action 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as presented. Recommend approval with specific conditions. Table for further information (be specific). Recommend denial (stale reasons). Other. i To: From: Date: Subject; Planning Commission Michael P.Gaffron. Administrative Projects Coordinator Januar\’ 17. 1997 Overview of Wetland Protection A. Wetland Protection in Orono The City of Orono began regulating wetlands in 1964 via Ordinance U63 which excluded wetlands from dr>-buildablc area calculations, and allowed no building upon or filling of wetlands without Planning Commission and Council approval. Ordinance # 125 in 1970 e.xpanded on this by defining temis. creating a "Flood Plain and Wetlands Conseiv ation Area", totally prohibiting filling, grading, dredging, excavation or construction within that area, but allowing variances under specified conditions when in the public interest. In 1974 the City (in conjunction with the Hennepin Conserv ation District) mapped its wetlands, but did not create an inventory listing nor define wetland boundaries by elevation contour. Wetland types (Circular 39 USFWS W'aterfowl Values Sv stem), soil types and approximate areas were noted. This was all done by airphoto interpretation, little if any field verification. The code was again enltanced in 1975 by creating a 26' wetland buffer zone in which alteration activities would be prohibited. In 1977. faced with what appeared to be a pending onslaught of requests for wetland variances, the City established a moratorium on the granting of variances for filling or excavating in wetlands. This resulted in adoption of Ordinance #213 in October 1978. which incorporated Orono's wetland protection measures into the new floodplain ordinance which was required by HUD as part of Federal floodplain management programs. ' ..js ordinance has remained virtually unchanged since 1978. Staff has long felt that the wetland protection elements of the floodplain ordinance, while clearly prohibiting wetland alterations, are less than clear as to when and under what conditions a variance to alter a wetland should be granted. 1 he ordinance is fairly clear about dealing with the hydraulic asp ;cts of floodplain filling, but gives no real consideration to wetland functions or values. This 'function^'alue' question was at least touched upon in the Shoreland ordinances adopted in 1992, which in 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(5)(a) require that grading or filling in Type 2 thru 8 wetlands (in Shoreland areas) must be evaluated in terms of its impact on the following functional qualities of wetlands: 1) Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention 2) Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage 3) Fish and wildlife habitat 4) Recreational use 5) Shoreline or bank stabilization Zoning File #2202 Januar>' 17, 1997 Page 5 hydraulically and functionally within the area drainage system, but without such information it is difficult to reach any meaningful conclusions. Further, since the City has adopted Shoreland ordinances that suggest that prior to filling the wetland there should be an analysis of the specific value provided by that wetland, but since the City has ne . er completed an in\ entory of wetland values for specific wetlands, again it is at this point rather subjective to reach a meaningful conclusion. Staff Kecommcndation In the interest of not holding up a necessary project and w ith a basic conceptual gut feeling that tl'ling these wetlands will not ultimately be a negative thing for Orono, statTrecommends approval, but with the following topics suggested for Planning Commission to discuss either generally or in relation to this project: Should the City grant what is a substantial wetland filling variance for this project based on the public need for the project, and does the public interest served distinguish this project from similar private projects which might propose significant wetland filling? Should City approval be conditioned on applicants obtaining all the necessary' permits from the other regulatory bodies?^ Should the City accept the concept of mitigating impacts to Orono wetland via wetland/stormwater projects in other Cities or in other subwatersheds? How do you feel about payments for future off-site mitigation in lieu of concurrent on-site mitigation? Does Planning Commission feel more information about the functions and values of these wetlands should be provided before a final decision is made on this project? Would you prefer to review the EAW before reaching a conclusion? Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as presented. Recommend approval w ith specific conditions. Table for further information (be specific). Recommend denial (state reasons). Other. Wetland Oveniew January 17, 1997 Page 2 6) Noteworthiness in terms of historic significance, critical habitat for endangered species, etc. 7) Determination of which other agencies require review, permits, etc. This is a good start, but the City has to date not pursued creation of a methodology for assigning functions and values to specific wetlands, and the State and federal agencies have yet to come to a concensus on how such functions and values should be assigned, categorized, etc. Part of our in progress Stormwater Plan will be a weilarid inventory which attempts to assign functions and \ alues to each of the C ity’s approximately 400-500 identified wetlands. A note about wetland function and value: The 'function' of a wetland is relatively definable and calculable in terms of, for instance, its capacity for nuu-ient retention or amount of stormwater it can hold. The 'value' of a wetland is, on the other hand, a subjective determination of w hat emotional or aesthetic impacts a wetland has, and can at best be a set of conclusions reflecting how the community secs its wetlands. Also, wetlands which arc functional and/or valuable for one purpose may not be functional/valiiable for other purposes: i.e. Type 4-5 wetlands perfectly suited for watertbw l mav be not be as suitable for nutrient assimilation as some Type 1-2 wetlands. Since 1975 Orono has averaged only 2-3 wetland alteration applications per year. The majority have been for exeaxations to create ponds within existing City-protected wetlands. A few ha\ e been for placement of structures (docks, typically) in wetlands. Two recent ones have been for the MCWD to alter wetlands for stormwater treatment purposes. And perhaps 5-6 over 20 years have been for filling wetlands, typically to create driveway access to a remote portion of property. I he proposed County Road 15 reconstruction project is by far the most extensive wetland fill project the City has experienced since McCulley Road (the Ring Route) was built in 1980. B. The Current Regulatory ’ Morass - How It Impacts the County Road 15 Project The legislature adopted the Miimcsota Wetland Conservation Act in 1991. This Act (WCA for short) established statew idc protection of w etlands, and made mandatoiy for metro area governments an entirely new set of regulations to enforce. Specifically, WCA regulates the filling and draining of wetlands, establishing criteria for delineating wetlands and establishing detailed procedures for the evaluation of wetland replacement plans, and establishes a wetland banking program. Under the WCA, local government units are responsible for implementing the regulations. Where a water management organization (WMO) exists, local governments can relinquish this responsibility to the WMO, and that is w hat Orono has done. The City has designated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as its ofllcial Local Government Unit (LGU) for purposes of administering i Wetland Overview Januarv 17, 1997 Pane 2W the WCA regulations. At the same time. howe\er. Orono has not relinquished its authority to require City variance approval for grading, filling and other woik in wetlands. 1o muddle things, both the Army Corps offngineers (USACE) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have individual regulator) authority over wetlands. And. the Minnesota Environmental Review Program rules require the filing of an En\ ironmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and possibly an EIS for certain types of wetland impact projects. And. the US Fish and Wildlife Service is a reviewing agency on certain wetland applications, but doesn't issue permits. Hennepin County DOTs County Road 15 project appears to be subject to virtually all of these regulatory programs, and is attempting to meet the requirements of each. It's a mess for the applicant as well as for the various agencies, which sometimes hav e conflicting rules and competing interests. A number of interagency 'work groups' have sprung up in an attempt to tr>' to reduce the complexit) of wetland regulation. 1 hey hav e made some progress but have a long way to go. This is w here staff believes the County Road 15 project stands currently: - Has applied for USACE permit, may be covered under a Nationwide permit - Has applied for DNR permit. DNR has U21 issued a permit pending: a) further discussions about mitigating the DNR-rcgulated Co. Rd. 15 wetlands at a site in Independence (not in Orono...) b) outcome of the EAW review process which the County is just commencing - Is about to commence the EAW process -1 las applied for and been granted an MCWD pemiit (under WCA and MCWD rules) which appears to have the following characteristics: a) Mitigation of wetland filling impacts by certification to the State of 1 .1 acres of future wetland to be constructed elsewhere b) Contribution (payment) to MCWD of $38,626 toward a future stormwater pond to be built by MCWD in the City of Excelsior (!)(not a typo) beeausc MCWD considers Excelsior to be in the same subwatershed as the County Road 15 project... - Has applied for Orono variance and CUP Hr r- o o > z 3}i>^ m >. —« o » mm o CD < -< — CD l/> -< O ^ X m 2 O •0 oc. 2o ID l\) fS) CO fiii S O fil ^ o 3 o ? s a oM Is 3| o «A o Cl •«ao B a “I cc oA CO 01 H < V O o •91 tail > |0> ,u> 0|0 uj icnio'oicri lO.OlO.O iO'O.O'iX) s: z 2: s:m m m m -H -H -4 -H rn m m m :o :d :x) 23 cn (/> i/^ 00 I I I -"PPi-" • • • '• ' • (Ti|O,O|00 co'O O'U) cpiotoicn 1 1 I Tf: oooo 2 s: 2: 2:n m m m -H -H -H H m rn m rn 3) 3) 30 to to CO on O -« •w o s ^ fvi ^ Ri ai ■ 2 ^ Ss CO 8« M S-S “* e:S S Sp 0» ao B 00s © «s o ■w oao oaos > «=4 © •=3 Ovi g S oaa a o H o S i«aai X Xaa o H > O © -flO a >a a a •< X p"a aa X -« a a a a o ’■i o X a aX e aa X > X -4 aH •< -« o o aa a X 2 X “*£ e S s a © cA OB O « < ia -4a > aea Ha H o X COs BuO 123-89-1415-18fvi fvi-a so *=3 0= •Ps C=3 ^ m » fvi -4-4-4-4 0 f-r-r-f-t-“Tfa >• > ► > m s SImc/> LTt i mI sm JO omso mo JOmo —4m g R i S 5 m o o> ^ CD s o oo o oo :s• __ oo nozooc.mo t/i > TJ Iori cn I IDroi>or>o oo 3 -D3D m CO m o m 3D Om 3D noO 3Dmo o -Hm 9 D 33 O 33 O i/\m O Oo 2 m X 2 O oo 2 o o c c 33 33 LO CO — w o •Dai m %A mzo zmmao m 39 m O G3 -< 39mo s o>< -Hm r- o C5>» Z 391/9 mo « » s 2 m o CD i CDt/9 -< Vs om oo no:do o CO 5 mc/> i/> i m o m m 33 om 31 mo somo zo o m in m -H o 9m o 9 o «S 5 O CD 2 gb m -< s DCm CO JO oo o 3 -o39 5?m «/»u> mzo mm SD om 39 m O 09 -< 9mo o m oXmo>«m 09 tn -i < Ui s>>s 09-< ^ 12 oo •p m </> mzo mm 2) om 2} mo CD -< 30mo o m O CO o -H CO CO •o N> Icn CJ1 I 3Cm mno o -o 33 O C-mo r\)ro N> o CO •D 3D m to to i mzo mm om 33 mo aimo o r- o o ^ Z 3Dto m ► -H r>S 5 2 o> f/» -< s y> Z21o •D 5> O P IS oo nozoo . -H ro on Z1 oon «i f -I’ O 3 s m (/» mzo m 3D r>m 3D m O 09 30mo o o o (/> m -H O 3D mm o < %A i mz m >• z F o ^ zmtn >-■D 93oO m o F to—4 fVJ 1 ^ 2 «cn m -L r- Ln ^ o LO c 3 z r* *n > IP 1 -4 09 d (/>► — 2 C V» X •< n 0 "0 -4 ms2:1 *v%0 r“ 2) ► HI ZD C 0 IP r- 2 —r"-4 — m 0 o> Hi z 0 0 (p c 0 c > u) • ► 2 W » CP •=3 0 Cl -H 2 — z 0 ► C 2 -4 m *0 ► 0 tP CP 0 50 r* 2) — — CP -4 m -iS 33 00 >0 Z0 r--nixo — 0 ► ^ — Q >5o ^ m > 2 iO CO -t -H O O IP m o o ► ^ «§• jr>iPiPtPOia>OMO f——<-«-<rnrnj>m _ >>►»/> — tPiP ~ 3.. . . -- o m ^ 00 o ^ 0X00 m IP m » ai — a> o ► o o IP •»« z CP T> o o >•aj o aj r- 0 z > — ^ o*> o o — 2 r- 2) 2 2 m c o CP n 2o o p» O -4 p> -( o a 0 2)— »-y I/I ^ /-% nn -r% i—t -r^ SoSS C — C -« o CP 2 2 — •<»’' -<0 2JCP2)Z»*- m r* o — PI 2 a) > m o 3) o O o p > > >X m r- p f- a) Q > O C C 2 tP p z z m ni ► 2) f—I r~i 1 ^ r~ CP -H ■H — > -4 -H r- m m B «= » (Q) s-i Q "H IP Q X 50 O I 2 mJO 50 C o «ca 2q2 -4 0 0 2) O ► -4 < ■n X m "n m X) 4P C■n » 2 2 m r» IP 22 O 0 < fils 1 i Cd fiil 3 mtoto i mzo mzo omz mo d> -< 30mo fa s s Imo m CD-< CD•< s o 5D O O P* 50m o 5 mm o CO m CO z >* m • ro o -nI o cn - -D CJ1 :o oC- mo • CO CO ro• ro>• ro• •D 1roo Xf<QDOm —Smo CD-4 —QZ Dm-<NC(0 m >-«-4 DDC-4XDz —me—^Pgoo-4xm; Q» -4 — >Z -400 D^-40 Z m —X o GBmOO> ?SmzIo%3*Dor- — uttomom m-« c/» QXOCD* C-4-4m mmo S 2 »om 225SS zt%>mo OD-4 o om —(/> XtODZ — ► ►v»r->>z u»oo 010(00 m(/»8S5 X-4 —OQ ► m> >o -4 3C-I2I — mo I m oOT)omc zm » (0»««m Z——(o (O—-4-4 C-4XXC O (/» X*D>-4m X XO -4>(00 E -im-4 -I tXZX X* cm— m ox(o >mcoz -4-4* m m o ► mr-zC(o — o:Z(o o o> xxmx -49»-< (0-0 <»x — ►om iO-4C>mzx -4 o> 0(0 z —-40(Domm • xz 4! Smo m >< *D — (9-< Xm X 40 xzo 5xoo oS>x (O 2I -4m — Xmx (OO• zm o r* m > X P* X X m ms s< < m m m omzo o Xc 09 O CD F i 09 mo X — X m m z 8 40 X X X> m z mn to ♦>-4 00o #■ V -r ' •><r:.;' Application # c Dale Received z^/gg/y^. - Amount Paid , . CIT<^ -OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address CSAH 15 (SHORELINE DRIVE) ORONO ORCHARD ROAD TO HILLSIDE Type of Application to be Filed ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION _____________ DRIVE. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) N/A APPLICANT Name CRAIG TWINEM Phone (home) n /A Phone (work) 950~2^3H^ Address uiAqnTNP;TnN avf <^0 City HOPKINS Zip 55343 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name hpninppin rniiNTY Phone (home) n /A Phone (work)930-2500 Address 320 WASHINGTON AVE SO City HOPKINS Date Property Acquired_____n /a ______________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land, FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use n /a $250.00 Land .‘^Iteration -X Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee Zip 553^5 __(month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Conunercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____ S200.00 Easement Vacation _____SI00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendmeht _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District N/A________ Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify) ROADWAY 2. J. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. X Completed Application form. X Describe request in detail. X 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, 348-3271). Car.r.n HiU _____ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. X Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). _____ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert>’. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). X Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). _____ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date _________ 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 th» best eff his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signature id correct to tly best eff his/her Date OWNER’S SIGN.\TURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entiy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council .members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. { - i'- Date Applicani 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 unabic to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. f *'•■•i.: r '' CITY OF ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION CSAH 15; COUNTY PROJECT 9222 S.A.P. 27-615-15; M.S.A.P. 152-020-07 November 20, 1996 PURPOSE: To supplement the City of Orono General Land Use Application which is required due to the grading and filling of wetlands The roadway pavement on CSAH 15 from Orono Orchard Road to Hillside Drive east intersection is reaching the end of its service life. Continued routine maintenance is failing to keep the roadway surface in an acceptable condition. Orono City staff requested that Hennepin County Public Works investigate alternatives which resulted in a plan for total reconstruction. The three attached permit applications to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management District fully summarize wetland delineation, impact and mitigation, floodplain impact and mitigation, storm water runoff and erosion control. Also attached is a set of plan sheets labeled "Orono Land Use Permit" which graphically depicts the existing contours, proposed contours, and proposed drainage areas with flow directions labeled by arrows. Upon the City of Orono’s Planning and Zoning Commission review, Hennepin County respectfully requests that this Land Use Permit be granted and recommended for city council approval at the February fourth council meeting. Attachments include the following: - Completed application form - Certified property owners list with mailing labels and plat map - Existing and proposed contours (on 11 x 17 plan sheets) - Construction plan - City of Orono approved Layout 3 (colored) - Department of Natural Resources and Army Corp of Engineers permit application (Wetland Impact) - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit application (Wetland Impacts, Floodplain Impacts, Storm Water Runoff, Erosion Control) If additional information is necessary for permit application consideration please contact Guy Nowlan at 930-2532. JrtJ-17-19S7 10:T1 (lINtEHHHH 'IFEETM hTEPSHED t.l24710tS2 P.Ol Ol Minnehaha freek Watershed Bistricl Gray Fresfr.vater Center Hy.'VS. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail 2500 ShadyA0c6 Road Excelsior, MN 55331*9578 Phone (612)471-0590 Fax:(612)471-0682 Email: ad.TiiiiSmnvvate'shed org Web Site: vA’Av.mn.vatersfieO.org Board of Managvn: John E Thomas President Pjri'laG Bli.xt Vice Pre;'fljnt Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LnBounty Treasurer C Woodrow Love Thomas Maple. Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Eugene R. Stfomrr>en District Director buzanneM Weedman Asst District Director Improving Qtuility of WotCK Qudlity Cf Life November 27. 1996 ~^jJUYlO Hennepin County Department of Transportation AUn Joel Settles 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. MN 55331 RE‘ Permit Application 96-251 Location Orono. T117N R23W, Sec 1 S 2 Purpose; Stormvyaler Management Plan for a highway reconstruction project Dear Representative' The above permit application was reviewed at the November 26, 1996 Board of Managers Meeting of the Minnehana Creek Wateished District The permit was approved pending receipt and staff approval of the following 1. A contribution to off site ponding in the amount of S33.626 2 An executed agreerr.ent w'th the City of Excelsior for an off-site pond. (This has been approved by MCWD) 3. A revegetation and maintenance schedule 4 Mailing cost reimbursement in the amount of S76.00. Special conditions on the permit include. 1. The s'lt fence must be maintained during the construction and removed after vegetation is establisned In addition, all disturbed areas should be sodded or seeded and mu'ched within seven days of final grading during the fall of 1097 Due to the size and complexity of certain projects, the Board, by Rule J. requires that Site inspections be conducted In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to the District, a fee equal to the actual costs of analysis of the project . field inspection, engineering services, legal services, and any subsequent monitoring of the vvork These costs are referred to as Rule J fees Please be advised that tne project is not authorized until the above information has been submitted and you have been notified of permit issuance. Thank you. 0 Pn.iTi rn tC/JrJ l» r>*-* rruil TOTAL P.Ol M-OU' X«/WATER ii^i!!i!ia*L« m m k loiiaKUiSA^rwRwi 'Ut« tt.^ form to iotify/opp4y to tho U.S. Army Corps of Enginoors. tho Minnooou Doportmonf of Noturof Rooourooo, ond your Locoi GovorrYnont Uivt of 0 propoiod wotof/wodor^d proioct or work wNch moy foil within thoir juriodicdoru Thoso ogor^doo should od>^oo you of ihoir Xinodiction or pomvt roguiromonto witNn 45 days. Somo LGU'o may oUo roquiro oubmitoion of thoir own opplicodon forms. RU out thio form oomplotdy ond moil o oopy. with pUrw. mapo. oic. to oach of tha ogorkdoo fiotod on tho rovoroo of tha form. Koop a oopy for your rooordo. YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK. r \/! ) AGPNCY USE ONLY: LGU NUMBER:_____________________MDNR NUMBER:_____________________CORPS NUMBSt*_ ___a [ AgonL if any Aroa Codo» TolophoAoI. Applic nt'o Noma (Laat. First. M.I.) Axnhoniji Agi—.------ ^ Oe.t^ ■»'i~y / ro »\s^por T~<i^ v>ctN. QtQ ■ j C-Tu).^30 ■■* Addrau Istrtat. R^. Box Niimbor, City, Stota/Zip Cc ‘ ‘ U. Location of propoaad proia^HlttaLocation of propoaad nfo'tacjnanach drewina ahowing how to gaf to aita) Zp Coda) . . Aoc? r L . (i p ia{ to Altai rt hk\ Orca~«c 'j. Lt\ijlJQ U UOUNTY tr t< a* QUARTER SECTION(a) SECTIONS(a) No. TOWNSHIP(a) No. RANGE(a) No. TinAJ R;xic^ Lot. Bteek. Subdi RRE No..'BOX No.. OR PROJECT ADDRESS I DAJ K Cog-'^ Qi>vc/ NAME OF WATERBODY AFFECTED and NUMBER OF KNOWN) ^7 - ^5“ Q ?6~5~________ ai. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $LENGTH OF SHORE AFFECTED On faat): IIV. VOLUME OIC fiLLjOR EXCAVATION (Cubic Yard » OR I I AREA RLLEO OR EXCAVATED IS (^.3 Squara Faat WOTE: Youm§y »ubathut9 dananaaons) V. TYPE OF WORK AND AREA (CHECK AU THAT APPLY): □ CONSTRUCT □ DRAIN □ EXCAVATE □ FILL □ REMOVE □ REPAIR □ ACCESS Path □ B noge □ CuLVStr □ 0am □ Dock □ R vmp □ SAMsstAMcn’ □ LAKE □ SH0REJJN£ □ WATERW^ X^EQ^lffi OTHER (DESCRIBE): WETLAND TYPE(S) AND ACREAGE(S) PROPOSED TO BE FILLED/DRAINED: 7"'3, A. Attach applicabla drawinga, plana, and ASCS crop photos. Includa a daacription of an^ p)oposad companaatorv mitigation. Important; tdenpfy any diapoael aryj borrow areas. Daacribs tha work balow: how it would bo dona: what aquipmant would ba usad. PROJECT PURPOSE (why ia this pro»act naadad-what banafita wiU it provida?): p T C c a_ L I 'hv V Y -cj ? 'P<^.+ s/le U. ^el-CC'.Sld<»* ' vJ /!l. ALTERNATIVES (daacnba any other aitaa or mathodt that could ba uaad to schiava tha purpoaa of your pro)act whU# avoiding or irinimisM watiand/watar impaeu: Attach additionaJ ahaau, if naadad). /S d C f S « X c /lc fe •('o C o-c cfe c-»i ^ . f*r“o, e 0 V •f .1^ rj.»Hr Cctrre.%4 Ct ; t-O ( y -J ' VIII. DATES: Propoaad start of activity: -J !c^ ^ (Idantify any complotad work on an attachad drawing) Propoiad complation: jf X. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Attach Uft if mora than two) ' Nama Addrasa I Statf Kava bean racaivad (enter an £) or alrtady appliad for (onitr an from f\ DNR^ AhMY CORPS OF EwcaSRS COWTYPERTTowN/Crry /\ Waurstcd District ___MN Pouutkh control Acehcy Hat an archaeological survey of tha project site baan dor>s7 if so, by whom; * hartby notify tha raciplanta of this form of tha project proposed herein and raquaat that I ba advlaad of any parmha or othar datarminatlQno ccooeming this projact that I moot obtain. I undareiand that procaading whh work bafora al ra<^jlrad authortietlooa are oblainad may a4^ct ma to FadariJ. Suu. and/or local admlnktrativa. cfvfl ar>d;or cHmlr\al partahiaa. X ic DATE: / / ^ Signature of l^k^on Propoaing Ptoiact or Agent <<< PLEASE CAREFULLY READ AND COMPLETE BACK Of FORM >> > (Revised 10/93) tNSTRUCTIONS-PLEASE READ CARgFlIl 1 V A copy of this form, whh copies of all plans, drawings, etc., should be sent to each agency indicated below. Please check the appropriate spaces below to show everywhere you are sending tWa fonii. Bemembtr to keep a copy for your records, __^ Local Govbinment UNrr (LGU): city, county, or watershed maiugernent organization. I r r\ I I Spedfy the LGU to which you are sending the form: U o L% C rccK L)^ vers o P«* s ^c-'Or X Spedfy the county SV^CD:_____H e c piV X The local Son. and Water C onsef ^tion Dbtwct (SWCO) for the project. X W ATBtsHED District Of one exists for the prdect area). i Spedfy the Watershed District: U a. Cree fc. -P. Minnesota Department of N atural Resoubces (MDNR) regional office U.S. Army C orps of ENONEBts (ACOE). Send the ACOE copy to: Departmertt of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 N oJ£; The above agendu may provide a copy of your completed form to the Minnesota Pollution Corrtrol Agency (MPCA). MPCA water quality rules may apply to your proposed project. A11 tNTIQN _lFROM V$DA): Any activity Induding drainage, dredging, filling, leveling or other manipulations. Induding maintenance, may affect a landuser'e engibnrty for USDA benefits under the 1985 Food Security Act as amended. Check with your local USDA office to request and complete Form AD-1026 prior to Initiating activity. IMPORTANT: Some agendes, induding the Corps of Engineers and the MDNR accept this form as a permit application form. H you wish this form to constitute an application to the Corps and/or MDNR for any necessary permits for your project please carefully read the following information and sign where indicated. xiiiximixxxiixxxniinmixxixxxixixxixxixxxixxiixiinxxxxxm Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am famfliar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities or I am acting as the duly apprized agent of ^ applicant. >; V/ ^^7^4 / ^ Sigr^^^e ^f Appiicam Signature of Agent Date Najfi: The application must be sigr>ed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (appiicam) or H may be signed by a duly authorized agem if the information requested below is provided. Agem's Name and title: Agent's address: Agem's telephone: ( 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, achama, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitiouo or f.'oudulant etatomente or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to conuin any false, fictitious, or fraudulent autament or entry, ahell be fir>ed not more than 110,000 or imprisored not more than five yaara, or both. SEE ATTACHMENT ABOUT MDNR PERMIT FEES Ih> '-i r\ RUN DATE 10/09/96 BATCH 001PROP AODR 0»tlER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 02-117>23 IS 0003 01050 EDGENOOO HILLS RO VARTKES H EHRAHJIAN VARTKES H EHRAHJIAN 1050 EDGENOOO HILL RD NAYZATA HN 55391 HEfMEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OltCRS LIST38 02-117-23 IS 0007 00038 AOORl*.'; PEMOING IHILL COUNIRY CLUB IHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 HOOOHXLL RO NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PX435401 PAGE 138 02-117-23 16 000100965 EDGENOOO HILLS RO T A A C A rusiCK THOMAS CUSICK 965 E06EHOOO HILLS RO NAYZATA m 55391 I. PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR 38 02-117-23 31 0002 01230 DICKENSON ST EDKARD H HAMM TRUSTEE EDHARD K HAMM 408 ST PETER ST 8440 ST PAUL MN 55102 38 02-117-23 31 0003 00480 RUSSELL AVE JOSEPHINE B CARPENTER JOSEPHINE B CARPENTER BOX 659 1480 RUSSELL AVE) NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0006 00550 ORONO ORCHARD RO S LANRENCE E NELSON LAHRENCE E NELSON 550 ORONO ORCHARD RD S NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR (MIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 02-117-23 31 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ROGER J HANKINSON ROGER J HANKINSON 570 ORONO ORCHARD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROGER J HANKINSON ROGER J HANKINSON 570 ORONO ORCHARD RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0009 01360 FOX ST HERBERT 0 MEYER HERBERT 0 MEYER BOX 12 NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR (RtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0010 01390 FOX ST EDNARO H HAm TRUSTEE EDHARD H HATtl 408 ST PETER ST 8440 ST PAUL MN 55102 38 02-117-23 31 0014 00521 HANLON AVE RICK S MILLER ET AL ERIC S HELCH 521 HANLON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0015 00537 HANLON AVE R V I M E K0E)04EN ROBERT I MICHEL KOEHNEN 537 HANLON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0016 00565 HANLON AVE HADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA HADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA 565 HANLON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA HADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA 565 HANLON AVE ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0018 01300 SHORELINE OR R E HOHARD A B S HONARD ROBERT A BARBARA HONARO 1300 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 02-117-23 31 01340 FOX ST DARRELL J BRAND ALLAN N LITNIN 1340 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 0019 38 02-117-23 31 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H D MEYER ETAL H D MEYER BOX 12 NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0021 01300 FOX ST DRAPER M A MOLLY B JAFFRAY DRAPER M A HOLLY B JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE NAYZATA m 55391 (i^ RUN DATE 10/09/96BAT€H 001 PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 02-117-25 31 0022 00540 BARRETT AVE 0 H JAFFRAY t H B JAFFRAT DRAPER H JAFFRAY 540* BARRETT AVE HAYZATA HN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 02-117-23 31 0023 00540 BARRETT AVE D H JAFFRAY « M B JAFFRAY DRAPER M JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2 38 02-117-23 31 0027 01255 DICKENSON ST MARION J DETTLOFF MARION J DETTLOFF 1255 DICKENSON ST HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 02-117-23 31 0028 00539 KEENE AVE 0 HARALO ERIKSEN 0 HARALD ERIKSEN 6219 ZEALAND AVE N MPLS m 55428 38 02-117-23 31 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO T A I 6 M FISCHER THEODORE A GERTRUDE FISCHER 2034 COMMERCE BLVO MOUND MN 55364 38 02-117-23 31 0030 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JACK C BURCH JACK C A MARION BURCH 6572 HHITE OAK OR LINO LAKES MN 55038 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER . NAHE/ADDR 50 02-117-23 31 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JACK C A MARION BURCH JACK C A MARION BURCH 6572 HHITE OAK OR LINO LAKES MN 55038 38 02-117-23 31 0032 00038 ADDRESS UTMSSIGNEO T A A G M FISCHER THEODORE A GERTRUDE FISCHER 2034 COMT«RCE BLVD MOUr^O MN 55364 38 02-117-23 51 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARION J DETTLOFF MARION J DETTLOFF 1255 DICKENSON ST HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR OMIER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0034 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO DRAINAGE A CONSERVATION 2-10-89 ST DEED 1171093 38 02-117-23 31 0035 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED T A A G . 1 FISCHER THEODORE A GERTRUDE FISCHER 2034 COMMERCE BLVO MOUND MN 55364 38 02-117-23 31 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO T A A 6 A FISCHER THEODORE A GERTRUDE FISCHER 2034 COMMERCE BLVD MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0037 00530 HANLON AVE HAL THIES BILL A LUCY THIES 530 HANLON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0038 00520 HANLON AVE 6 D A C H TANGEN ROBIN ARNOLD BOOHAINE 520 HANLON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0039 01295 DICKENSON ST R S MILLERyT E STENSO MILLER RICK S MILLER 1295 DICKENSON ST ORONO MN 55391 PROP AODR 0»t4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0040 01205 DICKENSON ST RAN AN0ERS0I4 RICK D A NANCY L ANDERSON 1205 DICKENSON ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 51 0041 00559 RUSSELL AVE J P MCALPIN A M M HCALPIN JOHN P A MICHELLE M MCALPIN 559 RUSSELL AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0042 00568 KEENE AVE HALKER MOTORS INC SEARS IMPORTED AUTOS INC 13500 HAYZATA BLVO Mirt«TOriCA MN 55305 RUN DATE 10/09/96BATCH 001 » PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AODR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR - HEItCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEMPROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 02-117-23 31 0096 00590 BARRETT AVE 0 H JAFFRAY A M B JAFFRAY DRAPER H JAFFRAY 590 BARRETT AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 32 0001 00985 ORONO ORCHARD RD S EOHARD H HAItl TRUSTEE EOHARD H HAm 990 HAm BUILDING ST PAUL Itl 55102 38 02-117-23 33 0010 01910 SMORELl.JE OR A HARRISON 8 X L HARRISON ALFRED A INGRID L HARRISON 1910 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 33 01655 FOX ST KATHLEEN O MACKE KATHLEEN O MACKE 1655 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 0019 38 02-117-23 39 0009 01387 ORONO LA DOUGLAS C HOEN ET AL DOUGLAS A JUDITH HOEN 1387 ORONO U HAYZAU m 55391 39 LA 38 02-117-23 01397 ORONO DANA M HELLS DANA H HELLS 1397 ORONO LA HAYZATA MN 55391 0007 38 02-117-25 31 0097 00950 ORONO ORCHARD RD S EOHARD H HAMM TRUSTEE EOHARD H HAMM 908 ST PETER ST 8990 ST PAUL MN 55102 000138 02-117-23 33 01985 FOX ST L J COE A H E KNUTSON LEAM4 J COE/HARK E KNUTSON 1985 FOX ST HAYZATA 55591 58 02-117-25 33 0011 01901 SHORELINE DR EOHARD H HAMM TRUSTEE EOHARD H HAMM <»A0 HAMM BUILDING ST PAUL »tl 55102 38 02-117-23 39 0002 01225 SHORELINE OR GEDNEY TUTTLE GEONEY TUTTLE 1225 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 39 0005 01389 ORONO LA H H SEE A G S SEE HENRY N A GAIL S SEE 1389 ORONO LA HAYZATA MN 55591 38 02-117-23 59 0008 01399 ORONO LA ELIZABETH H NORTON ELIZABETH H NORTON 9980 DOCKSIDE DR 8209 FORT MYERS FL 35919 #REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 358 02-117-23 31 0098 01225 DICKENSON ST B M YOUNG TRUSTEE H/L EST FAYE LILKE 1225 DICKENSON ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 02-117-23 33 0002 01965 FOX ST K A A C A BIRKELANO ET AL KAARE A CYNTHIA BIRKELANO 1965 FOX ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 33 0012 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY Itl 55323 38 02-117-25 39 0003 01385 ORONO LA J P SPOONER A K B SPOOTCR JOHN SPOONER A KARLA SPOONER 1585 ORONO LA HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 59 0006 01395 ORONO LA NORHEST BK MPLS-NTL ASC TRST NORHEST BANK MN TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55979-0053 38 02-117-23 39 0010 01265 SHORELINE DR L S BUSCH A M A BUSCH LEONARD A MARGARET BUSCH 1265 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 4 RUN DATE 10/09/96BATCH 001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»«4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435^0l PAGE 4 PROP' AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 02-117-23 0011 01325 SHORELINE DR TIMOTHY R OUOOS TIMOTHY R OUOOS 1325 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0012 01355 SHORELINE DR DAM JOHNSON DOUGLAS D JOHNSON 4194 CENTER BOARD LA S E STUART FL 34997-6176 38 02-117-23 34 0013 01305 SHORELINE DR H J POPP ATE POPP HILLIAM J A TERI E POPP 1305 SHORELINE DRIVE HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 34 0016 01385 FOX ST ANOREN J A J DIANN GOETTEN ANOREH J A J DIANN GOETTEN 1385 FOX ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0019 00038 ADDRESS PENDING ANDREH J A DIANN GOETTEN ANOREN J A J DIANN GOETTEN 1385 FOX ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 41 0002 00985 EDGENOOD HILLS RO MARY JEANNE V BCAIEN MARY JEANNE V BOHEN 3301 RUM ROH NAPLES FL 33940 38 02-117-23 41 0003 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 01045 FREDA C FREDA C P 0 BOX NAYZATA EDGENOC KEITH KEITH 246 MN 55591 HILLS RD 38 02-117-23 41 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MCLEOD CNTY REG RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 25 ADAMS ST N HUTCHINSON m 55350 38 02-117-23 42 0001 00538 RUSSELL AVE T H KNUTSON A T L FAZIO TIMOTHY KNUTSON/TRACEY FAZIO 538 RUSSELL AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OlflER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 42 0002 01055 EDGENOOD HILLS RO D ELDREDGE JACKSON III ET AL D E A K K JACKSON III 1055 EDGENOOD HILL RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 00450 NOODHILL DAVID A HILSON DAVID A HILSON 450 NOODHILL RD ORONO MN 55391 0003 RD 38 02-117-23 42 0004 01065 EDGENOOD HILLS ANNE L RITZ ANNE LARSEN SIMONSON 1065 EDGENOOD HILLS RD HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 42 0005 00325 NOODHILL RO J L CONNER A G J PAULUCCI J L CONNER A 0 J PAULUCCI 201 1ST ST H SANFORD FL 32771 38 02-117-23 42 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 42 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS m 55414 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 42 0011 00038 ADDRESS PENDING CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 02-117-23 42 0012 00038 ADDRESS PENDING NOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB NOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 NOODHILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 ■fV*1- ^ ••• •RUN DATE 10/09/96BATCH 001 PROP ADDR OitCR NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OM«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HEftCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 02-117-23 A3 01080 FERNOALE N N SHIE8LER A J NILUAM N/JOA»tlE 360 BEACON ST 82 BOSTON MA 02116 0007 RD H F SHIEBLER F SHIEBLER 38 02-117-23 A3 0025 01185 FERNOALE’RO H HENRY S KINGMAN JR ET AL HENRY A MARILYN KINGMAN JR 1185 M FERNOALE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 23 0001 00601 CO RO NO 15 IHILL CNTRY CLUB IHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 NOOOHILL RO HAYZATA MN 65391 99 01-117-23 31 0010 00A81 PEAVEY LA BRAD H A ESTHER L BOYER BRAD H A ESTHER L BOYER A81 PEAVEY LANE HAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0005 00501 HILLSIDE OR N RICHARD F MCCARTHY A NIFE JOHN A JUDITH FANSLER 162 RI06EVIEN DR NAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 00699 HILLSIDE JAMES A LOOSEN JAMES A LOOSEN 699 HILLSIDE OR H HAYZATA MN 55391 0008 OR H 38 02-117-23 63 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H N SHIEBLER A J F SHIEBLER HILLIAM N/JOANNE F SHIEBLER 360 BEACON ST 82 BOSTON HA 02116 38 02-117-23 63 0026 01165 FERNOALE RD H BRADLEY C BONMAN II BRADLEY C B0I81AN II 1165 FERNOALE RD H HAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 23 0002 00501 CO RD NO 15 HOODHIL CNTRY CLUB HOOOHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 HOOOHILL RO HAYZATA MINN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0001 00601 CO RO NO 15 HOOOHILL CNTRY CLUB NOOOHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 NOOOHILL RO NAYZATA MINN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0006 00601 HILLSIDE OR H J0I81 H A JUDITH C FANSLER JOHN H A JUDITH C FANSLER 162 RIOGEVIEN OR E NAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0016 00688 HILLSIDE OR H FRANK C BLODGETT FRANK C BLODGETT 688 HILLSIDE DR H HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI635601 PACE 5 38 02-117-23 63 0015 01205 SHORELINE DR DONALD P GAMBLE JR DONALD P GAMBLE JR 1205 SHORELINE DRIVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0015 01620 SHORELINE OR DAB HALPER DAVID N HALPER 1620 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA m 55391 99 01-117-23 31 0009 00670 PEAVEY LA J A J SNIERZENSKI JON A JERIANNE SHIERZEHSKI 670 PEAVEY LA NAYZATA m 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0002 00501 CO RO NO 15 NOOOHILL CNTRY CLUB NOOOHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 NOOOHILL RD NAYZATA HIMI 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0007 00502 CO RO NO 15John h a juoith c fansler JOHN H A JUDITH C FANSLER 162 RIOGEVIEN DR E HAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0018 00500 HILLSIDE DR N J N HINELY JR ET AL JORDAN N HINELY JR 500 HILLSIDE DR H NAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE 10/09/96 BATCH 001 PROP ADOR OI«IER NAME TAXPAYER NAra/ADOR PROP AOOR 0»tCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR CH4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR HEfPJEPIN COtmV PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 99 01-117-2S 32 0019 00480 HILLSIDE DR N R A A B J PITNER ROBERT A BEVERLY J PITNER 480 HILLSIDE OR HAYZATA HN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0022 00450 HILLSIDE OR N T R BURKE A S L GALE T R BURKE A S L GALE 450 HILLSIDE OR N HAYZATA Ml 55391 99 02-117-23 41 0005 00702 CO RO NO 15 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 99 02-117-23 41 0008 00670 HILLSIDE DR H CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH ET AL CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 700 HILLSIDE OR H NAYZATA Ml 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 6 99 01-117-23 32 0020 00700 HILLSIDE DR H CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH ET AL CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 700 HILLSIDE DR N HAYZATA HN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0021 00h20 HILLSIDE OR H PHYLLIS BARTON PHYLLIS B BARTON 400 HILLSIDE DRIVE HAYZATA Ml 55391 99 02-117-23 41 0001 00700 HILLSIDE OR H CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH ET AL CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 700 HILLSIDE OR H NAYZATA HN 55391 99 02-117-23 41 0004 00688 HILLSIDE OR N FRANK C BLODGETT FRANK C BLODGETT 688 HILLSIDE DR H HAYZATA Ml 55391 99 02-117-23 41 0006 00690 HILLSIDE DR H THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 99 02-117-23 41 0007 00700 CO RO NO 15 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 TOTAL BATCH 001 00100 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMIEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE 1010% I WETLAND CONSER TIONA CT WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN APPLICATION HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 15 (CSAH 15) CP #9222 Applicant.Name; Hennepin Countv Transportation Division Applicant Address phone:Mr. Craig Twinein,HCTD 320 Washington Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343 (612)930-2536 Name and Address/phone of Authorized Agents, Subsidiaries, or Consultants involved with I wetland drainingor filling project: Mr. Joel C. Settles, HCEMD ' I 417 North Fifth Street, Mpis, MN 55401 (612)348-6157 Provide the following information for the Impacted Wetlands : (1 ) a recent aerial photograph or accurate map of the impacted wetland area is attached? Yes (2) the location of tiie wetland; _Hennepin countv. Mississippi River fMetrnI watershed name public land survey and/or UTM coordinatesof approximate wetland center Tl I7N. R23W Sections I and 2__________________________ ’ ' (3) the size of the wetland: see anachod plan acres______square feet; (4) the type of wetland: see attached plan Circular No. 39_______NWI. (5) a list of the dominant vegetation in the impacted wetland area: (for example. 50 percent willow, 20 percent canails, and 30 percent sedge) See attached plan ________________________ (6) (7) (8) (10) (11) (12) a soils map ofthe site is attached? X Yes _____No the size of the surface water drainage into the wetland is N.A. acres. a. ) the locations of any surface inlets or outlets draining into or out ofthe wetlands are noted? X Yes _____No. b. ) is the wetland within the floodplain of a watercourse? ___^Yes X No: if Yes. the distance and direction to the watercourse is see attached plan feet in a__________direction. is a map. photograph, or written description of the land use of the immediate watershed within one mile of the impacted wetland attached? X Yes ______No. Does the description note the presence and location, if any, of wetland preservation regions and areas, wetland development avoidance regions and areas, and wetland deficient regions and areas as identified In the comprehensive water plan? N.A. Yes N.A. No. Is the nature of the proposed project, its areai extent, and the impact on the w etland shown In sufficientdetailon the materials submitted? X Yes______No. Has evidence of ownership or rights to the affected areas by all applicants been demonstrated? .;_____Yes X No. Evidence will be provided prior to construction list all other local, state, and federal permits and approvals required for the activity. . I Work in protected waters permit. MDNR: Section 404 GP U26. USAGE: Erosion and sediment control and stormwater perm its form the MCWD____________________ (13) attach other necessary information. Provide the following information for the Replacement Wetland Site: Will replacement be accomplished via wetland banking YES NO (if YES, only complete items 2. 3 andSj See attached replacement plan Timetable; project will begin on 7 / S f 91 (Mo/Dav/Yr) and be completed by 11/30 / 98 (Mo/Dav/YrV size see attached plan acres and type see attacned plan Circular 39. see anached plan NWT of wetland that will result from successful completion of the replacement/'bankingplan; the location of the replacement wetland: Hennepin county. Mississippi River (Metrol watershed (name) and public land survey and/or UTM coordinates of approximate wetland center: See anached plan (5) (6) (7) a recent aerial photograph or accurate map of the replacement site is attached? X Yes No ____Noa soils map of the replacement site is attached? X Yes the size surface water drainage into the replacement wetland is N.A. acres, a.) the locations of any surface draining into or out of the w etiands are noted? X Yes___Ino . (8 b.) is the replacement w etland is within the floodplain of a watercourse? X Yes ______No; if Yes. the distance and direction to the feet in a direction. See attached plan.watercourse is (9) (10) Has evidence of ownership or rights to the replacement site by the applicant(s) been demonstrated?_____Yes X No. Evidence will be provided prior to construction (11) attach scale drawings showing plan and profile views of the replacement wetland and fi.xed photo-referencepoints for monitoring purposes. describe how the replacement wetland shall be constructed, for example, excavation or restoration by bloc king an existing tile; the tv pc, size, and specificationsof outlet structures; elevations, relative to .Mean Sea Level or established bench mark, of key features, for example, sill, emergency overflow . and structure height; and best management practices that will be implemented to prevent erosion or site degradation; for created wetlands oniv. list additional soils information sufficient to determine the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics See attached plan (12) (13) (14) Has a monitoring plan has been dev eloped and attached? X Yes attach other necessarv information. Swam Statements; No warn statements; / '■ confirms by signature below that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) the replacement wetland was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan; a ND, the replacement wetland was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous ten years; .AND, the replacement wetland was not restored with financial assistance from public conservation program; AND, the replacement wetland was not restored using private funds other than those of the landowner unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. 1 (15) Has proof of replacement wetland recording notice been submitted to LGU? _____Yes X No Recording notice will be provided. Special Considerations To the best of the applicant's knowledge, are any of the following factors applicable at the Impact or replacement site? Note whether present or not by indicating as follows; Impact Site (I), Replacement site (R), Both(B), Neither (N). (1) (2) (3) federal or state-listed endangered species _ rare natural communities____Yes__N Yes special fish and wildlife resources including: (a) fish passage and spawning areas ____Yes N (b) colonial waterbird nesting colonies Yes N (c) (d) (e) n. igratory waterfowl concentration areas ___ deer wintering areas ____Yes N No Yes No _No N No (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) wildlife travel corridors archaeological or historic sites ground water sensitive areas Yes Yes No No Yes sensitive surface waters (e.g. DNR designated trout waters) educational or research sites____Yes N No waste disposal sites Yes__^N__No Yes N No is the project consistent with local plans (e.g. watershed management plans, land use plans, zoning and master plans.)_B__ Yes_____No Rep ement^^uranc^ ^_____________________________________________________ I.) the wetlaiWvill be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland OR; 2.) confirms by signature below that; an irrevocable bank letterofereditor other security acceptable to the local government unit to guarantee the successful completion of the wetland value replacement has been provided. Signature I hereby affirm that the information above is correct and truthful to the best of my knowledge. (witnessA-GUOfficial signature)(Date) HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY IS (CSAH 15) RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (CP #9222) WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION Applicant: Hennepin County Transportation Division, Department of Public Works Project Location: Cities of Orono and Wayzata, Minnesota Date: November 5,1996 CONTENTS LocakState-Federal Project Notification Form Application Form - Wetland Replacement Plan Project Narrative Wetland Delineation Report Wetland Replacement Plan Appendices LIST OF FIGURES Title Project Location Map Wetland Location Map National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands Map Hennepin County Soil Survey Map USGS Topographic Map Aerial Photograph of Project Area Wetland Delineations Welland Impacts Wetland Replacement Sites PERMITS REQUESTED Figure Number 1 2 3 4 5-8 Plan Sheet Number 1 2 3-8 9-14 15-lS Work In Protected Waters. Permit from the MN Dept, of Natural Resources (MDNR) Wetland Conservation Act; Replacement Plan Approval Horn the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) ^ Section 404: Nationwide Permit No. 26 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) APPLICANT Hennepin County Transportation Division Mr. Craig Twinem 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 (612)930-2536 AGENT Hennepin County Environmental Management Division Mr. Joel Settles 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401-1397 (612)348-6157 PROJECT NARRATIVE PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed project is to improve public safety by the addition of turn lanes and paved shoulders in accordance with current design and safety standards. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will reconstruct a segment of CSAH 15 located in the Cities of Orono and Wayzata. The segment to be reconstructed is approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers) long and extends from 660 feet (200 meters) southwest of Orono Orchard Road to the easterly intersection of Hillside Drive. The roadway will generally follow the existing alignment but some minor shifts of alignment will occur. Wetlands adjacent to the project w ill be impacted and will require mitigation and replacement consistent with the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The typical section is a suburban section from the western terminus to 295 feet (90 meters) east of Femdale Road and a rural section from 295 feet (90 meters) east of Ferndale Road to the eastern terminus. Both typical sections consist of one 12 foot (3.6 meter) lane in each direction with 8 foot (2.4 meter) paved shoulders. A 14 foot (4.2 meter), center, two-way left turn lane will be constructed between Orono Orchard Road and Woodhill Road (approximately 2165 feet; 660 meters). Right turn lanes (12 foot; 3.6 meter) will be provided at all seven of the intersecting roadways (Orono Orchard Road. Orono Lane, Femdale Road, Russell Avenue, Woodhill Road and the west and east intersections of Hillside Drive. The proposed profile would generally follow the existing profile west of Femdale Marsh and would be rai.'-ed approximately 1.6 feet (0.5 meters) from the west edge of Femdale Marsh lo the east intersectionof Hillside Drive. This project is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1997 and be completed by the fall of 1998. During construction, roadway usage to access driveways of local residents will be maintained. Roadwav users traveline through the area will be detoured. WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY • Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetland Delineation Manual. W'etland boundaries that were within 200 feet of the proposed construction limits were delineated, staked and surveyed. Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on Jure 10, 1996. Wetland stakes were surveyed by a Hennepin County Survey crew on August 21 and 26, 1996. Wetland classifications are based on the United States Fish and W’ildlife Service (USFWS) publications Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (Circular 39). Soil colors are described in accordance with MunsellSoil Color Charts (1992 Revised Edition). WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS Seventeen wetlands (Plan Sheet 2) were delineated along CSAH 15 from 660 feet (200 meters) southwest of Orono Orchard Road to the easterly intersection of Hillside Drive in the Cities of Orono and Wayzata (T117N. R23W. Sections 1 and 2). The data forms for these delineations are attached to this report (Appendix A). The National Wetland Inventory and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Protected Waters and Wetland Inventory for the oroiect area are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The Hennepin County Soil Survey and USGS topographic mao shown in Figures 3 and 4. Aerial photographs of the project area (Figures 5- Wetland^l rWIJ^ WLI is a 10.1 acre type 3 (PEMC) MDNR protected wetland (#27-855). The wetland is located on the west side of CSAH 15 at the western end of the proposed project (Plan Sheet 3). WLI is dominated by cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of the slopes of the existing road and driveway fill. Soils in the area have been disturbed. Soil color in the first honzon (0-8 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >8 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redo.ximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hvdrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland #2/WL2) WL2 is a 0.1 acre type 3 (PEMC) wetland located on the east side of Orono Orchard Road and north of the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheet 3). WL2 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). The northern wetland fringe is dominated by bo.\elder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Soils are described as Hamel loam (lOYR 3/1). Redo.ximorphic features were not observed m the wetland fringe (0-15 inches). Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland #3 /WL3) WL3 is a 0.2 acre type 3 (PEMC) wetland (Plan Sheet 3). The wetland is located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks. The dominant vegetation is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLI. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redo.ximorphic features were not obser\’ed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the existing road and railroad fill. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hvdrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland #4 rWI.4’> WL4 is a 3.4 acre type IL (PFOIC) wetland on the south side of CSAH 15 (Plan Sheets 3-4). The vegetation is dominated by boxelder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) black willow (Salix nigra) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica).. Soils have been disturbed. The area has been filled. The first horizon (0-15 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. The wetland fringe is not sharply defined and varies from 20 to 50 feet in width. Wetland#5(WL5) WL5 is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.2 acre wetland located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheet 4). WL5 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundariesare sharply defined by the toes of slopes ofthe existing road and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLl. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland H6 (WL6) W'L6 (Plan Sheets 4-5) is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.5 acre wetland located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks. WL6 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the existing pad and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WL1. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries w'ere established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks Wetland #7 fWL7) WL7 is a 0.7 acre type 3 (PEMC) wetland on the south side of CSAH 15 (Plan Sheets 4-5). The dominant vegetation is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of the slopes of the existing road and driveway fill. Soils in the area have been disturbed. Soil color in the first horizon (0-8 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >8 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland #8 (WL8) W^’L8isa 1.1 acre type lL/3 (PFOIC/PEMC) wetland on the south side of CSAH 15 (Plan Sheet 5). The vegetation is dominated by bo.xelder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and black willow (Salix nigra) in the type IL fringe. The dominant vegetation in the type 3 portion of the wetland is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Soils in the area have been disturbed Soil color in the first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland U9 (WL9) W'L9 is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.1 acre wetland located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheet 5). W’L9 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the existing road and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLI. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. W^etland^lOfW'LlO) W^LIO is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.1 acre wetland located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheet 5). WLIO is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). W'etland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the existing road and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to W'Ll. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redo.ximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland ^IKWL in WLl 1 is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.2 acre wetland located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheet 5). WLl 1 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)and cattail (Typhasp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the e.xistingroad and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLl. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland #12 (WLl2) WLl2 (Plan Sheets 5-6) is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.4 acre wetland on the south side of CSAH 15. The wetland fringe is dominated by boxelder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus permsylvanica) and willow (Salix sp.). Soils in the area have been disturbed. Soil color in the first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland#13 (WLl3) WLl3 is part of a MDNR regulated, type 3 (PEMC) wetland (#27-852) named Femdale Marsh. WL13 is located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheets 6-8). WL13 is connected by a culvert under CSAH 15 to the main body of Femdale Marsh (WLl4). WXB is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the existing road and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLl. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland #14 (WL141 WLl4 is part of a MDNR regulated, type 3 (PEMC) wetland (#27-852) named Femdale Marsh. WLl 4 is located on the south side of CSAH 15 (Plan Sheets 6-8). WLl 4 is dominated by cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toe of slope of the existing road fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLl. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (1OYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland#15 (WLl51 WL 15 is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.2 acre wetland located between CSAH 15 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheet 8). WLl5 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the existing road and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLl. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland ^16 rWL 16^ WL16 is a 7.3 acre, MDNR regulated, type 3 (PEMC) wetland (#27-851). WL16 is located on the south side of CSAH 15 (Plan Sheets 8). WL16 is dominated by cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toe of slope of the existing road fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WXl. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. Wetland #17 fWL17f WL1 7 is a type 3 (PEMC) 0.1 acre wetland located between CSAH 1 5 and the Dakota Rail railroad tracks (Plan Sheet 8). \\1.17 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and cattail (Typha sp.). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toes of slopes of the existing road and railroad fill. Soils in the wetland fringe are similar to WLl. The first horizon (0-6 inches) is described as lOYR 3/1. The second horizon ( >6 inches) is coarse sandy road fill (lOYR 7/6). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established based primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators such as water marks. WETLAND REPL.ACE.ME.NT PLAN SEQUENCING The County has minimized wetland impacts by staying in the existing right of way whenever possible. The County also avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands by steepening slopes and pulling back the construction limits. The revised design calls for 2.3 acres of permanent wetland impact. The County shifted the alignment north, away from WL14 (Femdale Marsh). The shift in alignment will minimize impacts to the main body of Femdale .Marsh but does not reduce the total wetland impact. The area north of the existing road (WLl3) at this location is also part of the Femdale Marsh but is considered to have less value than the main body of the wetland. The County ’s ability to avoid wetland impacts when additional turn lanes ' ladway shifts are necessar>\ is restricted due to safety requirements for road alignment.*;'' '^s. ". WETLAND IMPACTS Wetland impacts are shown on Plan Sheets 9-14. Tai individual wetland. Fourteen of the seventeen wetlane project. Seven of these fourteen wetlands have less thar. are in the Mississippi River Metro watershed (watersh^. wetlands. A total of 2.3 acres of existing wetland will be j. of this project. This project qualifies for Nationwide Gene, the total impact is less than 3 acres. Four delineated wetlan. ets for each ♦ed by the wetlands as flood plain -a (filled) as a result irom the USACE since .. WL13-14, and WL16)are also regulated by the MDNR. Total impact to these wetlands i. ..2 acres. The remaining wetlands are also regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Total impaot to these wetlands is 1.1 acres. WETLAND REPLACEMENT The proposed wetland replacement plan (Plan Sheets 15-18) calls for the creation of 1.3 acres of new wetland credits (NWC) to replace the 1.2 acres of impact to MDNR protected wetlands. Wetland replacement area #1 (WRAl) will be 0.8 acres of type 3 (PEMC), flood plain wetland in the Painter Creek subwatershed (Mississippi River Metro, watershed #20). WRA2 is will be 0.5 acres of type 3 (PEMC). flood plain wetland in the Painter Creek subwatershed (Mississippi River Metro, watershed #20). Table 3 summarizes the proposed new wetland replacement credits. In addition, final design for this road project will include mitigation for flood plain impacts. The County will investigate the identified flood plain mitigation areas as potential w'etland creation areas. If feasible, these areas could function as both flood plain and wetland mitigation area;. The l.l acres of impact to WCA protected wetlands will be certified for replacement by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (B WSR) as provided in Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subp. 5F. The Hennepin County Transportation Division, Department of Public Works, will comply with the requirements of Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subp. 5D and submit a report to the B WSR that includes the 1.1 acres of permanent wetland impacts described in this report. Wetland replacement areas will be graded to blend in with existing topography and will feature natural shapes and gradual slopes to help insure a functional wetland edge. All exposed wetland and mitigation areas above the ordinary high water mark will be reseeded using a wet meadow seed mix (Table 2) or a seed mix equivalent to the Minnesota Department of Transponation's wet forb mix to restore wetland vegetation. At least 25 rooted trees and 50 rooted shrubs will be planted in and around the wetland replacement areas. These plantings will be water tolerant native species or other suitable, desirable woody species or hybrids adapted to this region, such as black ash (Fraxinus nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), black willow (Salix nigra), sandbar willow (Salix exit ua\ northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), red osier dogwood (Comus stolonifera), silky dogwood (Comus amomum), high-bush cranberry (Viburnum trilobum) and elderberrv' (Sambucus canadensis). MONITORING PLAN The replacement wetlands will be monitored in accordance with USAGE permit and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements (Minnesota Rules 8420.0600-0620). An annual report as specified in Minnesota Rules 8420.0620 will be submitted to the local governmental unit, MDNR and the USAGE. The purpose of the annual report is to summarize the results of the replacement wetland monitoring. Monitoring will continue for five years following the completion of the replacement project, or until a technical evaluation panel deems the replacement wetland to be fully functional. The aruiual report will include: a description of the project location, size, current wetland type and the desired wetland type; hydrology measurements; a list of dominant vegetation; color photographs of the project area taken from the fixed photo-reference points identified in this plan; and in'the first report, a comparison of the as-built conditions to the approved design. TABLE 1 Wetland Wetland Type Wetland Impact Type Jurisdiction Number Impact (acres) WLl 3; PEMC 0.12 3; PEMC USACE; MDNR WL2 3; PEMC 0.00 N.A.USACE; WCA WL3 3; PEMC 0.18 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WL4 1L;PF01C 0.00 N.A.USACE; WCA WL5 3; PEMC 0.13 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WL6 3; PEMC 0.31 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WL7 3; PEMC 0.02 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WL8 1L/3;PF01C/PEMC 0.05 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WL9 3; PEMC 0.07 3; PEMC USACE; WPA WLIO 3; PEMC 0.07 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WLll 3; PEMC 0.14 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WL12 3; PEMC 0.00 N A.USACE; WCA WL13 3; PEMC 1.09 3; PEMC USACE; MDNR WL14 3; PEMC 0.00 3; PEMC USACE; MDNR WL15 3; PEMC 0.04 3; PEMC USACE; WCA WL16 3; PEMC 0.01 3; PEMC USACE; MDNR WL17 3; PEMC 0.04 3; PEMC USACE; WCA TOTAL 2.27 TABLE 2 WET MEADOW SEED MDCTURE Common Name (Species)Seeding Rate (pounds/acre) Wild millet (Echinochloa crusgalli) Annual rye (Lolium multiflorum) Perennial rye (Lolium pererine) Alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum) Native Seed Mix (see below) 5.0 5.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 37.0 Native Seed Mix -Incorporate As Many species As Possible (Minimum of 2 Grasses/Sedges and 4 Forbs Grasses and Sedges: Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) Prairie cord-grass (Spartina pectinata)* Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) Switch grass (Panicum virgatum)^ Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens) Fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) Forbs: Swav;ip milkweed (Asclepias incarnaia) Angelica (Angelica atropurpuiea) Blue ven-ir. (Verbena hastata) New England aster (Aster novae-angliae) Marsh aster (Aster simplex) Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculamm) Numerous other locally native species - consult nursery staff and tailor selection to site specifics ‘ Planting rhizomes is preferable to seeding because some seed stocks have very low germination rates * Use only locally - collected seed TABLE3 Wetland Replacement Area # WRA-1 WRA-2 TOTAL Size (acres) 0.78 0.49 1.27 Wetland Type 3; PEMC 3; PEMC ◄ s m(/>cr» I mm 5D :omo o m CA m j -H O ■ 33 m m o c 03 CA -< t f CO o 33 o m CO 2 • *'pr ► m ^ 12• nom ro -xl oo o < >• cn I -D 33o CO□cmm mo LD CO r>o • ^o J> ro CJ1 ro Io m m sm S o O O a r* m m o m <m m S O 03 c — n CD i 33 —-4 2OC i/3 2^0 •0 ><m o 3J -•m v» Jfc •H c om 31 *n H •o ► O > o < m cA R 2 om 2 O (]« •H O s m tA CA s o s r- o K ms^ s ^ CD CA -< O CO 5> o ZD -D O o 50m CJl I mm CO -D cn ro I \ - \Ej II I I i 33 Om r- E ? < 9m . 9» 39 31fH rns s ^ § 3}m z cO 09 X O C9 S ? S TJ 3> ► C < m m -I o C ^ 5 2 Sco ^ U% O 3 m LO 3 -H "n mo 30mo o > •Hm r- o oR ^ ? ^ 5? S m S 03 2 CD i/> -< oo cn —« :d o ■D %A > < ►m R -z ro O no r- >• o in rnm >• m ^ 12 • ^ fo o o T-<no ui 30 mo 3r • iO00 ro • N> y> rsj “D oi ro I ai o m r-|s 3D m 2 ^ O 09 X *0 3D ► m < mm z 5 3 r- ni n fnIII•• r> 09 ^ -i O m z ^3 ^ fS» -4 Z O co -< i/t o 3 VI > -I < ► m • }H - 5 i Mo s s r*no tfM I I m CD rn §•• 11 omo z1 i •D9i/1 i/1 •A 8 JVtti ? ? o ► Pio ~i om -< 9 lA > u> i OBo 3 m tA iA s m o mso o s50 m m o 00 - Oo m CO z• >• m ^ IS • *5^ CO -Hro o ro o nJ o o “D cn -< I— -o U1 33o C-mo u>CO f\> • fN>ro T3 cn r\> 3 m iAu> zmm om mo G9 -< 9Dmo o 5m r- o ms s m S CO S oiCO -< s —4r— 5> Z O -n ooo "D o 3> o CO -Hm o in -fc 3C cn C! m HD CO ^ >>. o “O S• rs> •< ^1 ^ iscn I m Ja o cn -H u>roro N> no o -dfc CO cnro I________ o 5> m 33m-n m 3) 33mo 5>CO m 33 o m o \ \ ' 'x- r- ?■ VJ (T To T- ^ C IV t'* t I V ®i . vj ilii > T* , v" J " ^*W*'\mmmptef';SL ..: •■. cci';• ■ ^ i:-?'■ v^r ‘> ■ ■; "i ®siif-•;<!»'.'.iv^'s iiSlPvl r •.’.•• • •-— . ♦ . • :Y-^ ^^■'r'V<’-‘i * -s -\;.;.4 ••.V’ ' Ar-.v-i . ' , M^0M- ^P •' ^ t **f - K *"*. C *-'^ -^* r ' ❖‘;y‘.i/: v^.v •.; ‘-i s;:vvV>;^:; . • • -• :•• ••■r' wmiMMSbrnMU :•• ’^.7 ■-. V’^' 'vy^C-. "■•*■. •■^.•‘‘■*>‘•* ,/'%Av*,’'^(-‘V* * j’’ **■ ■ • *' .VtVv*'Vi ; V >• ’ •■V'.; y- > '?-'l;;::.S';-. •* • V:i. ^.y. :■"«' >*T. ■. ; .:', V, ,w •• • '• -‘ >‘s:;;. •..'v' »: >;V‘- •" f- %V' • •«»-^ *r-^> V • . *vr-^ PEMC «■ 7: )>: . '^. d€M .. ^ PnlTV^ il(v ?:^v ,n)6< IftF *.3or*^ rpE-Mc • ^ •*m •» * -« PEMQd f^BFd ^ PEMfi - ■I • u f • ./« «; .♦ T. fue>6 •% ^ >PF©! Pue>&-j^Wc % ♦> PEM.C ‘T » •peMF i)i*i 4Cc( ^ -. « P£MF :> t li >. .1-. « *N py P6MF PU6 .PEMp. pro^ ivq/J Mfc ^fEMC V 'i’ipuep ^ > >' MCd .1 / • /% peMF . %l2U6Gi ><w \ ■h t • R2U&i;4 K‘J LIUBH Ta n a a t- / ,t PFOIC P£MC • >• • • •,tjMf-A \-“N * j t */V^ T*"- ••/ 7 o i(i •»• • •> I ' «r /. -7 /[>• C*' . •<*// " peMt'r,; \ PEMF, Lookot't Poinv u CITY OF ORONO - 1997 WETLAND INVENTORY 1974 SWMP Circular 02-11-A 02-11-B (Note 1) 02-lI-C 02-12-A 02-12-B (Note 2) 02-13-A 02-21-A (Note 2) 02-21 B 02-21-C 02-21-D 02-22-A 02-22-B 02-22-C 02-23-A 02-24-A 02-24-B 02-24-C 02-31-A 02-31-B 02-31-C 02-32-A 02-33-A 02-33-B 02-33-C 02-33-D 02-33-E 02-34-A 02-34-B 02-34-C 02-34-D 02-41-A 02-41-B 02-42-A 02-42-B 02-42-C 02-42-D 02-42-E 02-43-A 02-43-B 02-44-A 02-44-B 02-44-C BB-3 BB-2 BB-3 TL-6 TL-6 BB-3 TL-6 TL-6 TL-6 TL-2 TL-7 TL-7 TL-11 TL-4 TL-5 TL-5 BB-7 BB-7 BB-8 BB-8 BB-10 BB-10 BB-10 BB-10 BB-10 BB-10 BB-8 BB-9 BB-9 BB-9 BB-4 BB-6 BB-5 BB-5 BB-6 BB-6 BB-9 BB-6 BB-6 BB-6 BB-6 BB-6 03-11-A 03-11-B 03-12-A 03-13-A 03-13-B 03-13-C 03-13-D TL-10 TL-11 TL-11 TL-16 TL-16 TL-10 TL-16 2 PEMF 2 PEMF -PFOIC 6 PSSIC/PEMF 2 PEMCPSSIC W PUBG 2 PEMC/PSSIC 2 PEMC W PUBF 2 PEMC/PSSIC W PUBF w PUBF 2 PFOlCd 3 PEMC/PEMF 2 PEMC PEMC -PFOIB 2 PEMC/PUBG 3 PEMC 3 - 3 PEMF 3 PEMF 3 PEMF 3 PEMC/PSSIC m PFOIC 3 - 4 PEMC 4 PEMF 2?PFOIC 7 PEMF 4 PEMF 3 PEMF 3 PEMC/PEMF 4 PEMF 3 PUBF 3 PEMF W PUBF 4 PEMF 3AV PUBG 3?PEMC 4 PUBG 4 LU2BGX 6 PEMC/PSSIC 3 PEMCd .PEMC/PUBF 5 PEMC m PEMC -PUBF •PEMC Approx. Soil Tvoe Basin Area - Acres 197Slnv. 1996 Review Normal Elevation DNR Basin U Pa 1.7 3.5 952*857-W Ma 1.2 0.5 963'- Ha -0.2 (D)950'- Pa 4.5 4.5 962'- Ma 1.3 3.5 959'- W 2.6 2.6 960'853-W Ma 2.5 3.0 958'- Ma 2.4 1.5 956'- W m 0.5 957'- Pa 1.7 1.7 955'- Ma 0.2 0.5 946'- W 0.2 0.3 946'- Ma 0.1 1.0 939'- Ma 3.1 2.5 960'856-W Ma 2.2 2.2 956'- Ma -0.1 962'- Ma -2.5 961'- Pm 7.0 1.6 (Note 3)939'- Ma 2.1 2.1 931'- Ma 0.2 0.2 931'- Ma -4.5 932'855-W Ma 1.0 1.2 932'• Ma 2.5 7.0 932'855-W Ma -2.5 931'855-W Ma -0.5 931'855-W Ma 0.2 0.2 931'- Fd 1.0 0.7 931'- Fd 1.0 1.0 931'- Ma 3.5 3.5 932'- Ma 0.9 0.8 929'- Ma 6.9 11.0 931'852-P Ma 1.4 1.4 931'- Ma 4.0 4.0 932'854-W Ma 1.7 1.7 931'854-W Ma 0.3 0.3 931'- Ma 0.3 0.3 930'm W 0.2 0.2 930'- Ma 27.0 27.0 (Note 4) 929'852-P Ma 1.3 1.3 929'852-P Ma 0.3 0.3 930'- Ma 4.0 4.0 929'852-P W 2.0 2.0 929'852-P Ma 13.16.939' Ma 25.2 25.937' W?-1.0 964' •0.5 0.5 960' --0.6 961' W?-0.6 950' .????m 6?V(, C FLOOD PLAIN IMPACT/MITIGATION CSAH 15: COUNTY PROJECT 9222 November 5, 1996 Existing Conditions :>.A~ N ' ,y The existing project area is approximately 1,800 meters (5,900 feet) in length beginning in the City of Orono, 200 meters (660 feet) west of Orono Orchard Road and terminating 100 meters ^30 feet) east of East Hillside Drive in the City of Wayzata. The corridor width is approximately 18 meters (60 feet) extending from the existing right of way on the south side of the roadway to the Dakota Rail tracks on the north side of roadway. The existing roadway has bituminous surfacing with 3.5 meter (12 feet) eastbound and westbound thru lanes with 3 meter (10 feet) right turn lanes at the intersecting roadways. The shoulder^ are gravel and vary in width from approximately 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) to 3 meters (10 feet). The 100-year flood plain elevation in the project vicinity is 283.92 meters (931.50 feet). The adjacent wetlands paralleling the roadway have areas which fall below the flood plain elevation. Proposed Conditions The proposed roadway alignment is shifted 3 meters (10 feet) north of the existing roadway alignment to minimize impacts to the Ferndale Marsh and to accommodate traffic during construction. The proposed roadway typical section consists of a 3.6 meter (12 foot) bituminous thru lane in the eastbound and westbound directions with 2.4 meter (8 foot) bituminous shoulders. This typical roadway section passes through the Ferndale Marsh for approximately 500 meters (1,640 feet). In addition, in order to accommodate safe turning movements, there is a proposed 3.6 meter (12 feet) wide bituminous center two- way left turn lane from Orono Lane to approximately 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) to the east. To minimize the construction limits, concrete curb and gutter is proposed on the south side of the roadway For approximately 920 meters (3,000 feet) from 185 meters (610 feet) west of Orono Lane to 65 meters (215 feet) east of Woodhill Road. The proposed embankment fill areas below the flood plain elevation are the sum of flood plain impact in both the City of Orono and the City of Wayzaii which is approximately 1,438 cubic meters (1.2 acre- ft.). This flood plain impact is partially mitigated on a 1:1 ratio with the creation of ditches paralleling the roadway in the sum of approximately 191 cubic meters (0.16 acre-ft.). Both the flood plain impact and mitigation are graphically represented by a dark shading on the attached cross section sheets. A summary sheet is also included. Additional 1:1 flood plain mitigation will be necessary in the approximate amount of 1,247 cubic meters (1.0 acre-ft.) which will occur within an area in close proximity to the project, however, the exact location has not been identified. When the mitigation site is identified, an updated submittal will be presented for final permit approval. ADDENDUM 1 TO FLOOD PLAIN IMPACT/MITIGATION November 25, 1996 This addendum is a supplement to the flood plain impact/mitigation submittal to the Minnehaha Creek Water Management District, dated November 5, 1996. Since the said submittal, a flood plain mitigation site has been located and is identified as the Ferndale Cutoff. The Ferndale Cutoff is located adjacent to the project corridor and is approximately 250 meters (820 feet) in length. To mitigate the flood plain, the existing roadbed will be excavated to an elevation relative to the wetlands which parallel the roadway, and is approximately 0.4 meters below the 100-year flood elevation of 283.92 meters (931.50 feet). The volume of mitigation is 1300 cubic meters (1.05 acre-feet) utilizing the Ferndale Cutoff, plus the 191 cubic meters (0.16 acre-feet) from the ditches paralleling CSAH 15, for a total of 1441 cubic meters (1.2 acre- feet). In conclusion, the 1438 cubic meters (1.2 acre-feet) of flood plain impact will be fully mitigated with a 1:1 ratio. Attached is a plan sheet, cross sections and a rovi-sed title shoot. nimpict 0:V^5.raSRWETlAN0S\f lCOO< WK4 Floodplain Impact St» »>&50 • »>740 StKIoo i Af» (m2) » Votum* (m3) 9650 1 0 000 1 i r 9660'0 307 4 :o5 j 9670 1 201 _ 1 523 '13 620r' 96901 1 S87 1 17 050 97001 1 713 13 :cc 97101 1 261 1 14 B"0' 9720 ‘0 277 1 7 690 = 9730:0 155;2 160 . 9740'0000 1 0 775 ' ! j ] Total 1 !If 24 Floodplain Mrtigation Sta9«>9i0*9^990 1 Station t Area (m2)1 Volume (m3) j 9910 1 0 0001 1 9920 0 750 ' 3 75C, 9930 0636 6 930' 9940 0 245 4 4C5 ' 9950 0 370 3 075 9960 0 266 3 18C 9970 0 185 2 255 ’ 9960 0 094 1 395 9990 OOOO 0 470 t ■Total 25 48 Flood Plain Calculation Summary Total Floodplain Impact ■ S?a 9^840.10*360 ! Station Area fm2) T Volume (m3) t 1 1 9640 OOX 9850 1 639 8 195 986C,6 :u 39 535 9670 7 434 68 510 9680 7 369 74 015 9690 5 474 64 215 1 9900'5 447 !54 605 t 9910-2 785 *41 1MI 9920 0X7 14 360 1 , 9930*0 X7 0 770 9940 0 021 0 440 1 9950 0204 1 125' 1 9960'0 406 :3060’ r 9970,0 366 '3 870^ 1 9980'0 511 4 36?j 9990 0 626 5665; 10000 0666 6 560; 10O10 1 «19 9 0251 1X20 5X7 31 930 1XX 5 51 8’5 ; 1X40;4 350 47 2M 1X50'X 445»xx;1 936 ‘18 375 1X701 1 4f2|17090 10060 •• 1 15 840l 10C90;1 335 ,15 101X 1 7CX3|15 IX iQt io;OOX 1 8515 101X*1 3X'6 625 loix;0 956 -11 606 10140 0 885 9 405 1 i"oi5C C 972 8 785 I 101X 2 X9 14 805 ( 10170.2 424;22 565 1 loieo 2 872 ,26 4Xj , 101X 2 4C2 26 370 1 1 102X 1 321 18615 , 10210 1 597 '14 5X ; 10220 3 26 515 : 10230,3 776 37 410 1C240 3 838 36 070 ■ C2X;3 762 ^36 OX 102X 3 788 37 750 r 10270,3 775 ,37 815 102X 3 789 37 820 1029C 3 851 36 2X 5 1C3X*4006 39 285^ 1 10310.0 597 23 015 1 10320 0 236 4 165 ( 103M 4 129 21 825 • 10340 3 329 37 2X 1C350 2X9 27 OX t:3CC 2X0 10 445 1265 St f 1 Floodplain Mitigation Sia i:*!«. I0*f70 • station Area (m2)Vo'ume (m3) 1 , 1C5X,0 XO j 10570 C 945 4 225 j 1 105X '1 C20 9 3251 . 105x1 1 211 11 155 : icex!1 4C5 13060 1 1X10 1 4X 14 C25 1 1C620 1 147 1 12 735 ^ 1C6M 0 S52 '9X5 ^ 10640 0 591 7 215 1XX'0313 4 5X 1C660;0 114 2 135 1 10670 0X0 0 570 ; Total 88 98 Floodplain Impact j Sla 10*420 •10*4X ' station i Area im21 f Vo»*.m* fm31 1 1 10420 !OOX ' 1 1C4X'0 285'* 425 1044G t 0 276 '2 X5 104X 0 277 j 2 '65 1046C 0 314 1 2 515 10470 ’0205 1 2 5^;:’ 10480 1 0 254J^2 29?; 104X1 0X0 1 127: 1 ! --------- Total r 18 11 Floodplain Mrtigation Floodplain Impact ______Sta i0»5t0 » ii»i30_____ Station j Afta (m2) Voluma (maj tOSJC t0?40 oooc 0563 0894 0 945 Summary 2815 7 285 ;_'':550 1 X8 I 9 968 : 1C560 1 1 197 ! : 10570 1 0 IX 1 8 485 . i:56C 0 8131 4565 1XXI 0 7X BOX 1 106X1 0917 8 580^ , 1X10' 2 157 : 15 370 1XX ; 1 066 1 . 16 125 1XX I 08361 9 5X 1 ^X40! 1C12 9 240 * OSX 9 5M [ *C€60! 0 7871 8 425 1C670 ! 0 605 6 960 ( 106X 1 0 006 3055 1XX ! OOX OOX IOOX OOX ' 10710 0 925 4 625 10720 0220 ^ 5 725 107X 0 7Xl 4 615 f 10740 0956 i 8 295 ; 107X 0 849 > 9 025 I 107M 0 879 8 640 1 10770 ! 1022 9 505 [ 107X 1 OX 10 140 107X 0951 9765 1 108X 1 055 10 030 . 1X10 1 IX ;1 10 805 1C620 1 M7 I1 10 765 1X30 1 144 !10 955 1C640 1 xoi 1 10 9X 10350 so9 535 1C6X| 0 764'8 155 1X70 1 0 899.6 315 10680 * 0 355*6 270 loexi 1 0 446 1 40X ^ 109X 0 316 *3 610 . 1X10 1 0 278 *2970 1WX ! 0219:2465 ; iMXj1 0 327 (2 7X [ 1X401 [ . 0 2M 1 3 IX 1MX 0 2n!2 650 10960 C557|4 170 1X70 0X2*7595 : 1_098Q 0 282'6 2X 109X1 0 840 561C 110X1 1 095 9 675 iioioj 0 322 7065 11020,1 281 6015 11C30 0 923 11 OX 11040^0 497'7 IX 110X;1 252'8 745 rxo:1 878 15 650 11070 1 2011 19 445 11080 2 IX 21 X5 ticxj 1 170 '16 8X inX'1 X7 !11 285 11110*2 317,17020 1 111X;1 X5 f 16 8X * illMi OOX 1 5 275 1 1 Total 1 VTu Station ’Area (m2)Volume (m3)Impacts (m3) 1 Sta 9*650 • 94>74 68 240 107M*OOX i Sta 9*840 * too 1265 590 107X*0 028 0 140 >Sta 10*420 • 10*16 110 106x1 0 124 0 7W Sta 10*510 • 11*67 240 iXiOi 0 IX 1 610 1XX 0 231 2 145 Total 1437 180 108301 0 3X 3 IX 10640 j 0X2 6 7loi Mitigation (m3) 10650!1 3X 3X^Sta 9*910-9*99 25 460 ixxi 1 1M 12 5X;Sta 10*560 .10*63 980 1X701 0956 10 7xj Sta 10*700 • 10*76 560 1X6O!08X 8 760! 1XX'0 635 7 1751 Total (m3)191 000 109X1 0 4X 5 670* IM1O'0 263 3810;Net Loss (m3)1216 180 IWX*0 076 1 1 695^ 1XX*OOX 0X0. 1 Total j 78 s«: 11A5/96 11 26/M exM . -P Purpose: SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO STORMWATER RUNOFF PERMIT APPLICATION CSAH 15; COUNTY PROJECT 9222, ' ff ■" 'November 5, To supplement the standard permit application which is required by the Wetland Conservation Act, Rule B, "Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans for Individual Projects". \ - '.’3 *•*- V- -• } Existing Conditions The existing project area is approximately 1,800 meters (5,900 feet) in length beginning in the City of Orono, 200 meters (660 feet) west 'f Orono Orchard Road and terminating 100 meters (330 feet) east of East Hillside Drive in the City of Wayzata. The corridor width is approximately 18 meters (60 feet) extending from the existing right of way on the south side of the roadway to the Dakota Rail tracks on the north side of roadway. The existing roadway has bituminous surfacing with 3.6 meter (12 feet) eastbound and westbound thru lanes with 3 meter (10 feet) right turn lanes at the intersecting roadways. The shoulders are gravel and vary in width from approximately 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) to 3 meters (10 feet). The existing impervious surface area is 13,870 square meters (3.4 acres) within the City of Orono and 7,242 square meters (1.8 acres) within the City of Wayzata. Currently the stormwater runoff flows unimpeded from the roadway to the adjacent ditches and wetlands. The roadside conditions vary from areas of water standing in puddles to direct runoff into wetlands and Lake Minnetonka. There are existing culverts connecting wetlands from north of the Dakota Rail line through wetlands between the track and roadway and to wetlands and Lake Minnetonka south of the roadway. These culverts are serving as a means to equalize the water elevation in the wetlands connected to Lake Minnetonka. The only water treatment available on site is natural filtration through the ground cover and wetlands. Proposed Conditions The proposed roadway alignment is shifted 3 meters (10 feet) north of the existing roadway alignment to minimize impacts to the Ferndale Marsh and to accommodate traffic during c^nstr’ction. The roadway typical section consists of a 3.6 meter (12 foot) bituminous thru lane in the eastbound and westbound directions with 2.4 meter (8 foot) bituminous shoulders. This typical roadway section passes through the Ferndale Marsh for approximately 500 meters (1,640 feet). There is a bituminous cente two-way left turn lane from Orono Lane to approximately 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) to the east. To minimize the construction limits, concrete curb and gutter is proposed on the south side of the roadway for approximately 920 meters (3,000 feet) from 185 meters (610 feet) west of Orono Lane to 65 meters (215 feet) east of Woodhill Road. The proposed impervious surface area is 21,500 square (5.3 acres) within the City of Orono and 7,115 square meters (1.8 acres) within the City of Wayzata. The City of Orono will have an increase of impervious surface area of 7,720 square meters (1.9 acres) while the City of Wayzata’s will remain unchanged. The stormwater runoff is proposed to be directed to standard catch basins in the concrete curbed areas which will outlet to the area between the railroad track and roadway or into sodded ditches. The four catch basins at the beginning of the project and the catch basin located across from the Woodhill Road entrance outlet directly into wetlands. A 0.3 meter (1 foot) deep by 1.3 meter (4 foot) sodded ditch parallels the Ferndale Marsh on the south side of the roadway. The sodded ditch will provide an area for natural treatment before discharge into the Ferndale Marsh. Conclusions A detention basin to treat stormwater runoff is not being proposed for this project. The calculated surface area of a wet detention basin using the proposed impervious surface areas as the area of flow contribution with a 50 millimeter (2 inch) rainfall event is approximately 0.25 hectare (0.6 acre) with a 1200 millimeter (4 feet) depth. The project corridor doesn’t accommodate a detention basin for the following reasons: 1) Lake Minnetonka and the connecting wetlands have a normal high water elevation of 283.28 meters (929.40 feet) which is approximately 1.0 meters (3 feet) below the proposed roadway surface, 2) the topography of the project corridor is basically flat which prevents runoff from being conveyed in a storm sewer system for the length necessary to discharge to a detention basin, 3) the site location is not conducive to constructing a detention basin within the corridor because of the wetlands bordering the roadway. The proposed conditions summarized above are graphically represented on the attached plan set. Because of the above limitations it is not practical or effective to construct a wet detention basin to treat stormwater runoff within the project corridor. However, compliance to Rule B can be met with utilizing Rule B, 3d, which states that stormwater storage requirements be met on a regional basis in lieu of providing a site facility. Hennepin County hereby respectfully requests that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the City of Orono and the City of Wayzata negotiate an agreement for a regional facility. ADDENDUM 1 TO STORMWATER RUNOFF PERMIT APPLICATION November 25, 1996 This addendum is a supplement to the stormwater runcff permit application submittal to Minnehaha Creek Water Management District, dated November 5, 1996. Since the said submittal, three additional items have been aoded: A sump and baffle have been added to three catch basins, CB-2, CB-4, and CB-15. This catch basin modification will reduce suspended solids and roadway oils from entering the wetlands. The 50 millimeter (2 inch) rainfall event has been changed to 62 millimeters (2.5 inch). This additional 12 millimeters (0.5 inch) will allow for sediment loading in the detention basin. The calculated dead pond storage requirement for the revised rainfall event is 1826 cubic meters (1.48 acre-feet). The tax-assessed value has been calculated by applying the value of each parcel and the permanent right-of-way acquisition to the total project acquisition. Therefore, the tax-assessed value is $6.05 per square meter ($0.56 per square foot). I I np«r«p NAM&:O:101S.tt222tOTU8¥:SAHt5 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DESIONEOBYt J. BLOM DATE: aW27/S6 LA8TRCVI8IOH: UtOM CHECKED BY: DATE; DATEPBtNTEO; ItiOm DRAINAGE DESIGN WORKSHEET C8AHNO 15 CO PROJ NO 9222 SAP 27-615-15 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF (0«CIA) 10 YEAR DESIGN; 25 YEAR LOW POINTS AREA NO. C.B.i FROM C.B.f TO AREA (h«) C C X AREA SUM CXAREA 1 1 2 000 00 005 ODO" 2 2 OUTLET 000 08 005 010 3 3 4 015 00 009 019 4 4 OUTLET 004 0.7 003 021 S 5 0 010 00 006 000e0700307002000 7 7 OUTLET 0 01 07 0 01 009 ••OUTLET 010 08 000 000 0 0 OUTLET 000 08 000 000 10 10 OUTLET 014 07 0.10 010 11 11 12 035 05 018 018 12 12 OUTLET Oil 08 009 020 14 14 OUTLET 0.10 0.8 013 013 IS 15 OUTLET 009 00 007 007 10 10 202 003 09 003 003 (1) INCLUDES APRONFTRA8H GUARD Tc (mm) 150 10 0 150 152 150 ^6 5 178 150 150 15 0 150 150 150 150 150 (mm8v) 013 013 012 012 012 012 012 013 012 012 013 013 012 012 012 Q (m3f) 001 0 01 002 003 001 001 001 001 001 001 002 004 002 001 0.01 PIPE design"---------——-------------- USING MANNING S EGlUATlOl4 STRUCTURE II4FORMATION REMARKS slope'DIA PIPE ~ VEL^pipe' "TIME IN TC.INVERT TC INVERT UPCB.LOW C.B STATION. OFFSET (%)(mm)CAP (nVMc;LENGTH PIPE ELEV ElEV *;LEV ELEV.DEPTH DEPTH MISCELLANEOUS ___-(mm)UPCB UPCB .OWCB .OWCB (m) 050 375 020 ~ 02 11 5 10 204 28 283»284i8 283 32 0.9 0.9 050 375 020 09 6 8 (1)01 204 28 283 32 283-29 09 APRON OUTLET 9«0404-12 IM R'^. 050 375 020 11 154 02 284 40 2^.05 204.81 283 57 07 12 050 375 020 11 60 (1)01 28481 2^57 283 54 12 APRON OUTLET 9^715.7-13 9m LT. 050 375 020 02 175 15 204 48 283.55 204.94 283 46 09 14 050 375 020 0-2 14 5 1.3 284 94 283 46 284 50 283 39 14 1.1 050 375 020 09 188 (1)03 284 50 283 39 283 30 1.1 APRON OUTLET 9«845 4-14 3m LT. 050 375 020 09 19 8 (1)04 204.40 28300 283 50 08 APRON OUTLET 9«079.4-11 Om LT. 050 375 020 02 19 8 (1)17 204 72 283-79 283.69 0.9 APRON OUTLET 9^1.5-11 7m LT. 050 375 020 09 ISO (1)04 204 72 28370 28360 1.0 APRON OUTLET 10^129.9-12 2m LT. 050 375 020 1 1 3 00 204 35 28347 284 35 263.46 09 09 050 375 020 13 21 0 (1)03 284 35 283 40 283 35 09 APRON OUTLET 10«2050-12.0m LT. 050 375 020 09 50 (1)01 204 93 283.95 • 28892 09 APRON OUTLET 10«910 0-13 8m RT. 050 375 020 02 10 0 (1)151 204 56 203.00 28860 09 APRON OUTLET lO^SOO 0-12 Om RT. 050 1 300 r Oil 08 47.4 i 10 1 20690 285.71 28004 285 47 12 TEMPORARY/PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL CSAH 15: COUNTY PROJECT 9222 Novmber S, 1996 MPCA CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY PERMIT GENERAL PERMIT; AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE STORM HATER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY UNDER THE NPOES/STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM The National Pollutant Ci!:charge EHnlnation Systetn Permit will govern the methods and materials used for temporary and permanent erosion control. Attached Is a copy of the governing permit, pertinent project specifications, and standard Mn/OOT erosion control details on plan sheets which will be Included In the final plan set. The NPOES permit will be acquired prior to start of construitlon. The general contractor will sign In agreement with the permit requirements and a copy of the permit will be forwarded to the Hatershed District.cSSwTim'Kimir* - INSPECTORS LOO FOR HPCA STORM WATER PERMIT GeneralContractor 's Fai{« I of 21PtroU Mo: MM RIOOOOOCopygeneral permitAUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE STORM WATER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITT UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION system/state DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM In coaplianet vlth the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as aeended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; hereinafter, the "Act"), 40 CFR 122. 123, and 124. as aaended, ec seq.s Minnesota Statutes Chapters 115 and 116. as aaen1«»d, and Minnesota Rules Chapter TOOl: Thie pereit establishes conditions for discharging store water to waters of the state free construction activities which disturb five or eore acres of total land area. This perait DOES NOT authorizes 1) Discharges or releases that are not store water as defined on Page 18 (see "Prohibitions'* on Page 14 of this pereit). 2) The placeeent of fill into waters of the state. Unles^ notified by the Ager^. r *' the contrary, applicants vho subeit a coeplete application fore in accoi.^..«e vith the require*encs of this pereit are authorized to discharge stoce water froe construction sites under the terns and conditions of this pereit hours after the cate ‘he application is postaacked. Coverage under this perait will renain in effect until construction is coeplete, the sice has undergone final stabilization, all aaintenance activities required in Part I.E. have been coepleted. and the Peraittee has subeitted a Notice of Terainatlon, regardless of the belov expiration date. Date of Issuance: Sepcetnber 3< 1993 Debra L. McGovern Manager. Industrial Section Water Quality Division Date of Expiration: Septencer 3. 1993 For Charles W. Villiaes Coeaissloner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency .%SWHfiw<mwn 'OcfMtooai. Pitfi !Se«ow|a If friMflU om ftv^M ««ifiM l9 N io«i>uNir<< Page 2 of 21Perait Noi MN RIOOOOOTable of ConcentsI. REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A) Prerequisites for Subelttlng a Perait Application. . . . . 3B) Application for Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C) Records to be Kept On Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D) Erosion and Sediatnt Control During Construction . . . . . 5 1) Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2) Sedlecnt Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 E) Inspections and Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 F) Duration of Pereit Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 G) Appendices Incorporated by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 II. APPENDICES APPENDIX A - TEMPCRARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN A) Goal............................................................................................................ 9 8) Assigning Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C) Plan Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0) Final Plans and Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 E) Plan Retention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 F) Changes to the Teeporary Erosion and Sediaent Control Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 APPENDIX B - PERMANENT EROSION AND SEOINEKT CONTROL PLAN A) Coal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B) Assigning Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C) Plan Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 D) Final Plans and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 E) Plan Retention ..................................... •••••••*•••• 13 F) Changes to the Peraanent Erosion and Sediaent ContDl Plan. . . . . .. 13 APPENDIX C - PROVISIONS A) Applicability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U B) MPCA Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C) Response................................................................................................... 16 0) Authorized Discharges ........................................................................... 16 E) Prohibitions. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 F) Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 appendix 0 - RESPONSIBILITIES A) Transfer Ownership of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 B) Perait Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C) Right of Entry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 D) Civil and Crlainal Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 E) Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability . . . . . . . . . . . 20 F) Liability Exeaptlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C) Hlnnesoia Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 H) Property Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1) Severability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 J) NPDES/SOS Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 K) Other Statutes. Rules, and Ordinances. . . . . . . . . . . . 21 L) Mote Stringent Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. • . 21 M) Agency Obligation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 I S.A.P. No. 27-61S-1S CSAH IS; C.P. 9222 Noveaber 4. 1996SELECTED SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT — S-WA This project meets the criterU established by the NInnesoU Pollution Control Agency for requiring a General Penilt Authorization to D^.^iiarge Storm Water Associated With a Construction Activity under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program (hereafter referred to as the "MPCA Construction Activity Permit"). Bidders are advised that upon award of the Contract and prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the successful bidder will be required to sign, as a co-pennlttee, Part V (General Contractor Certification) of the Apollcatlon for General Storm Water Permit. Copies of said permit and permit application form are Included elsewhere In these documents as attachments. All application fees associated with this permit shall be paid by the County. S- s- s- S-UA (MPCACAP) S-WA 07171 AIR. LAND AMD WATER POLU/TION Pollution of natural resources of air, land and water by operations under this Contract shall be prevented, controlled, and abated in accordance with the rules, regulations and standards adopted and established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and in accordance with the provisions of Mn/OOT 1717 as modified below: By signing the Proposal, the Contractor agrees to become a co- permittee with the Department to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the General Storm Water Permit (HNRIOOOOO). This permit establishes conditions for discharging storm water to waters of the State from construction activities that disturb five or more acres of total land area. A copy of the "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated with a Construction Activity Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program" Is attached to this Proposal. In the event of conflict between these requirements and any applicable pollution control laws, rules, regulations, or permits of other Federal and State or local agencies, the more stringent requirements shall apply. The Progress Schedule required as per 1803.1 shall include and Identify separate tasks for temporary and permanent erosion control activities. The Contractor shall provide the Engineer with an updated Progress Schedule each week construction activities are being performed. Weekly updates shall show all construction activities to be performed for the next four calendar weeks. Temporary erosion control activities must be Identified on all weekly updates in time frames which provide compliance with all applicable permits. 1-S (MPCACAP) S-WA S-UA S.A.P. No. 27-615-15 CSAH 15; C.P. 9222 Novenbor 4, 1996The Engineer shell have the authority to Unit the areas of excavation, borrow, embanlcnent, and other construction activities susceptible to erosion which nay either be planned or In progress. These llnitatlons shall be connensurate with the Contractor’s capability and progress with erosion control measures. The following Is hereby added to the end of the sentence In the first paragraph of 1803.5: "and In accordance with all applicable permits, regulations and statutes*. The last paragraph of 1803.5A2 Is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: (HPCACAP) S-UA S-llA S-WA The Engineer shall have authority to Unit the surface area of erodibie earth material exposed to possible erosion at any one tine by clearing and grubbing; excavation, borrow and fill operations and to direct the Contractor to provide Immediate permanent or temporary control measures to prevent contanlnation of adjacent streams and other water courses, lakes, ponds, and areas of water impoundment. Cut slopes shall be stabilized by methods such as seeding and mulching as the excavation proceeds to the extent considered practicable. Slopes shall be graded properly to minimize erosion. The Contractor will be required to Incorporate all permanent erosion control features Into the project at the earliest practicable time and In accordance with all applicable permits, regulations and statutes. Failure to Install erosion or sediment control measures as required will result in the assessment of non-compliance charges In accordance with 1717 and 1807 as modified herein. The provisions of 1803.5A4 are hereby modified as follows: "The Contractor shall shape exposed soil and incorporate temporary and permanent erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the Engineer and In accordance with the provisions of the attached MPCA Construction Activity Permit prior to suspension of grading operations .for any appreciable length of time." The Contractor will be subject to an hourly charge for failure to perform roadway sweeping and cleaning activities as set forth elsewhere herein. Non-compliance charges, for each separate Incident, will be assessed at a rate of $50.00 per hour for each hour or any portion thereof in which the Engineer determines that the Contractor has not complied. The Contractor will be subject to an hourly charge for failure to (1) install and/or maintain the erosion control devices and (2) correct adverse erosion Impacts; all as set forth In the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, these Special Provisions, appropriate permits Incorporated herein by reference and/or attachment, and the direction of the Engineer. Non-compliance charges, for each separate Incident will be assessed at a rate of $25.00 per hour, for each hour or any portion thereof which the Engineer determines that the Contractor has not complied. 2-S S.A.P. No. 27-615-lS CSAH 15; C.P. 9222 November 4, 1996Assessment of the aforesaid non-compliance charge for failure to install and/or maintain the erosion control devices requ1.*td Is not intended to nor shall It be construed to be In lieu of applicable civil or criminal non-compliance penalties assessed against the Contractor as co-permittee by other governmental or regulatory agencies. S-WA (25731 TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL S-P 2573.1 DESCRIPTION Is hereby modified as follows: This work shall consist of temporary measures to control and prevent soil erosion and sedimentation. It shall include furnishing, installing, maintaining and removing erosion or sediment control devices as required In the Plans, Standard Specifications, these Special Provisions, any applicable permits and as directed by the Engineer. S-WA The following is hereby added to the list of Standard Specification references listed in 2573.2 MATERIALS: D Seed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3876 E Sod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3878 F Fertilizer. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3881 G Polypropolene Plastic Netting . . . 3883 H Wood Fiber Blankets. . . . . . . . 3885 I Mulch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3882 The mulching material used for Type 1 Mulch (Temporary) shall be grain straw, unless otherwise approved by the Engineer. NOTE: Temporary Mulch will always be straw unless othtrwIsrTeqilfStt^ the Construction Project Engineering dur.ing plan^mlew.: ^ S-WA The first sentence of 2573.3A is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: All applicable erosion control devices shall be Installed, Inplace and operative within each separate drainage area and connected downstream drainage areas prior to the commencement of any construction activity that will result in the loss of protective soil cover, impervious or vegetative, and erodibie soil conditions. In addition, the Contractor shall Install any erosion control device within 36 hours of direction to do so by the Engineer. The following is hereby added as the second paragraph to 2573.3A: The performance of temporz-y erosion control work and the acceptance of said work by the Engineer, shall not relieve the Contractor of Its responsibility or liability for preventing or minimizing the potential or actual erosion or siltatlon. 3-S s- s- s- S.A.P. No. 27-615-15 CSAH 15; C.P. 9222 November 4, 1996Tht following Is hereby added as a third paragraph to 2573.3A: Failure to Install all appropriate and necessary erosion control devices In accordance with all applicable permits and specifications will result In the assessment of non-compliance charges as specified In 1807 herein. The following Is hereby added as a fourth paragraph to 2573.3A: The Contractor shall be required to maintain, at all times on the project site, a supply of the erosion control devices Included In the Contract. The minimum amount of on-hand erosion control devices shall be 10 percent of the Contract quantity for each Item. The Contractor shall replenish the supply as the Items are used to maintain the 10 percent on-hand materials regardless of the percentage of the estimated quantity previously Incorporated Into the project, unless otherwise directed by the Engineer. The following Is hereby added as the second paragraph to 2573.4: When Included as separate pay items under (2573) Temporary Erosion Control, the construction requirements, method of measurement, and basis of payment for seed, sod, fertilizer, polypropolene plastic netting, wood fiber blankets, mulch and disc anchoring shall be as specified In 2S75, unless otherwise modified herein or directed by the Engineer. The first paragraph of 2573.38 Is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: All temporary erosion control devises.shall be constructed and Installed In conformity with the details, typical sections and elevation controls shown In the Contract and applicable permits. Actual alignment and location of the various Items shall be determined In the field by the Engineer. All erosion control devices rendered Inoperative or Ineffective by any means shall be repaired by the Contractor In accordance with all applicable permits or as directed by the Engineer. In the event situations occur that are not covered by applicable permits or there are no permits governing the erosion control activities of the project, all erosion control devices shall be repaired by the Contractor In accordance with the following, or as directed by the Engineer: All erosion control devices shall be repaired within 24 hours after discovery of the failure. Failure to repair erosion control devices in accordance with the preceding provisions will result In the assessment of non-compliance charges as specified In 1807 herein. The following are added to 2573.4 NETHOO OF MEASUREMENT as Indicated: 4-S S- S- S- S- S.A.P. No. 27-61S-1S CSAH 15; C.P. 9222 November 4, 1996A Bale ChecksBale checks shall be tightly bound bales of Type 1 mulch material with minimal dimensions of 12 Inches x 16 Inches x 38 Inches. K Seed (Temporary) Seed furnished and applied by the Contractor for temporary erosion control will be measured by the weight of each mixture or species used. There shall be no separate measurement or payment for applying or "seeding* the temporary seed. L Mulch (Temporary) Mulch for temporary erosion control will be measured separately ' ipiledby the weight of acceptable materials furnished and appi acceptably. A separate measure will be made For each application of mulchinp materials. The minimum measurement for temporary mulching will be one (1) ton. H Disc Anchoring (Temporary) Oise anchoring of mulched areas for temporary erosion control, when required by the Engineer, shall be measured and paid for by the area In acres (one acre minimum). The following Is hereby added to the end of the first paragraph In 2573.5 BASIS OF PAYMENT: Payment for Temporary Erosion Control Items shall also be compensation In full for all mobilization necessary to fully perform all temporary Items as required. The following Items are hereby added to 2573.5 BASIS OF PAYMENT: Item No. 0573.511 0573.512 0573.513 Item Unit Seed Mixture (Tempora'^y) Mulch HaterlaTType _ (Temporary) Disc Anchoring (Temporary) Pound Ton Acre r25751 TURF ESTABLISHMENT Turf shall be established In accordance with the Provisions of 2575, except as modified as follows: Delete the second sentence of the first paragraph of 2575.3L1 from the Contract and substitute the following therefor:i This maintenance shall Include caring for the sod on a timely day- by-day basis with watering being done, mowing when necessary, and replacement being made as the need arises and without the Engineer having to so order. 5-S s- s- f- f s- s- s- s- s- S.A.P. No. Z7.61S-15 CSAH !5; C.P. 9222 November 4, 1996Otltlf the second sentence of the third paragraph of 2575.3LI from the Contract and substitute the following therefor: All replacenent sod shall be maintained for an additional 30 growing days after replacement In the same manner provided above for the original Installation. Upon expiration of the maintenance period or any replacement maintenance periods, the Engineer will make a final Inspection and accept all sod which Is In a normal heaUhy growing condition. No payment will be made for sod which Is not In an acceptable condition at the time of the final Inspection. Add the following to 2575.4C: The quantity of seeding for which payment will be made shall be the quantity shown In the bid schedule, provided, however; that payment will be made on the basis of the actual quantity instead of plan quantity If and to the extent that any area changes are established through remeasurement of the seeding areas as provided for herein. Cither the Engineer or the Contractor may cause remeasurement of any area. In which case the final quantity will be adjusted on the basis of final hfisurements. The Contractor may cause remeasurement of seeding areas by submitting a written request to the Engineer stating the specific locations In which he feels changes were made or the planned quantity was In error. If, within 7 days after completion of all seeding, there has been no request submitted, the Contractor shall have waived his right to dispute the planned quantity for final payment for seeding under the Contract. The mulching material to be used for the Type 1 mulch shall be grain straw. 2575.41 In Jts entirety and 2575.5E (as it applies to mowing only) are hereby deleted from the Contract. Mowing of sodded areas as provided In these Special Provisions shall be considered incidental work for which no direct compensation will be made. rQ875.6031 SNOW PPiCE This work consists of furnishing and installing snow fence for reinforcement of bale checks in the approximate locations indicated In the plans or as directed by the Engineer and the subsequent removal of the fence when the reinforcement is no longer needed. The fence material shall consist of 1 1/2* x 3/8" x 48* pickets spaced two Inches apart, firmly woven between five cables of No. 12 1/2 galvanized wire. Standard 1.33 pound per ft. metal posts shall be used, driven a minimum of 2 feet into the ground and spaced on 8 foot canters. 6-S S-S.A.P. No. 27.615-15 CSAH 15; C.P. 9222 November 4, 1996The fence shall be measured by length along the bottom of the fence and paid for as Item No. 0575.603 (Snow Fence) at the contract price per linear foot which shall be compensation In full for all costs Incidental thereto including, but not limited to, all maintenance of the fence while in use and the removal of the fence when the engineer determines that It is no longer needed. When removed, all fence materials shall become the property of the Contractor. 7-S f I li •• ci 9 LECENO: beginning TO STA. t0«-t40$00. TYPE EROSIONSOO. TYPE LAWN SEED MIX 900 WITH WOODFIBER blanket type REGULAR ////«;//mmSEED MIX SOO WITH TYPE I lAJLCH (DISC ANCHOREO)zum SILT FENCE. HEAVY OUTY 9^500 9^GOO C.S.A.H. 15 GENERAL NOTES FOR TENPORARY AND PERUANENT EROSION AND SEOIICNT CONTROL PLAN BEGIN PROJ.no. 9222 1.THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. KTHOOS ANO PROCEDURES USED ON THIS PROJECT ARE REOUIREO TO COMPLY ANO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE «ITH THE GENERAL PERMIT AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONSTRUCTION activity under the NPDES/STATE disposal system permit program', the I Al/C contractorshall be responsible for seouencinc his operations such that LAnL THE REOUIREICNTS OF THE PERMIT ARE ICT. MINNETONKA 2. 1. THE REMOVAL OF ANY SEDIICMT DEPOSITED INTO RECEIVING BODIES IBOTH EXISTING ANO PROPOSEOl SHALL BE REOUIREO ANO SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT. PROJECT LAND FEATURES TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: BEFORE CONST* 2.1 ho. AFTER CONST* 2.9 ho TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA: BEFORE CONST* 8.5 ho. AFTER CONST* 7.7 ho r-^ i hUi r ▼ ^ iiiiliiiiliiii CERTIFIED BY DRAIN BY HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT 9222 C.S.A.H. 15 S.A.P. 27-B15-15 M.S.A.P. 152-020-07 SHEET CHECXEO BY 62 professional engineer REG. NO. DATE LAST REVISION EROSION CONTROL ANO TORE ESTABLISHMENT } i i •V/: *- LECCNO: STA. 10>540 TO STA. 10*S20 SOO. TYPC EROSION tMSbSOO. TYPE LAIN SEED MIX SOO WITH TYPE 1 lAiLCH (DISC ANCHORED 1 SEED MIX TYPE 2SA WITH P0R8ES FOR SETLANO mitigation SILT fence , heavy duty MM ^^Q^osco oircN r'\ I* t "Tnr^CCRTIFICO BY ORAM BY HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT 9???SHEET -L 1 iiimiiiliiii OCCKEO BY C.S.A.H. >5 S.A.P. 2T-«I5-15 M.S.A.P. 1S2-02(H)T 65 rUKntplh profcssional fnchcer kc . no . date LAST REVISKN EROSION CONTRa & TURF ESTABLISHtCNT >^07 X33HS 10IS1A3H mi 31V0 ON *0» B33NI9N3 1H01SS3M 1&-020-2S1 'd’rS*H SI-S19-ZZ ’d l S SI *H*rS*3 AB 0^I^^O iiii|llli|llli 2228 lOBrOHd AINHOO Nld3NN3H ABIUTIIQ AS 031illll» IT iNUHSuevisj iuni ? khiinod noisohb l' -u ■*" -rSi' > Aino AAV3M *3^0^ nis NOIl«9llln ONVUM bOJ sanoj HUM vsz 3dAi xm oaas (OatlOHDNV 3SI0I H3ini I 3dXl Hi III DOS Xin 033$ NAVI 3dXi ‘00$ DSMSg N01S0H3 3dAX ‘00$ isarobd JO 0N3 Ol 0Zt*m *V1S :0N3933 X?I— tA om o lo-oeo-zst *0N *d*rs‘w SI-S19-X2 -ON -d-rs 2228 *0N 133r08d 0N3 •I. r. toV ir L '3 * >X § 10.56 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep slopes^within the Shoreland I Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and i trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the I water from the principal dwelling site and to accomodate the I placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access I paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, I provided that the screening of structures,^ vehicles or other I facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions* is not substantially reduced. _ _ _ ___ _ __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -___ - - - J. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits 1 for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate 1 grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading an filling standards of this section. 2. Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75* of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. 3. Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following considerations: a. Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. b. All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction . 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage tr^tment systems, and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: ORONO CC 376-14 (2-24-92) § 10.56 a. For movement of 1-100 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff issued land alteration permit shall be required. b. For movement of more than 100 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the City Council is required in addition to the required land alteratioji pe^rmit_j_ _ _ _ _ _ _ "— —-_ 5. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: a. Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland: and retention; (1) Sediment and pollutant trapping (2) Storage of surface run-off to prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) Fish and wildlife habitat; (4) Recreational use; (5) Shoreline or bank stabilization; (6) Noteworthiness, including spe cial qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local State or Federal agencies including but not limited to watershed districts, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. _ _ _ _ b. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible; d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used; y ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) S 10.56 e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; f. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the City Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30% or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; i. Any alterations below the Ordinary High water Level of public waters must first be authorized by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutes, Seciton r05.42; ’• j. Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property; k. Placement of natural rock rip rap, including associated grading of the shoreline and Placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope aoes not exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical, the landward extent of the rip rap is within 10 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level, and the height of the rip rap above the Ordinary High Water Level does not exceed 3 feet. A rip rap permit shall be obtaxned per the requirements of Sectio^n 10.03, Subdivisions 22, 23 and 24 of this zoning code. 6. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, are prohibited above the Ordinary High Water Level. Such excavations below the elevation or the Ordinary High Water Level are subject to Department of Natural Resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction. K. Storm Water Management. The following general and specific standards shall apply in addition to found in Sections 10.55 and 11.41 of the Orono Municipal Code. 1 When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be to convey, store, filter and retain storm water run-off before discharge to public waters. ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) 'I S 10.56 2, A development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areaS/ run~off velocitieSf erosion potentialr and reduce and delay run-off volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. 3. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle storm water run-off using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and manmade materials and facilities. 4. When constructed facilities are used to perform water management, documentation must be provided by a registered professional civil engineer that they are designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation district. 5. New constructed storm water outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. L. Hardcover Limitations. 1. No hardcover or impervious surface shall be placed, located, or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in the Municipal Code. 2. Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. M. Public Uses. Standards for Commercial, Public, and Semi- 1. Surface water-oriented commercial uses and public or semi-public uses with similar needs to have access to and use of public waters may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters, if permitted by the underlying zoning district standards. Those uses with water-oriented needs must meet the following standards: ORONO CC 376-17 (2-24-92) § 10.55 Subd. 6. Zoning Use Districts. The Zoning Use Districts as designated on the Official Zoning Map shall remain unchanged with the adoption of this Section. The provisions of this Section, including the designation of Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Areas, shall be in addition to all other provisions of this Chapter. Whenever conflicts occur between other provisions of this Chapter and provisions of this Section, the most restrictive provision shall prevail. Subd. 7. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain. A. The regulatory flood protection elevation within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within Floodway listed in the Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross-sections shall be interpolated. B. The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. C. The regulatory flood protection elevation within the General Flood Plain District shall be calculated by a qualified registered professional engineer in accordance with procedures set forth herein. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __— SuFd. 8. Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. Subd. 9. Floodway District (FW). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Floodway District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provisions or regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect ORONO CC 365 (4-1-84) S 10.55 the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 1. Agricultural uses such as pasture, grazing, and wild crop harvesting. 2. Fish and wildlife sanctuaries. 3. Recreational uses such as fishing accesses, unpaved hiking, biking, horseback or nature trails, and picnic areas. 4. Residential uses such as lawns and gardens provided no filling, grading or hardcover is involved. 5. Seasonally installed residential boat docks for single family dwellings. 6. Natural stone rip rap shoreline protection. 7. Sand beach blankets meeting the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources Regulation 6MCAR15021B. B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 1. All other forms of shoreline protection including wood, metal, mortared stone or concrete seawalls. 2. All dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto. 3. All permanent boat docks or other similar structures. 4. All multiple boat docks including residential or commercial structures, whether seasonal or permanent. culverts, and weirs. 3 .Water control structures such as dams. 6. Bridges and abutments. 7. Utility lines. 8. Other similar uses not specifically listed when approved by the Council and other regulatory agencies, but no use shall be approved which will restrict or obstruct any flood flow or which will raise the level of any flood flow. Subd. 10. Flood Fringe District (FFD). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct ‘flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Flood Fringe District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provision or ORONO CC 366 (4-1-84) S 10.55 regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 1. All uses permitted in the Floodway District. 2. Agricultural uses such as general farming, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming and forestry. 3. Recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, parks and nature preserves. this Chapter) ; B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with 1. All conditional uses as listed in the Floodway District. 2. Residential accessory structures such as open decks and patios provided the structure meets the setbacks required by Subdivision 8. 3. Commercial storage of boats and marina equipment in the "B-2" Zoning Use District, provided all storage meets the requirements of the "B-2" Zoning Use District. 4. Other accessory uses not specifically listed when approved by the Council, but no use shall be approved which will restrict or obstruct any flood flow or which will raise the level of any flood flow. 5. All structures constructed as conditional uses shall be constructed in accordance with the State Building Code. Subd. 11. Standards for Floodway and Flood Fringe Conditional Uses. A. All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill, deposit, obstruction, storage of materials, or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as conditional uses which, acting alone or in combination with existing or reasonably anticipated future uses, adversely affect the capacity of the floodway or increases flood heights. ORONO CC 367 (4-1-84) § 10.55 B. Fill: 1. No fill shall be deposited in the flcodway and any fill deposited in the flood fringe shall be no more than the minimal amount necessary to conduct a conditional use listed above. Generally fill shall be limited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not in any way further obstruct the flow of flood waters. 2. Spoil from dredging shall not be deposited in the floodway nor in the flood fringe. 3. All fill shall be protected from erosion by vegetative covet in the form of grass, natural ground covers, shrubs and trees as determined by the Council. 4. All filling and grading activities shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 C. Structural Work For Flood Control. Structural works for flood control such as dams, levees, dikes and floodwalls shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. In addition, any proposed work in the beds of public waters which will change the course, current, or cross-section of the waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chapter 105, and other applicable statutes. Subd. 12. Conditioi.al Use Permit .Review. Applications for conditiona1 use permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council in the same manner as other zoning conditional use permit applications. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the applicant, in support of his application, shall submit certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations, and other information as the City may reguire in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. A. Notice to State. Upon filing of an application for a conditional use permit, the Zoning Administrator shall submit to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed conditional uses sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use permits shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten days of such action. B. Conditions of Approval. In granting a conditional use permit the City may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards, which are in conformity with the puj^poses of this Section. violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Section punishable as provided herein. ORONO CC 368 (4-1-84) S 10.55 C. Engineering Review. The City Engineer^ or other designated expert shall review applications for conditional use permits and applications for uses within the General Flood Plain District and, consistent with Minnesota Regulation NR86-87, shall determine whether the proposed use is in the floodway or flood fringe and shall determine the regulatory flood protection elevation. The designated engineer or expert shall: 1. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood.2. Calculate the water surface profile of the j^egional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. 3. Compute the floodway necessary to convey the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than 0.5 feet. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach will be assumed. D. Factors Upon Which the Decision of the City Shall be Based. In passing upon conditional use applications, the City shall consider all relevant factors specified in other provisions of this Section, and: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. 3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. 4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. , . ^ ^5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. . , ^6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. 7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. ^ 8. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable 9. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. 10. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. ^ •. i.12. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Section. ORONO CC 369 (4-1-84) § 10.55 Subd. 13. City Determination. Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer or expert, and based upon the factors listed above, the City shall determine whether the proposed use is in the floodway or flood fringe and the regulatory flood protection elevation at the site. Subd. 14. Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the purposes of this Section, the City may attach such conditions to the granting of a conditional use permit as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Section. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Modification of waste disposal and water supply B. Limitations on period of use, occupancy and facilities . operation. C. Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. D. Requirements for construction of channel modifications, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. E. Flood proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood proofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. Subd. 15. Land Development and Platting. No part of any lot within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area shall be platted for residential occupancy or for other uses which will increase the danger to health, life, property or the public welfare. All lots containing land within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this Section and have road access no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Whenever a portion of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area is located within or adjoins a land area that is being subdivided, the subdivider shall dedicate to the City an adequate perpetual easement over the land within the protected area and along each side of such area for the purpose of improving or protecting the area for drainage or other purposes expressed in this Section and other recreational uses, as determined by the Council. Public or private streets, driveways, drainage openings and culverts shall not be constructed unless the design thereof has been approved by the City, and such structures shall be designed so as not to restrict the flow of water. Subdivision applicants shall provide all certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development.on the affected land and water areas. ORONO CC 370 (4-1-84) § 10.03 B. The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 C. Products produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be established for conducting such business. One temporary business sign not over eight square feet in area may be located in the front yard during the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking must be provided for. Source: Ordinance No. 172 ■Bf^erctiVe Ucffe: i-i-'/S Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to city; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or y grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall bs performed with only "clean fi11" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 Subd. 20. Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other competent person shewing the location /he proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded, and such other information as the Council sh^llApplications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the Cit^y, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application. Any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant* ORONO CC 258 (4-1-84) § 10.03 Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 not intended to govern the norms1 snd customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building/ or the grading of the driveway serving such building/ nor to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Buildi.ig Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. The Building Inspector shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feut depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 - - ’ ^Subd. 22. Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at water level of lakeshore to prevent erosion of shoreline by water action. Subd. 23. Permit Required. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary j^ip—rap of lakeshore property. It is unlawful for any person to rip-rap lakeshore property within the limits of the City without a permit issued by the City Engineer. Any unusual rip-rap shall be referred by the City Engineer to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 167 Effective Date: 6-25-74 Subd. 24. Application for Permit. An application for such permit shall be acco.npanied by a drawing showing the location of the proposed rip-rap and such other information as the ^ Engineer may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount prescribed by the current City fee schedule payable to the City. « j. locSource: Ordinance No. 196 Effective Date: 8-22-77 ORONO CC 258-1 (4-1-84) TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator January 10, 1997 SUBJECT: #2203 Ted and Myma Wolf, 900 Willow Drive North - Sketch Plan, Class III Subdivision Zoning District: RR-IB - Property is located within the shoreland areas of Dickey Lake and subject to Shoreland Regulations (10.56). Total area = 8.3 acres .8 acre Dickey Lake .45 acre Orono designated wetland Application: Applicants propose a three lot subdivision of the 8.3 acre property. Development plan proposes access to Lots 2 and 3 via a 300' length undeveloped road extension outlot from the north. The outlot was platted at the time of the Shadowood Farm subdivision. Access to Lot 1 or the most western lot adjacent to Willow Drive would continue to be served by the existing loop driveway. The three residential lots will be served by on-site septic systems and wells. The property is located within 1,000' of the OHW of Dickey Lake (985.5) and all development shall be subject to the Shoreland Regulations. The major issue to be addressed with this review will be to define legal access to the three proposed lots. The following ordinances and Comprehensive Management Plan sections are pertinent for this review; 1. Section 11.10, Subds. 6, 7 and 8 - Sketch plan. 2. 3. 4. Section 11.3, Subd. 4 - Typical section. Section 10.56 - Shoreland Regulations. Section 10.28 - RR-IB Zoning District Standards. 5. CMP Transportation Chapter, specifically CMP 7-11 (1-9), - Transportation Policies. 6. CMP 7-14 - Orono's Roadway Classification System. Zoning File #2203 January 10, 1997 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Location Map C - Wetlands Map Dl-2 - Access Options E - Resolution #2880, Approval of the Plat oi Shadowood Farm. F - Proposed Sketch Plan Review of Application Review Exhibit F, applicants' plan provides for access to Lots 2 and 3 via an undeveloped extension road outlot created at the time of the Shadowood Farm subdivision. It is also the intent of the applicants to maintain the loop access drive serv'ing the existing residence on Lot 1. Dickey I ake, a natural environment lake, has been designated at the 985.5 OHW with a PA marsh (Type 3) designated wetland at the west. Review Exhibit C, the designated wetlands map also shows a Type 2 GC or glencoe extensive weMand area to the immediate w est of the PA wetland. The lots all meet the required 200' of width at the proposed front/street lot line. There is approximately 7.05 acres of dry land per preliminary facts submitted with sketch plan. In the review of the steeper topographies adjacent to shoreline, staff has confirmed there is no bluff impact zone. On-site septic testing will be required in order to complete the formal preliminaiy subdivision application. Lot 3 will be riparian to Dickey Lake. If a dock is proposed, a future owner will need to obtain a conditional use permit and variance to install a walkway or deck within designated wetland located above the 985.5 elevation. Lot Standards The property at a 317' width will ensure lots will meet the required lot width of 200'. At this time it is difficult to know if we are dealing with a 2 or 3 lot plat. The entire designated wetland area must be deducted from dr>' buildable. There is adequate area of dry buildable land at less than 6% slope to permit installation of mound septic systems. Wetland/Natural Environment Lake In order to complete the preliminary plat application, applicants shall provide a wetland delineation of the property. Review Exhibit C, the Type 2 wetland would appear to occupy 1 1/2 to 2 acres in area. The wetland delineator shall determine the extent of the glencoe wetland. Further reductions of dry buildable may limit subdivision to a simple two lot division. A two lot division would be subject to the back lot/front lot standards. Wetland information will be critical in determining the final number of lots. Zoning File #2203 January 10,1997 Page 3 Lot 3 would be subject to the 150' structural and septic setback from the 985,5 elevation, OHW of Dickey Lake. All structures and land alterations must adhere to 26’ setback from edge of wetland. Access/Road Layouts Please review Exhibit E, Outlot B of the Shadowood Farm plat was created as a future extension road to serve not only future development on properties to south but to create a loop road, and eliminate cul-de-sac road. Shadowood Farm is served by a cul-de-sac road 1,000’+ in length. Per Section 11.33, Subd. 4, cul-de-sac roads shall not exceed a length of 1,000'. The City has attempted to minimize the impact of the many long cul-de-sac roads in our City by creating future connection outlots for the creation of loop roads. The applicants' proposal. Exhibit F, would now add a to^al of 15 lois to be serv ed by a 1,300' cul-de-sac road. Outlot B is approximately 300' in length. The landowners adjacent to extension outlot are obviously opposed to the development of extension road. The adjacent property owners are aware of the pending development of the property and have advised the City staff of their strong opposition to the use of the outlot to serv'e new residential development to the south. At the time of the Shadowood subdivision, the Ringer ’s Wood subdivision was already developed. It was the intent of the City to develop the loop road through the subject property. The City did not determine the dry buildable area of the property for the purpose of defining maximum density. Review Exhibit Dl, this option for development is consistent with the directives of the subdivision code and transportation sections of the Comp Plan. If a 3 lot division is feasible, applicants would be asked to develop a private road with temporaiy' cul-de-sac with a future extension corridor connecting to Outlot B of Shadowood Farm. In Option 2, Exhibit D2, the 3 lot plat would be served by a private cul-de-sac road at approximately 550' in length with no future extension corridor to north. This option is only valid if members can make the necessary findings to support the access plan. Final Comments It is difficult to provide direction for applicants when it is not clear how extensive the area is of the designated wetland still to be located within Lot 3. If there is dry buildable area to support only 2 units, will you allow owner to maintain existing loop access. The code says the City may allow a front lot to be served by public road if not a potential safety hazard. What would you recommend for Outlot B, Shadowood Farm’’ r'a f% Jf'-' Application # ^^03 / •-..V •V y Date Received A?ri /5^&. Amount Paid ^ %ru CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ . Siteaddress 9oO CUlLWyJ Property Identification Number (PIO) a2y //tP «? 3 ^iOOQ V Please check one - Property____abstract or torrens? O^ono Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name /S£> CoYXptcx ST33r Address /f90 YV ^ ^ l~(Juy\€. Cit\ PZ_NflflOUTT4 , »V\»n ; Phone (home) ^73-^? (^30 Zip 5S’VV7Phone (work) g40 - 01^*^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ oy /fi f^rT’H S'd t\J Address CAJ/Lce>i^ <0^ A/ Phone (home) WS-^/O ^ City /T\^_________Zip 5S3^V Phone (work) _______ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / Acres Dry’ Land Acres Wet Land Present use (check) // Acres Total, all parcels yK Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ / Present Zoning District /T<>s. Ki^ie PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildiing sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites IA Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per // ^^Acres <?< Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential • Other (specify)________ J MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Surv ey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature ________________________________________ Date______ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or my lar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature _______________________________________ Date______ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & 111) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00;lot (Class HI & all non-residential) _____ Final Flat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50'lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; . lin. ft. X .50 = $. lin. ft. X .50 = $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mam Extension $2:>0.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.00/per loi x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc, Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.(|&(Dwclling Unit Owner’s Signature The applicant hereby agrees to provide all mformalion' Planning Commiss^n an^VyCouncrkne€|M^it^ro( ired or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Da,, Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. />• 7^': I20L 5) V ■'■i % i/Ii* I•j2:v.. k'> .‘c*^ /. •)•a* 4$ fo'*:i tA . j j «j' />y.*V'..'-2f^V ' • -Jy"-r -^f ' A J i■ii Ir'%•*' >-»'$ VJ ^<1-•.^»\ *•.*• *..• ‘"* - _.* * . <.:^i■-•jc v:-s''i •■A'■-.:\'-'^V’l%^i- . • •. , V^'.T#5 K.W-auBii 1-^♦ •«.*»• •.-✓ ^.>V7 V' • • ••Mim ’«•t »?‘S'Vr1 < •' V•>iS\S HipVJl.l ' V 'C,#' *• / a7 ^.VV. ^ .. ‘V.v'<•j 2» 0\. >.>»: > • •*-I s - \> ^• :’/•/* • //,-V•'\ Shhbn X\<v 1 X.$v'v •T ~ -■**V2-r-. t*l^.*#•^r*.tr.“» <j.»t\m \i:-yy \ •-• #C 'ii‘v;v'V .-^.#.* *n..V •. .»‘» .X r^- • vV>; 'Sk 4'- 2 *^r \/i)yrv- »>•// V \N- * V v:T7 > •-. , *‘ r rj VI >':v•Vv-,v.'«» J.,.47^ *^'2 m L-s'. % • i?'? v;v>V :^i • »•• km •-.*7-X:m :>v.’ A* •-:a%> ‘ 7« MA *>,>7 * #* sat'/ f^i J''[V :• •»> f*M&§Svm ^w•''^^:vi^1 f^- a'- i rv m .% A • V* •'-•5s 1 iiii??r — C '--•v>v..r,~--V f.A> - — -825.( •J 'J • *>VA<5-vW? .-^.i ■^m'tm •Jr* VfILVC Ciifty o^ o^^or^o RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2880 A 3BS0L0T10II APPROVING TBE PLAT OT SSADOW003 PASM PILS TO. 1532 WBZRZASr th® City of Orono Li a nwniclpa?. ecrporat.Lon or^anlzsd and exlstincf under Lhe laws of LAc S^'ic Mzjinaso^'i? and KHEXSA8# th® City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic end safe development of land within the City; end WHEREAS, th® City Council has consldarad th® aoplication for a subdivision of a plat of 13 lots by Fullerton Properties Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, th® subdivider; and WHEREAS, th® subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB rural residential zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, includingt 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution #2826, a resolution that granted preliminary approval of the 13 lot subdivision. 2. Dedication on the plat of rights-of-way for public roads shown as E.C.S.A.H. Mo.6 and Willow Drive. on the plat of drainage and utility3. Dedication easements. 4e Dedication on the plat of drainage easements• 5® Creation of private roads shown on the plat as Outlets B and Ce Outlet C to be known henceforth as Shndowood Drive and Cox Farm Road. Page 1 of 4 r ‘‘ V* ■ '.mb’. - • . • r ; 'Jf- ■ mr ’ . ■ . . V' . ■ .v/'k.';? • • > .* • - • • ••« *’• . = if' f •• *;>• ..■1. t’. ' •... •i .'r • • * , ‘T,o .. . I . ^ . . le* ► ; V V. • .. f .Ti- » *• uy-. ■..ivV, • •• ‘"■w ‘ •** * » * £m II *. • *•. %••••* % cl-- *'• p/fV . */ • .** •. »•> City o£RES0'JJT!0?.» 0? THE CITY COUNCIt.NO.2880 6. Concurrent with the creation of this private road» the subdivider has dedicated to the City a road and utility casement granting to the City permanent access, i.r>provemen*c and utility easements over said outlot; the subdivicer has created non-exclusive ingress, egress, drainage and utility easements over said outlot in favor of all anuttlng And/or benefiting lots including a declaration of cert.iin maintenance covenants wherein each of the abutting and/or benefiting lot owners covenants and agrees to pert'aner.tly maintain and pay the cost of maintenance .for said orivtte road. 7. Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Con.servation Easement providing for limitations cn the use of wetlatds, drainageways, flood plain and Dickeys Lake tercribed. thcreirj and shown on the plat as drainage easements. 8. Execution of a subdivider's agreement providing for installation of certain Improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. 9. Creation of three outlots for the following approved uses: Outlot A - to be legally combined with the Janes Cox homestead property which is surrounded by Outlot A. Outlot B - designated for future road extension to tbm“J south. This section of roadway is not to be constructed at this tine but is set aelde for future road use. y Outlot C - interior road outlots to be constructed upon final plat approval. L 10. Execution of agreement with James Cox dealing with interim use of 7' of additional right-of-way of Willow Drive along west border of Outlot A and possible vacation of unused portion of right-of-way upon determination of final upgrade of Willow Drive whether by City based on KSA standards or as future County Road 116. 11. Execution of an easement agreement with developer granting easements to the City for bike trail purposes over the 10' drainage and utility easements that border the property on the north and west sides of the subdivision. •r . f • *v *: ■ -S"? ■ • •'jy- . * • .Vj-* . > • » • . ’V*,* •* sm ■ ■ • • * V * . «*• N't./::* ■ vtY> i f^Vr' V V.”-.. ;• V. ..‘V • ' ■ ---------.V-sV-, -r ■■ ■ II^mmm • V >r' Citv off OjR.OP^O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2gpn_ _ _ _ _ 12. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication fee in the amount of $2^400.00. 13. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of S15C.00. 14. Payment to the City of a final subdivision anplicat.ion fee in the amount of $150.00. MON, T233UEPORS, BB IT SSSOLVBD that the City Council of the Citv of Orono hereby approves the plat of Shadowood 7am, Hennepin County, Minnesota: subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction, the following improvements must be completed and approved by the City: A) Gravel road base to be constructed per engineering plans by Mark S. Gronberg, Sheets 1 and 2, dated August 31, 1990. B) Ditch along Willow Drive to be graded in accordance with City standards. C) Drainage swales and water quality structures as shovm in final grading and drainage plans per plans by Mark S. Gronberg, Sheets 1 and 2, dated August 31, 1990. 2. Prior to any land alterations or road construction on this property, the following septic envelopes must be fenced: Lot 1, Block 2 ~ septic envelopes 1 and 2 Lot 5, Block 1 - eeptic envelope 1 Lot 8, Block 1 - septic envelopes 1 and 2 3. Owner of Outlot A shall apply for the legal combination with adjacent homestead lot. Opon legal combination, the owner has right to construct accessory structures or use area of outlot for other permitted accessory usos. Pace 3 of 4 « •• % . - /r r - .‘ Vi • ' ’V . • •' ••" v! * ^ * .>• • ..'fV-*. .•M ■■ , ‘,v i r /• j'"V - t. * O * i *' **• -.i’;r:.m ■■. . - - r A 4^• c.-u •: v v'fl. \ •• •'.V/ - * >r V:.i. Vv:^mm■m i - fc S*> .!’ C ■V »- • • T«*\i •r-ViV'^ ** ^ •\ » im...-,-: ■.OiSi!' -W' .* V IN s s*r City of O^Or^ORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2880_________ 4. The aforesaid olat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office or tho Registrar of Titles Office on or before April 3» 19?1 together with a certifies original copy of this Resolution together with executed copies of certain easer.enta and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has noVbeen filed by the date specified chore. 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 October, 1990. ATTEST: / /U 1 Theresa L. Naab, Deputy Cleric STATS OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) Edward J. ^^llahan, Jr./'Acting Mayor The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 6th day of October, 1990, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. 4 Theresa L. Naab, Acting Mayor ( Deputy Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. __ tiHM s. VZE notanv rvtsue • MDtMeBora HENNEPtN COUNTY Notary Public Page 4 of 4 • % f-1 T^’'r ' '''%\n\-• V-ji** % .» -iv/ f . 1•^ o *• d.‘< # r< ; :fc i ' >!,S\ • »#'' - . " a;* ■ X ‘ ‘sV. • ■ . t;- • -r • :. c*..' •'..T'.C ■ V * L V' . ■mT'r.v-t . » * ;;,*v :-l : r'.3 • A . • V- I* •/ THE HOME FRONTHuge Houses Squeeze Into Tight SpacesBy Kkucia PaikStaff Ucpnrtcr o/Tiie Wai.i. Sriu'irr Joi rnai.Picture a 19,000-square-foot Mediterranean-style villa with two- story-high exterior columns and a total of 108 d(X)rs and windows.Now, picture it on a two-acre plot. Gerry Lepkanich did. And the New Yorker had it built on the two acres he owns in Gulf Stream. Fla., using every buildable square inch of the plot for the foundation. A scant 70 feet away is his _ ^ Jjlf neighbor’s Iti.OOO-square-foot man Sion; the two buildings are crammed onto waterfront land on which a r),(K)0-square-foot house once stood alone. ^ “I worked many long hours and wanted to show the fruits of my labor." says Mr. Lepkanich. who ran a syndicated-television busi ness handling beauty pageants and “The Richard Simmons Show." Besides, he adds, the villa is in go(xl taste. His neighbors, wlio unsuc cessfully fought to slop the building, beg to differ. Not that they could stem this lat est real-estate trend: the ^ mansionization of suburbia. People in towns across the country are tearing dov/n small houses on small |»lots and building in their place what brokers have taken to calling "monster homes" that eat the front yard, spill over to the edge of the property line, and block the neighbors’ sunlight and views. Born in the l9S0s in the wealthy suburbs of Los Angeles and New York, "monster homes” are popping up in suburban areas all over the countiY. The people who erect or buy these homes, architects and builders say. don’t want to live in outlying areas where they could ntore easily afford the two or three acres or more that can accommodate a mansion. "People don’t have lime," says Hins dale. HI., builder Tim Thompson, who has worked on 100 projects involving teardowns in the last five years. Often, he says, "both husband and wife are working. They want to be close to the schools, the shopping centers, the restaurants."They also want residences more spacious than many older suburban neighborhoods offer-hence the trend of razing and re building. Bruce George, a Naperville. HI., architect observes that it’s often cheaper “to tear down a house - ■■ ■■ .-■::.-sir than to remwlel." Two years ago. Mario Cirignani and lis wife. Abbie. found a 2.500-square-foot house on a third of an acre on a tree- lined, cobblestone street in Hinsdale, HI. It was a short 21 minutes by train to Mr. Cirignani’s down- •own Chicago law office. The cou ple bought the property for S’2.T».000-anJ promptly demolished the house, building a SI million. 4.000- s<iuare-foot French-style chateau in its place. Living in Uie original house, Mr. Cirignani explains, was simply out of the question. “It was an old house built in the llKiUs that still had mlary phones," he says in disbelief. "We weren’t pay ing for the house. We were paying for the land." And his giant new house isn’t even the biggest on the block. Hinsdale, prized for its easy commute to Chicago, has been swept up by the mansionization phenomenon. Since 1j87. more than 10^;; of the 4.500 houses in Hinsdale have been demolished to make way for new, almost in variably bigger, ones. In Mission Hills, Kan., a small suburb of Kansas City, Mo., 14 houses have been razed since 1994 to make way for bigger ones. One of those houses belonged to satellite-television execu tive Rodney Weary and his wife. Gale, who have six children and were intent on replacing their 4,000-square-foot home with Flcasc Turn to Page Blk, Column 3 ** Huge Houses Are Often Squeezing Into Tight Spaces Continued From Pmje Bl a rambling 9,800-square-foot seven-bed room manor. That didn't sit terribly well with their neighbors, particularly with Sally Uhlmann, a writer next door. The new house would have cut off her sun light and given her views of "stucco and a huge wall,” she says. "From my kitchen sink, I would never have seen trees or sky again." After several heated city-council meet ings and d Petition written by Mrs. Uhlmanr ;id signed by 38 neighbors that protested ' ■f'V,;4tant in the bathtub" tear- downs, the two families finally solved the probIe.»^ iTiKoelves. They jointly bought a larr- *v3l on the other side of the Weary pais*v'*-',. making a total of three adjoining p. is. and then split this total Into two pi'... The Wearys’ new house rs going up now-at a distance acceptable to Mrs. Uhlmann. Not all neighborly disputes are settled so amicably. Back in 1989, Morton and Beverly Rechler purchased their dream retirement home for $3.9 million in the wealthy community of Manalapan. Fla: it was an 8,400-square-foot, low-slung Frank Lloyd Wright-style house with views of the Atlantic Ocean. They poured $1.2 million into remodeling the bathrooms and the main entry and even built a wood-sculpt ing studio. Then the Rechlers’ next-door neigh bor', Hartley and Melia Peavey, tore down a one-story, 3,500-square-foot home on their lot-1.4 acres-and replaced it with a towering 15,700-square-foot residence. THAN EFFORT to crack Jidown on mansionizalion, towns and cities in various parts ot the country have passed regutations to curb the building of monster homes. Asamptingof local restrictions: ■ BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.: In the 1980s, this affluent Southern California city spawned the mansionizalion craze and its backlash. Now, special restrictions apply to residences on the crowded hillsides. The city council must grant permission to build a house larger than 15,000 square feel. ■ BURBANK, CAUF.: Alter watching nearby towns become overbuilt, residents ot this Los Angeles suburb pushed the city council to impose a 27-loot height limit on newly built homes through out most of the city. The previ ous limit had been 35 feet. ■ GULF STREAM, FLA.: When a few residents built muni.» homes in this small side community, other locals clamored for new restric tions. In January 1995, the city government set the max imum square footage for a newly built house on about 1.5 acres at 14,600 square feet. Among other regula tions: Doors, columns and windows cannot rise higher than one story. ■ FAMWAY, KAN.: This Kansas City suburb moved relatively early to limit man- sionization, passing its restrictions in 1993. Buildings can taxe up no more than (5.% of a residential lot. ■ HINSDALE, lU.: Since 1987,10% ot the houses in this weli-lo-do Chicago sub urb have been knocked down and replaced by new homes. In 1994, the city council passed some stringent anti- mansionizalion laws. The maximum square footage for a new house built on half an acre is 6,800 square feet. On an acre lot, the limit is 13,800 square feet. The maximum height can vary between 34 feet and 40 feet, depending on neighborhood restrictions and the distance of the house from the side property lines of the lot. No parking, loading or storing of construction materials is allowed within 10 feet of property lines. "Their home just loomed over us," says Mr. Rechler. a retired commercial developer. Rather than agree to live in someone elsc ’s shadow, the Rechlers moved. They got $4.35 million for their home-"we lost a great deal of money." Mr. Rechler says-and then sued the town of Manalapan. The Rechlers con tend that local laws governing the dimen sions of homes as well as the number of feet between neighboring structures were ignored. The town’s attorney, James Wearn, declined to comment, as did the Peaveys. The case is expected to be heard in Palm Beach County’s circuit court in January. Mr. l.epk:;nich-he of the 19,000- square-foot villa in Gulf Stream-is indig nant about house-size laws. "People should be able to build what they want on their lot," he maintains-having pre vailed over the .scores of neighbors who opposed his projects. At the time Mr. Lepkanich built his villa, there were no local laws governing house size. After the house was com pleted, Gulf Stream passed laws restrict ing the height and size of new houses. But Mr. Lepkanich has other property con cerns on his mind: His dream palace is on the market for $8.7 mllli(m. As he ex plains: "I personally did not need a house this large anymore." ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 18, 1996 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Sandra Smith, who arrived late in the meeting Charles Schroeder was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan and Council Members Goetten and Jabbour were present Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) A. #2197 JOHN O’SULLIVAN AND NORTH CENTRAL CBA, INC, 2380 SHADY'WOOD ROAD - STREET VACATION 7:30-8:18 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The applicant, John O’Sullivan, was present along with contractor, Rob Thompson Gaffron passed out additional letters received regarding this application He reported that the application was to complete the vacation of Navarre Lane that begun last spring with the vacation of a 33' portion adjacent to the Culver's Restaurant site Now under consideration is the remaining 33’ and area to the north to Olive Avenue He noted that when the original vacation was being considered, the Council asked Staff to have the applicant consider a possible trail. A portion of the grading plan was approved with the prior vacation. Gaffron reviewed the code and State statutes that relate to a vacation. The findings required to be met for the vacation include the following: 1) The vacation is to be in keeping with the public interest, 2) the vacation cannot affect the access to or use of any adjoining property, 3) the City is not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road except for utilities and access purposes, and 4) the unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. Gaffron reported that Staft'has identified five public purposes ser\ed by the existing right- of-way proposed to be vacated; 1) City sewer lines, 2) City water lines, 3) US West telephone lines, 4) Minnegasco gas lines, and 5) potential pedestriarvfjike access between Olive Avenue and the County Road 15/19 intersection. Gaffron noted that the first four purposes could be served through an easement. A letter from Minnegasco stated they were willing to allow the vacation with an easement for the utility. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON NOXTMBER 18, 1996 (#1A - #2197 John O’Sullivan and North Central CBA - Continued) Gaffron indicated that the public purpose of a trail is a harder issue to resolve. He noted that the applicant has suggested a trail around the north end of the property between Olive Avenue and Shady-wood Road The Park Commission reviewed the situation at their last meeting and concluded that the best option for a trail would be to come down Navarre Lane. This option on the east side between the two parking lots would best serve the residential area The Park Commission suggested the trail be along the pond but Gaftron noted that the applicant is still working with the MCWD to determine the size of the pond. One concern for the trail location is a large drop in grade which would require a ramp to be bike friendly. This would involve adding a large amount of fill. Another option according to GaflVon would be to depress the trail The suggestion to bring the trail around the pond and in the e.xisting Navarre Lane right-of-way is a result of a concern about bringing bike traffic across two traffic access points in the northerly trail proposal, plus a concern about outletting at an uncontrolled location The Park Commission did not come to a conclusion on who would be required to pay for the trail improvement Their main concern was for access from the neighborhood. They questioned whether the property should be vacated and an easement established or if Navarre Lane should be maintained for the trail It was noted that if the entire right-of- w'ay was vacated, the chance for a trail would be lost. Gaffron reviewed the specific impacts on the applicant's site plan by a trail located between the two parking lots The Phase 2 site plan would shift northward 10-12'. The landscaping between the two parking lots would be more difficult to establish Lighting placement between the two parking lots would also be more difficult The creation of a sloping ramp down to Navarre Lane for bicycles would require some fill and may require a slope that would aft'ect the use of the remaining portions of right-of-way that applicant hopes to use for stormwater ponding purposes. Gaffron reviewed the impacts on the general site plan if the vacation was approved or if no vacation occurred. If the vacation occurs, the applicant will gain ownership of the right- of-way and could connect the parking lot for the bank building to the restaurant parking lot providing for traffic movement between the two sites and additional parking spaces. If the vacation is not approved, the additional space would be lost for parking and a 10' yard requirement for side yard adjacent to a street must be maintained. Stormwater ponding capability also would be decreased if the vacation was not completed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONCVflSSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#1A - #2197 John O’Sullivan and North Central CBA - Continued) McMillan inquired about the use of the sidewalk along CoRd 19. Gaftron slated that the sidewalk leads up to the northerly corner of the church property McMillan indicated that the sidewalk was inadequate for use as a trail. Gafiron e.xplained that the right-of-way on CoRd 19 would likely not allow for a trail If parking w as allow ed w ithin 5’ of the lot line instead of the required 20', there w ould also not be room for a trail w ithout the loss of green space. The rectangular area of right-of-way owned by the County is needed for potential expansion for a future turn lane and would tie into the site plan under agenda item #2. When asked for comments, O’Sullivan told the Commission that the City had encouraged the vacation of Navarre Lane as it had been part of the City ’s plan to do so The proposed vacation had been integrated into the site plan for the improvements Now without the vacation, O’Sullivan said he has had to down size the buildings nearly 20% and is at the point of economically being unable to reduce further. O’Sullivan reported he has seen little pedestrian traffic on Navarre Lane over the two years he has owned the property He believes alot of homes will naturally follow the flow of the upper road resulting in his Olive Avenue trail proposal He noted that the Olive Avenue trail would lead to the City ’s existing park He also indicated he had received no objection to the trail as he proposed at the public meeting The vertical drop by the rear parking area was also said to be a problem according to O’Sullivan He is concerned with having to begin back at Olive Avenue to begin the ramp He also feels there will be an impact on the wetlands as well as the aesthetics He noted if the turnaround proposed by Hennepin County is completed, the trail on Navarre Lane would dump out into the turn lane. He believes the lowest traffic incident area would be at Olive and CoRd 19. Gaffron reminded the Commission that the trail proposals are conceptual in nature at this point. McMillan questioned if it w as the intent of O’Sullivan to bring the Olive Avenue trail onto his property as it is now shown in the center of the street. O'Sullivan said the trail could parallel Olive and could also be reduced in grade with the addition of more green space. Lindquist inquired how wide the sidevsalk is along CoRd 19. Gaffron said it appeared to be 6' wide. Lindquist asked if any consideration had been given to enlarging the sidewalk to &. O’Sullivan said it would be an option but he has not addressed it. The proposed trail is conceptually planned to end at CoRd 19 at the sidewalk. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM\flSSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#I A - #2197 John O'Sullivan and North Central CBA - Continued) Hawn responded to the lack of pedestrian use of Navarre Lane up to this point She noted that with the building of Culver's and the other improvements, there will be a new destination to which people will travel changing the old traffic patterns With the intense use and new traffic generated from an untended direction. Hawn said she would like to see the access developed through the middle via Navarre Lane. Stoddard indicated his support for the vacation and being amiable to allowing an easement. He would like to see the Engineer review the site and designate the best placement of the trail He also asked to hear from the Park Commission John Ericson, 1620 Shadywood, stated he would like to see a trail come through Navarre Lane. He did not feel it had to be w ide but of a reasonable width to allow w alking and bicycle riding He felt an easement was a viable option Park Commissioner McDermott said the housing in the area does not address all of the people who would be affected by a trail He noted the sidewalk along CoRd 15 towards Minnetonka Beach would be a draw for people to the area He feels it would be safer to tome up around and dow n Navarre Lane to CoRds 19 and 15 He indicated if Navarre Lane were to be v acated, a portion of it would go to the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association for their use or disposal He noted that another possibility if the vacation did not occur would be to swing the trail over to allow the pond to expand McDermott reported that the Olive Avenue trail is shown in the center of Olive Avenue, which he said is narrow and in poor condition He did note that people could access the park if the trail went along Olive but pedestrian and bikes would tend to cross without the aid of a traffic light which be did not favor He saw the use of Nav arre Lane as less hazardous. McDermott said he was unaw are of the possibility of recessing the trail but thought it may be a good concept McDermott said the Park Commission would like to see the access maintained and is in favor of the center access for a trail along Navarre Lane. O'Sullivan referred to a comment made to him by his contractor, Rob Thompson, of the Navarre Lane trail would make too much of a thoroughfare. O'Sullivan does not believe it would be heavily used He suggested the possibility of a pedestrian staircase at the back of the parking lot along with the use of a trail along Olive Avenue Stoddard responded that the Engineer would have to review the needs for a handicap access. Thompson questioned if such a trail could meet the code Gaflron noted if the required slopes were 1:10 or 1:20, it would be difficult O'Sullivan indicated there were alot of unanswered questions. He asked that a vote be taken for the vacation with the qualification of a trail. Lindquist said he understood the time constraints but would like to hear from the Purk Commission regarding a partial vacation. He questioned if the v acation was completed, what w ould happen to the portion designated to the Lafayette Ridge neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#1A - #2197 John O’Sullivan and North Central CBA - Continued) McMillan inquired when the determination uould be made about the stormwater pond size. Gaflron said it had originally been done but the City plan did not meet the requirements of the MCWD At this point, the proposed pond is only larger enough to accommodate phase 1 of the project GatTron said discussions are ongoing. Lindquist inquired when it would be resolved Gaffron said the issue of the vacation is part of the pond resolution O'Sullivan noted that he is still working with the church on the closure of the sale of the property and has had three time extensions 'tt' the proposed purchase He thought he would be able to complete the vacation and concepli'**! site plan by this time. Mabusth asked for review of the restrictions Gaffron reported the following conditions have been recommended by Staff: 1) The applicants shall legally combine the vacated portions of right-of-way with their respective properties This includes O'Sullivan and Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association 2) All property owners benefiting from the proposed vacation shall be responsible for executing the appropriate drainage, utility, access and pedestrian/bike trail easements over the portions of right-of-way to be vacated. The easements shall be filed at the time the vacation resolution is filed by the City Attorney's office. 3) As part of the applicant’s Phase 2 site planning, namely the church property, a trail corridor shall be reserved at a location acceptable to the City, which is currently open to where it shall be located. 4) As part of the development of the church site, the applicant shall submit a trail grading and construction plan to be approved by the Park Commission and City Engineer, and shall grade the site accordingly to accommodate future pavement of a trail. It has not yet been decided to what extent the applicant will construct the trail. Stoddard questioned whether conditions 3 and 4 could be combined. Gaffron said the options could be laid out but not become definitive without the Council's input. Berg asked McDermott where the trail would begin. It was noted that the trail would stop at CoRd 15 and people would use the roadway along CoRd 15. There are no plans for a formal trail along CoRd 15. Feeder streets would be used. Thompson reported that the site was maximized in its use. A shift of buildings to the northeast would create more hardcover in the zones. He saw the trail creating a domino effect on the site. He felt the best compromise would be a trail along the perimeter to eliminate further compromising and intensification of w hat is now a h Jerline site. He cited the problem with having a stormwater pond on site instead of u.; ••• ing a contribution. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#I A - #2197 John O'Sullivan and North Central CBA - Continued) Berg, while understanding his concern, said she felt there were other issues to be addressed with the Olive trail being proposed in the center of the street and requiring pedestrians to cross traffic. McDermott said the Park Commission did address the space issue They felt the 6’ walking path would be eliminated along the north e.^d of the site allowing the parking lot to be moved o\er along with the buildings creating the '.ecessary space for the trail along Navarre Lane without further compromising of the buildings Thompson indicated that a parking variance would then be required Gaffion noted that a 10 ’ setback was required. Lindquist said he w as generally in favor of the vacation but the problem lies w ith the location of the trail. He thought the trail location could be w orked out with the applicant and City Staff. O'Sullivan responded that he would be satisfied with that recommendation. Gaffron said it would be satisfactory to have a conditional easement with the applicant working with Staff and City Engineer on the location of the trail He did note that the vacation itself may not accomplish all the applicant desires. Thompson asked for further clarification before the Council meeting. Gaffron noted it would be best to have the options available for the Council meeting in December Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2197 for vacation subject to Recommendations 1-4 with applicant being responsible for the trail grading under #4. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#1) B. #2198 JOHN O’SULLIVAN AND NORTH CENTRAL CBA, INC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEWA'ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:18-8:31 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the site plan was incomplete at this time. He felt it would be best to table the application to the January meeting until the supplemental information was obtained He did ask the Planning Commission to discuss the four variances required. These include hardcover, lot coverage, front parking setback, and building height. The northerly 1/3 of the property located in the 500-1000' setback zone allows for 35% hardcover and is proposed at 48%. the southerly 1/8 of the 500-1000' setback allows 35% and is proposed at 73%. The lot coverage has been scaled down and a variance may not be required. The proposed front parking setback along CoRd 19 is at 4.6' where 20' is required in the B-5 zoning district The applicant has indicated the need for a building height variance but no plan or site grade has been submitted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#1B - #2198 John O’Sullivan and North Central CBA - Continued) Berg inquired if the parking setback was from the sidew alk. Gaffron said there would be a 4' green space. The sidewalk is located into the right-of-way. Normally there would be a 20* yard in other uses. McMillan asked where the stormwater would go Gaffron said it would travel from the Culver’s site to the pond It has been determined that the pond as proposed will not meet the standards to ser\ e both Phase I and Phase 11. The runoff travels from the site to the wetland areas and on to Lafayette Bay. Lindquist inquired whether the hardcover calculations were fairly accurate O'Sullivan said they were with the possibility of a slight reduction Lindquist inquired about the proposed height of the building. Thompson estimated with the modification to a smaller footprint and to achieve the look they desire, the peak would encroach 5' beyond the 30’ restriction It was noted that it would be lower than what the church currently in height. Mabusth asked if there would be filling from the existing site to maintain the pad. Thompson said only a little fill would be required. Thompson noted that the hardcover overages in the two zones were to the outside perimeter. He noted that the intent of the hardcover is to eliminate direct runoff. The area does not drain to the two bays that define the hardcover zones and the pond will serve as best as allowed He did not feel the 500-1000’ zoning restrictions applied since the runoff does not drain to those portions of the lake Lindquist agreed but only if the pond was large enough. Lindquist said he saw no concern with the height as proposed. He felt the 4' parking setback was too excessive. He noted the hardcover would be dependent on the pond. Hawn and McMillan agreed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#1B - #2198 John O'Sullivan and North Central CBA - Continued) Thompson said the only way to reduce hardcover was with the parking variance. Lindquist saw less parking with more pond as a better option but was unable to render a judgment without further information on the pond and how it will work He asked that detailed information be provided when the application is next reviewed. O'Sullivan inquired if the runoff with the pond and flowing to outlot C w as not in the 500-1000' setback. Lindquist said the Commission would have to look at the whole area and would require the study of the City Engineer. Thompson reiterated that the pond w ould not accommodate the development of both sites. He noted they were working with the MCWD regarding the pond and a possible monetary contribution for the deficiency. Lindquist asked that the applicant continue working with the MCWD and Staff O'Sullivan also added that the parking setback is no different than what is currently happening on his other site now. O'Sullivan noted that there is a good area in which to enhance the green space and will work with the County. Lindquist agreed that it would be better to provide more green space Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2198 to the January meeting of the Planning Commission Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 ACTION ITEMS (#2) #2180 PEGGY AND FRANK PICHELMAN, 2920 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:29 P.M. The applicants were present Mabusth indicated that this application was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting to allow for further review The plan includes two options regarding placement of the 24x'24‘ garage addition to the street side. Option 1 proposes the doors to face outward 8' from the lot line. Option 2 would include the driveway over the street yard. Additions proposed to the rear include a level expansion and grade level deck. These improvements meet the average lakeshore setback Mabusth reported that the neighbors are concerned with an expansion within the street yard inconsistent with other homes in the neighborhood. The applicant was asked to work with the neighbors in rc visiting the proposed plan. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#2 - #2180 Peggy and Frank Pichelman - Continued) The amended plan locates all improvements within the legal building envelope of the property. All structures meet the required setbacks. A tuck-under garage meets the 30' setback. The 4' expansion along the side of the residence meets the 10' side setback. A structural expansion I2'x20' is proposed along the lake side corner of the residence The 3 level expansion is proposed at 16'x20' and 12'xl5'. Structural and hardcover variances would be required There is a reduction in structural coverage from the original proposal of 18 4% to 17.1% There is a significant hardcover increase at 41% for a 15.8% variance. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback area in the original proposal was at 36.7% for option I and 39.6°/'o for option 2. The existing structural hardcover is 33.4% The amended plan will result in the removal of the structure while maintaining the w alls. Mabusth indicated that the proposal is nearly a rebuild by the redesign within the building envelope. Mabusth alluded to a letter from the neighbors, the Powell's, regarding their concerns with the improvements. The applicant stated that they attempted to answer the questions brought forward by the neighbors to meet the setbacks. This resulted in the garage being pulled back into the house envelope During public comments, Robert Powell, 2916 Casco Point Road, questioned the effect on runoff with the ground cover. He noted that water comes into their basement after rainfall Powell said he was satisfied with the design if it does not negatively aftect the drainage situation in the area Lindquist inquired if this issue w as addressed. Pichelman said he did not wish for water in his basement either. It was noted that drain tile would be added to assist the Pichelman's drainage Mabusth said the drainage issue will be reviewed by the City Engineer. Lindquist asked that the condition be added to include the City Engineer review of this drainage issue Mrs Powell reported that the contractor did review the drainage issue. The design is such that runoff will be taken around the front of their home and downward towards the lake so as not to trap water any^vhere. The lower level ground is level McMillan asked if gutters w ould be placed on the new structure and instructed the residents to ensure that the property is properly sloped. Pichelman reported that both the existing home and new structure will have gutters. He added they are attempting to solve the problem of drainage between the two homes. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#2 - #2180 Peggy and Frank Pichelman - Continued) Hawn indicated her concern with the amount of hardcover at 41%. Mrs. Pichelman said hardcover was addressed with the first proposal but that proposal w'as not favored by the neighbors. With the garage being tucked into the home, hardcover was affected by the need to enlarge the building envelope to accommodate the needs of the family. Hawn asked if the shed on the property could be removed. It was no^ed that there is no permanent shed, only a portable fish house. Hawm inquired about ideas where reductions could be made. Stoddard noted the small lot size Without a floor plan, Stoddard said he was unable to visualizi' where reductions could be made He did indicate that the house was large for the lot Mrs. Pichelman said their response to the neighbors resulted in the hardcover change. The 30' driveway is no longer covered by garage adding to the hardcover. Pichelman noted the rest of the home was using the same foundation except for the addition to the rear. McMillan countered that the addition was now larger. Mabusth superimposed the two proposals noting the differing expansion areas Mrs Pichelman stated the kitchen was pushed out as a result of the garage being pulled in Mabusth noted that the expansions are for a family room and kitchen area McMillan asked if the applicants were attempting to maintain the same amount of living space Pichelman said the proposal is actually less. Mr. Pichelman explained the process the plans have gone through in looking at hardcover and setbacks He noted that a one car garage would not be consistent with the amenities provided within the home. Stoddard suggested a possible reduction in deck size. Mabusth inquired if a reduction could be made to the proposed expansions Stoddard inquired what the hardcover calculations were for the neighboring homes in general. Mabusth same there is about 33- 35% hardcover typically found in this neighborhood. She did note that the long driveway adds 640 s.f of hardcover. The property was noted by Lindquist to be about 14,000 s.f. in size. Hawn voiced concern with repeating a problem consistently found in the Casco Point neighborhood of homes being purchased and then adding improvements. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (U2 - #2180 Peggy and Frank Pichelman - Continued) Lindquist suggested an outer limit be established for hardcover. He said he is not comfortable setting a precedent of allowing 41% hardcover. Stoddard agreed asking that hardcover be maintained in the 30% range The Planning Commission set a upper limit of 35-36% hardco. er. Pichelman .i ea that the structural coverage was reduced by the amended plan from 18®/o to 17 l®/o. Mabusth noted the different hardcover calculations that exist and that were proposed. The Pichelmans indicated with a hardcover range, they could work with their plan to decrease the size while still meeting the setbacks Berg suggested 38-39%. Mabusth asked that the applicant prepare an amended plan with reduction in hardcover in the 75-250’ setback. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2180 contingent on receipt of an amended plan received by Staff prior to the Council review with hardcover maintained at 38-39% in the 75-250’ setback zone Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0 (Planning Commissioner Stoddard left the meeting after agenda items 1 and 2.) (#3) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCES/CONDI riONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:32-8:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present alo' «ith Architect, Neil Heupel Gaffron reported that the applu .1 received approval m June, 1996, for removal of a garage and ''‘^''•'•’rrrtion of an attached garage to the residence within 5' of the side lot line. The ad'^ii. >n was not constructed, and the applicant is now requesting approval of another ap- cation. Gaffron noted that the property in question is located on Lake Classen, a Natural Environment Lake, requiring a 150’ setback MINTUTES OF THF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) The current proposal calls for the removal of the garage, one small addition, and another large addition to the west side of the residence. The propc al w ould result in a 32’ encroachment in the right-of-way, a 24’ encroachment of the lakeshore setback, a 5’ side setback variance, and encroachment of the average lakeshore setback. The neighboring residence to the east would dellne the average lakeshore setback The encroachment of the right-of-way is considered extreme in comparison to any other properties on CoRd 6. The lakeshore setback is similar to what was proposed with the original application but •' 'th added bulk Gaffron noted that the east side setback variance was approved in June with the finding that it would be difficult to build to the west Y’et this proposal calls for the addition to be to the w est of the residence Also included in the improvement is a proposed guest apartment to accommodate a mother-in-law living at the residence, which requires a CUP. The proposed constructions appears to have addressed the specific issues of being within the principal residence structure, use for a relai.ve, and a single common entryway serving the entire structure with the exception of additional accesses to the decks and garage spaces. Parking will be provided by a two-stall garage on the east end of the house replacing the existing garage and a third separate stall at the northw est end of the house to serve the apartment use The plumbing will share the existing septic s>’stem installed in 1988 to serve a 4-bedroom home. The residence will still have 4 bedrooms but will be larger in size The septic inspector has reported that there is apparently no alternate drainfield site on the property. Borings were taken but no alternate site was found Helgager reported that their plans were changed after receiving approval for the initial proposal in June due to his mother-in-law’s plans to move into their residence. This proposal is an attempt to accommodate her and her needs Helgager noted that a single level home is desirable as she is getting older He understands that the home is close to the road and would like to accommodate the concerns for screening. He noted the building envelope to be about 1800 s f Helgager indicated that the current home would not meet the setback standards He said he attempted to balance the distance between the lake and the roadway after hearing the discussions from the previous proposal. Heupel addressed the issue of building to the west of the addition He noted that the problem was not being able to build to the west but the approach to the garage would have required changing, and it had been their desire to maintain the approach from CoRd 6. Hawn said she felt with sophisticated landscaping and removal offence and dead trees, evergreens and other screening could be done. She did feel the residence was too close to the well noting a 2’ separation where 3’ is required. i L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Lindquist asked the applicant if the garage on the front side of the house was necessary. Helgager said the intent was to provide a garage for his mother-in-law so she does not have to walk through the entire hou.se to gain access to her accommodations. Heupel also added that this garage addition would be at the same level as the slab and would not require stairs as would be the case w ith the other garage. Lindquist said he understood the need but noted the elimination of the garage would aid the problem of setback. There were no public comments McMillan asked if the conditional use pen.^it for guest house w ould be review ed periodically It was noted that the CUP requires no annual review and stays with the house with restrictions as required. Gatfron reported that if the Commission recommended periodical reviews, it could be written to only apply to this owner, if desired. Lindquist inquired aoouv the lack of alternate septic site. Gatfron reported that the property is not close to sewer and the problem would remain the same wi.‘h the number of bedrooms if there is no alternate site. Lindquist agreed but noted that the house size was doubling with the improvements as proposed Helgager responded that he understood the septic issue but saw it as a distance in the future with the ability to go to a mound system if necessary'. Helgager added that he was informed the life expectancy of a mound system is 15 years and could be replaced to an alternate site postponing replacement for 30 years Lindquist was concerned that the potential problem would only be prolonged. Gatfron said it was not the City's expeiience that a mound system would only last 15 years, but probably twice that time. He noted the pump or rock bed of the system may h-’ve to be replaced at some point. Gaffron reported that the vast majority of new system., were of the mound type due to the soils and seasonal water tables A maximum slope of 6% is required for a mound system which is a problem with the many steep lots in Orono. Lindquist asked if the applicant could make the home smaller in size. Helgager asked for some guideline. Berg asked and received confirmation that there would be a full basement under the residence. Noting the 2200 s.f on the main level, Berg said it is an extensive size considering having the main level and basement. Haw n suggested that the home not be extended forw ard of what currently exists. Lindquist suggested removal of the single garage addition and a reduction in the house size. I.t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Berg suggested moving the garage back to the line of the house She said she would be in support of the garage if it was moved and saw the garage location as the most logical site. This suggestion would result in a reduction in the footprint and attachment of the garage at the same side as proposed. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2187 for further review. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2188 MARY K. RICE, 1570 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:54-8:59 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present Mabusth indicated that the property is located along the "S" curve of North Arm Drive and consists of 6,883 s.f The application presents two options involving an attached single stall garage with upper level deck (Option 1) or a detached garage located in the south side yard (Option 2). Both options involve street setback variances of 2' or 3'. Structural coverage would not be exceeded by either option Hardcover within the 250- 500' setback area would increase from 23 9^?o to either 25.6% for Option 1 or 30% for Option 2. A I0’xl6' deck also exists along the south side of the residence Mabusth noted that Staff prefers Option I as the topography slopes to the east and would have the minimal impact on areas of existing plantings. The applicant said Option I was also her preference. There were no public comments. Haw n inquired as to how the residence was entered. Rice said the residence can be entered from either the deck or the basement. Mabusth noted that the access to the front of the residence was removed Berg moved, Mc.Millan seconded, to approve Application #2188, Option I, for a 2’ street setback variance Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#5) #2189 STONEGATE FARM, INC., 2940 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICANT WITHDRAWN The applicant withdrew this application prior to the meeting MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NON^MBER 18. 1996 (#6) #2191 WALTER AND SHARON WITTMER, 2780 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:00-9:07 P.M. The Affidavit ofPublicaiion and Certificate ofMaiMng were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the property is located near the Narrows The residence is served by a two stall attached garage. The applicant seeks to construct a single stall, 12'x24', two level addition Mabusth displayed the elevations and noted a tuck under garage located to the lake side. The only variance required is for hardcover. The setbacks requirements are met. The previous owners originally proposed a variance application. The property is Torrens, and the County refused to accept the variance of which the new owner was unaware. Mabusth indicated that the landscaped areas have been expanded to 980 s.f within the 75- 250 ’ setback as well as new landscaping in the 0-75 ’ setback. During the previous application review, it was found that the underliner had deteriorated to the point that it was not considered hardcover. There are now retaining stone walls and new underliner in place. The hardcover includes 953 s f in the 0-75' setback There is 31.4% hardcover in the 75-250' setback and is proposed at 31.3% In speaking with the architect regarding possible reductions in hardcover, Mabusth informed him that it would not be wise to remove the paving improvement in the road as it serves others and is in an area with steep grades She also suggested that no reduction be made in the turning radius in the principal driveway. To effect a reduction in hardcover, Mabusth suggested that the underliner be removed as long as it does not affect drainage. Mabusth noted that the structural coverage is proposed at 9%. The applicant informed the Commission that the underliner was in place at the time of purchase. He feels there is no drainage problem on the property and will remove the underliner if necessary. Mabusth inforrri>^d the Commission that the 953 s f of landscape with underliner of geotech and plastic would reduce the hardcover to 25.2% or possibly to the point where no hardcover variance is required. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2191 for a hardcover variance with the condition that the underliner be removed from the landscaping. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV'EMBER 18, 1996 (#7) #2192 ROBERT BEUTLER, 1331 NORl H ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES- PUBLIC HEARING 9:08-9:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailine were notedw The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the property is located on Forest Lake. The applicant seeks to construct a new residence iakeward on the property and will meet all required setbacks but will not meet the 140 ’ lot width at the shoreline and at the 75’ setback line. In addition, the applicant would like to keep the current principal structure as an accessory structure. It was noted that lakeshore lots are allowed accessory structures in the street yard. The accessory structure will be used for storage and as a workshop and office. The applicants would like to retain the bathroom A restrict covenant would be required to be filed indicating that the structure would never be used as a second residence or as a guest house or rental property The only issue raised is whet.her the applicant should be allowed to keep the structure as an expanded living space The kitchen fixtures are to be removed but the plumbing would remain Beutler said it was their intent to build on the property and would like to maintain some of the history of the property by retaining the current residence He noted that the 3-car garage is full, and the e.xtia space would allow for additional storage Hawn indicated that she was having difficulty with this application as the current residence is in good shape. Hawn noted that the code does not allow for additional living space when the property is less than two acres, but it was her opinion that the applicant would not abuse the code but was concerned if the property w as sold at some point She cited the space would be ideal for a use as a nanny's quarters, and it would be difficult to police what might occur in the future. Other members of the Commission agreed it w ould be a shame to take the house down Mrs Beutler commented that she was aware of other such situations in Orono. Mabusth stated that the structure would not qualify for use as a guest house reiterating that :he property was less than two acres in size She asked the Commission to consider what diflerencea there may be between this application and another application reviewed at the October meeting MINUTES o: niE ORONO PLANNIT^IG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#7 - #2192 Robert Beutler - Continued) During the discussion, Mr. Beutier suggested restrictions be placed on the abstract and structure taken down if sold Hawn questioned whether a structure in such good condition should be required to be removed. Mrs. Beutler noted that it was their intent to tie in the exteriors of the buildings to match Berg suggested taking out the plumbing in the structure. Mr. Beutler intends to use the structure as office space but would not include any client visits The main intent is for storage and work shop. Mrs. Beutler noted that neither structiire would be large but were located on a large parcel. Hawn questioned how the Commission would respond if another application was presented in the hiture with a structure in poor condition. Hawn w as of the opinion that the plumbing should remain if the building also remained Lindquist asked if the applicants would be satisfied with tlie bathroom plumbing remain and the kitchen plumbing removed. The applicants indicated that they would find this satisfactory. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2192 with the understanding that the plumbing would be removed with the exception of the sink and stool in the bathroom Hawn suggested the restrictive covenant be signed also It was noted that the well will also serve the new residence. McMillan questioned w hether the value of the property would be reduced by elimination of these plumbing fixtures. Hawn asked if a conditional use permit would be required. Mabusth said the only approval required was for the lot width variance and the restrictive covenart would be filed on the deed. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 1, Hawn, who indicated that she did not feel the code was clear and questioned how another applicant would be dealt with under similar circumstances if the struciure was not in good condition. (#8) #2193 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 4680/4700 CflEEKWOOb TRAIL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:26-9:51 P.M. Jjie Affidavit of Publication and Cenificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Tom Maple and Andrew Syverson. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEE. iNG HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#8 - #2193 MCWD - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application for conditional use permit by the MCWD pertains to a project located northeast of the cul-de-sac of Creekwood Trail. The 100 acre wetland flows southward through Minnetrista to Jennings Bay The LMCD petitioned the MCWD in 1975 to construct an upper watershed storage and retention project to improve the overall water quality. The MCWD completed such a project in 1985 including detention ponds and work on the channel. Maintenance excavation is now needed, and MCWD proposes to expand the boundaries of the South Katrina Pond and change the outlet w hich will change the nature of the flow Swerson said the flow w ould be taken in at different velocities Gaftron indicated there are existing easements for the stormwater pond and access to it. The MCWD plans to protect the wooded site and identified burial mounds He indicated that the access point is proposed to be north of the two drivew ays. Gaffron suggested there may be another way to access the area for less impact on the drainage structure at the access point. The intent, however, is to bring equipment up the creek bed in order to expand the pond. A few trees may need removal but in the restricted area within 75' of the creek, tree replacement would be required for 6" or more diameter replaced with 2" or more diameter trees Gaffron stated that the location of the burial mounds to the north had already resulted in a redesign of the expansion to maintain appropriate setbacks The 400 dump loads which will be leaving the site are also a concern It is a private road, and the MCWD will work with the neighbors regarding this issue to gain their approval. Gaffron indicated the project is planned to begin in Januaiy , 1997 and will require one month’s time for completion Due to the nature of the pond, more maintenance will be required in 5-10 years. During the Stafi're\iew, it was also noted by MCWD that more work will be required down stream in the creek bed Staff recommends approval of the proposed pond maintenance and expansion project subject to conditions 1-10 as noted in the memo. The MCWD is working with Minnetrista and Independence to gain permits for spoil disposal sites in their area. Gaffron recommended an additional condition (#11) be considered, to approve the proposal to clean out the creek bed subject to Staff review tnrough a land alteration permit or brought back before the Commission if found to be more than a minor project. Maple said the MCWD was prepared to meet all of the conditions adding that they were also in favor of the tree replacement. Maple noted that they have had two public hearings and have worked with the fee owners of the site. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#8 - #2193 MCWD - Continued) During public comment, Kathryn Biek, 4675 Creekwood Trail, questioned the additional work on the creek bed, specifically, condition #11. She indicated that this work has not been addressed She questioned whether it would affect taking any of her land. Syverson informed her that the project would not require taking of any land but involves removing sediment. Biek asked how the creek would be accessed. Syverson said they would work with the land owner. Biek voiced concerned w ith destruction of the landscaping on her property. Maple indicated that the area was previously a ditch, and the MCWD has authority over the ditch. Lindquist asked if it is considered a County ditch and if there were any easements declaring it to be a County ditch. Gartron reported that a 50' easement follows the center of the creek bed. He indicated the major concern will be how access is gained without ah'ecting the land owner's property. (Planning Commissioner Smith arrived at this time.) Sharon Coleman, 4650 Creekw ood Trail, indicated that her property and Biek's meets halfway through the creek, but she is aware of an e.xisting easement. She asked for public notice to be given if condition # 11 precludes the notice. Maple said the procedure is to notify any land owner that is affected Gaffron indicated that condition #11 was an "after thought" resulting from discussions that took place in review of the proposal earlier today. It was suggested the new condition be added rather than review the creek bed cleanup as a separate issue. It was noted that the clean out may be as simple as cleaning out the sediment. Maple said he found it acceptable to add the condition Berg informed Coleman and Biek that they would be notified of any public hearing. Lindquist informed Coleman and Biek of their right to attend a public hearing and voice their concerns. Biek informed the Commission that the runoft'drains into her yard. Gaffron indicated with the questions being raised that Condition # 11 should not be included at this time. Maple agreed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONiMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 m - #2193 MCWD - Continued) McMillan asked what type of wetland was involved in the application S>verson said the wetland was DNR classified type 3. McMillan asked if there w as any purple loose strife found in the wetland SvA erson said he w as not aware of any but did understand the need to monitor the situation. McMillan asked about the shape of the pond Syverson said the shape was drawn to till the easement and maximize the storage. The plan calls for a break in the grade and planting of emergent vegetation A w etland specialist will assist in the landscape plan Maple indicated MCWD had a working relationship with the Landscape Arboretum. McMillan asked if the MCWD had any idea where the phosphorus was coming from Syv erson said it was a non-point source Runoff was noted to be a contributing factor. McMillan noted the need to educate the land owners regarding this issue. Maple said phosphorus is a major concern of the MCWD noting animal and vegetation loading is heavy. Coleman v oiced a concern w ith problem of back up in the area of the priv ate road. She asked that coverings or grates be placed to alleviate clogging from logs. Syverson said the clogging issues have been addressed but there is a problem with two culverts under two driveways He thought the City maintained the culverts but said the MCWD could look at screening Bick asked who was responsible Lindquist noted the road is private and the upkeep is the responsibility of the property ow ners. Smith asked w hat communication has taken place between the neighbors and the MCWD. Syverson said he has spoken with the two land owners affected by the application. Smith suggested the notification process be broadened McMillan noted the project included hauling on a private road implying the properly owners using the road should be notified. Coleman indicated that she w as notified of the hauling Maple noted that there has been no decision made by the board of the MCWD to do work down st ream of the drivew ays at this time Lindquist moved, Hawn .seconded, to approve Application U2193 with Staff recommendations I-10. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2194 DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND, 1365 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:52-9:58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The .Applicant was present. 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#9 - #2194 David Alan Sutherland - Continued) Mabusth reported that the plat map indicates the lot to be 7,000 s.f. in size. The applicant is proposing construction of a partial second level over the single story residence. The existing single stall garage is located 3' from the residence. The application does not require any structural coverage variance. The residence is located in the 500-1000' setback area allowing 35% hardcover There will be no change to the hardcover which exists at 28.26%. Setback vaiiances are required due to the location of the existing structure at 18' side setback and 29' rear setback. The bedroom expansion results in an intensification requiring to wrap the existing variances. Mabusth indicated that she has not received any comments after notification from the adjacent neighbors. A neighbor did request a copy of the application. The applicant had no additional comments. Smith was informed that the construction would be contracted out. There were no public comments. The applicant plans to complete the second stoiy construction in about four years which will require a new permit The applicant informed Berg that the currently proposed improvement will be completed within the one year time limit allowed It was noted that there were several evergreens to the east and south of the proposed construction which will be lost. The applicant informed Smith that it was his intent to add more landscaping and trees across the back and side of the property McMillan moved. Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2 194 for side and rear setback variances. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2195 GENMAR INDUSTRIES, LNC, 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN/VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:51 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Mary McConnell and Jeff Melby. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application is for a commercial site plan review and variances for a property in the B-2 lakeshore district which has been operated by Minnetonka Boat Works. The applicant plans to replace the existing 30'x80' building with a smaller 24'x40' building. The property will be leased to King's Cove Marina based out of Hastings Variances requested are for lakeshore setback, requiring 75' and proposed at 49'; and street setback requiring 30', existing at 12', and proposed at 17'. The required side setb'ick is 10’ and is proposed at 15' The plan calls for a grassy area to the lake side of the new building to be used for boat sales and display purposes Park and hardcover variances are also needed, in addition to lot area, lot depth, lack of sanitary facilities and boat storage variances The existing building has been used for storage Retail sales occurred on the property in the past but the current parking does not accommodate retail sales. There are no changes planned for the parking lot Any alternative use of parking stalls w ould require a variance. Gaffron indicated that there seems to be an over usage of the site He noted that it could be argued that the proposed use of the grassy area might convert it to hardcover at some point due to the heav>- pedestrian traffic. In reviewing the parking, Gaffron indicated that the code requires 6 stalls for eveiy 10 boat slips The property currently has 08 parking stalls for its III slips. Additional parking spaces are needed for the planned uses, as well as three spaces for the employees, for a total of 78 Gaffron reported that the applicant proposes 12 slips currently used for re .al to be converted to use for display of boats for sale, which the applicant considers would bring the parking requirement to 71. The code, however, does not differentiate between the two u‘'2s resulting in a 10 stall variance required to accommodate the retail sales Also, if the green space is not used for display, and display boats are placed on the parking lot, then additional spaces would be required. There has also been a tendency to park the overflow on weekends at a neighboring marina Gaffron said the use could be limited to include no weekends or holidays Gaffion said the applicant has agre?d to close the sales operation on Sundays except for four Sundays per year chosen by the applicant. Gaffron noted that the slips on the w est side of the road have been served by parking on the east side of the road through a variance granted in 1989. Gaflron reviewed the hardcover calculations for the property on the east side of the road. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback currently exists at 36.9% and is proposed to decrease to 35.4%, but noting that the green space w ill be used for storage, which is not included in this calculation Hardcover in the 75-250' setback exists at 73.9% and is proposed to decrease to 72.2 “/'o. The overall result in both zones is a 1300 s.f hardcover reduction. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) GatTron reported that there is a lack of sanitar>* facilities on the property Portable toilets have been used but no indoor facilities provided for slip customers as required by code. Sewer was brought to this area in the mid 1980’s and is available to this property. GalTron recommended that this issue be addressed The City required a pond in 1989 for stormwater management, and the parking lot discharges to that pond The City Engineer has not reviewed the pond Gaflron indicated that the pond probably functions as planned but without meeting current codes. He added that the site plan calls for additional plantings on the property noting that the current landscaping has met City approval. Gaflron indicated that there has been a long standing discrepancy between the comprehensive plan and the zoning code regarding boat sales. The comp plan says that boat sales are not an appropriate use for the B-2 district The zoning code has allowed boat sales as a permitted use since 1975. The legislature changed its view on the hierarchy in 1 974 stipulating that the comprehensive plan takes precedence over the zoning code. Gafffon noted that all of the other Orono marinas have had changes but have continued to have retail use which requires more parking. The applicant was asked to respond McConnell addressed the concerns br<.;:>i l;l forward by Gaflron She noted that the large building has not been fully utilized The applicant reviewed whether minor repairs should take place or whether a more viable use would be to minimize the size of the building with a new building. The building as proposed was said to be environmentally friendly with no use of chemicals and contain only office space v/ith two sales people and one secretary. With regard to the green space losing its pervious ability, McConnell said the boats would be on trailers and would not affect the drainage. She noted that the applicant had considered asphalt in that area. McConnell said 1 2 slips would be used for water display of boats. King's Cove would store the boats in those slips for test driving by customers for retail sales with rental slips provided by other stalls McConnell vievved the lack of separating the retail and rental stalls as "double dipping" It was her opinion that only a 3 stall variance would be required for parking. She noted that the applicant was willing to close on Sundays with the e.xception of four Sundays per year. As to the parking conflict between the two marinas, McConnell recognized the problem as being in the past but improvements have generated more parking on the Genmar site. 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) McConnell informed the Commission that they have never received any complaints regarding the use of "Satellites" for sanitary facilities. She indicated that the office will be served by sanitary sewer but only for use by the employees Customers will not be allowed past a certain point in the office building, and it w ill be closed on Sundays. McConnell said to accommodate sanitarv facilities for all customers, it would have m required a larger building built toward the lake side. McConnell noted that the property has historically been used as a marina, for storage, and for retail and views the proposal as an improvement to the property. Lindquist opened the meeting to public comment. Doug Schmitt, 1475 Shoreline Drive, reported that he lives next door but across the channel from the property. He inquired if there was a difficulty in connecting to sewer. Gaffron said the property is served by sewer now noting a nearby injector station Gaffion said connecting to sewer is not an issue noting that the sewer assessment has been paid. Lou Oberhauser indicated he was representing a neighboring property owner. He asked what would prevent the applicant from entering the rental business in relation to the slips available Gattron reported that there are specific uses allowed by conditional use permit that require parking stalls. He cited examples of boat clubs, launching facilities, transient launching, charter boat port of call and caretaker houses. Permitted uses under the code include slip rental, marine sales, repair, storage, and marine fuel sales Gaffron noted that without a review, the rental situation could happen McConnell indicated that it was not the applicant's intent of renting any boats and noted that such a condition could be stipulated. Oberhauser said he was concerned with an increase in the commercialization of the area and intensification in use not in keeping with the residential area. It was clarified for Smith that Genmar ow ns the property and would lease the facilities to King’s Cove for use as a marina and office space Hawn asked for clarification on extended parking granted in the 1980's. Gaffron said the variance was granted with the understanding that the number of spaces did not include retail, and no retail was proposed at that time. McMillan asked for comment on what minor repairs would be required to the existing building. She said the building looks as if it w ould require major repair. McConnell said the building was in good structural condition and felt the building could be usable with only minor repair. 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18. 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Smith inquired about how the 78 parking stall configuration was derived. Gaffron said he did not believe the existing parking could be reconfigured to meet the 78 stall requirement. McMillan inquired about the sales hours for the business The owner of King's Cove said the office would be open from 9;00 a.m. to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, all year around. McMillan asked how the applicant proposes to keep the slip rental customers from using the sanitary facilities within the building McConnell said the building plans situate the receptionist area so that the facilities would not be available She said the applicant proposes to keep the current satellite toilets In the same area as they have in the past. McMillan was informed that the satellites have not been screened in the past. Berg asked the applicant w hat type of construction w ould be used for the building. Melby said the structure would be a double wide manufactured modular. McConnell said improvements would be added to the building such as shutters, different roofing, and awning Lindquist asked If there was any requirement that the property hook up to sewer. Gaffron said the code was fairly specific and read the requirements including providing for sewer and water, waste dump station and pump out GaftVon indicated that these issues were not discussed in 1989 review Lindquist asked if a boat pump out was planned. McConnell said no Gaffron said the pump out was previously provided at the Gcnmar's Wayzata facility which has now been sold Lindquist asked if there was any problem with providing a pump out. McConnell said she would look into this possibility. Lindquist asked if there were other code requirements that were not being met. Gaffron said no CUP is required as the proposal does not include any of the uses which require a CUP. He noted that additional parking was allowed on the Brown ’s Bay side in 1989 to serve the slips on Tanager Lake across the County road. From a landscape standpoint, Gaffron said there were no problems Gaffron said the property is in general compliance and has been a low activity property. He noted that the previous boat storage in the winter was maintained at a low level. McConnell said winter storage is no longer being provided. Lindquist inquired about the 8-10 parking stall shortage. He noted that the code is specific as to the number required and does not discern the type of use. McConnell said she understood the code to be concerned with high turnover noting that the proposal calls for retail customer, not rental slips. Lindquist informed McConnell that slips are required for both retail and rental. 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Mabusth clarified through questioning McConnell that the rental slip customers will not have access to sanitary facilities when the boat sales office is closed. She asked the Commission whether the new use should be allowed if no permanent sanitary facilities are available and in light of the closing of the VVayzata facility. The boat slips will continue to be used on Sundays when the office facility is closed. McConnell said the use of the bathroom facility within the building would not affect any customer as the facility is not open for use at all. Smith noted that marinas provide such sanitary facilities for their customers. McMillan asked if there were any other changes for the boat slip customers. The only other change noted w as the lack of providing winter storage, w hich McConnell said w ould result in less activity on the site. Smith questioned the grass area becoming more like hardcover rather than a permeable source for drainage with heavy pedestrian use. McConnell agreed the grass would mat but said she did not expect alot of activ ity but saw the display as visual. No w alking stones will be laid. Smith asked how the stormwater facilities would be positioned on the property. McConnell said the requirements would have to be reviewed with the plans She also indicated that additional narking stalls may be found if the existing pond is moved elsewhere. Berg inquired whether the applicant intended on maintaining facilities in Hastings. King's Cove owner said he did. The Commission and applicant discussed the number of slips and stalls comparing retail and rental. McMillan said she was concerned with the intensification of the site. She also noted that the site would generate more traffic into an area that is already overburdened with traffic. McMillan also questioned w hat would result if the property w ere sold if the applicant was allowed to differentiate between rental and retail slips. McMillan said she saw the old building as being part of the history of old Orono. While acknowledging the applicant had the right to build, she did not see the proposed building as fitting in with the new Orono. Hawn agreed that the proposal was an intensification of the site. Noting the plan for a double wide mobile, no public toilet facilities, Hawn questioned how the applicant could ask the City to extend the limits of the code while not offering anything back to the customer. Hawn said she would like to see toilet facilities and an attractive building. Her major concern was with the density of the site. Hawn said she was not in favor of the application as presented 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#10 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Lindquist said the application as he saw it calls for a 10 stall variance to the parking code. Lindquist said he would not differentiate between the uses. Lindquist said the facility should provide toilets and pump out Smith agreed. He noted he did like the green area. Berg said the old building showed a character not present with the new building proposed. Lindquist asked the applicant if the application should be tabled for further review' or if a vote should be taken. McConnell asked for additional comments before tabling. Hawn said she would be interested in viewing the City Engineer's report on the pond to see if it was adequate to meet the current standards. Lindquist noted that the proposal should meet the ordinance changes made in 1995. Mr. Schniitt asked if there w ere any building codes that must be met. Gaffron said the building must meet thv B-2 standards, but those standards do not discuss how the building should look. Berg said she traveled the road daily and is concerned with the traffic and number of people using the facility on the narrow, busy roadway She saw the site as being the entrance into Orono and said she was adamant that the building be a good representation of Orono. Berg cited a nearby example 0;'a remodeled building that the proposal should emulate. Gaffron indicated there were licensing standards that are required to be met. He noted that the property has been open during the winter and summer to include storage and asked if there was further intent to add storage McConnell said the applicant had looked at that possibility, but it was not their intent to provide f?*- «tciage at this time but possibly in the future. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2195 to allow for further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 The application will be reviewed at the January, 1997 meeting. (#11) #2196 GENMAR INDUSTRIES, INC., 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA'ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:51-11:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#11 - #2196 Genmar Industries - Continued) Gaffron reported that the property o\vned by Genmar Industries is two separate tax parcels. This application refers to the property on the west side on Tanager Lake, north of the bridge. The proposal calls for a parking area on this property. There are a number of trees on this property that would be affected The property includes an existing protected bluff The 28-stall parking lot would require the removal of two-thirds of the bluff Also affected is the 0-75' setback requiring a hardcover variance for access Gaflron reported that Hennepin County indicated they had no problem with the access location The proposal will require extensive grading and cutting into the hillside. There would be a benn on the lake side and by the road to screen the parking lot. The City Engineer has recommended a larger pond be constructed than what is currently proposed. GaftVon read a letter into the minutes from the DNR recommending denial of the application for what they see is a self-created hardship. The DNR noted that the proposal would call for removal of 5000 cubic yards or the top 18’ of the bluff Gaffron reiterated the City approvals required by the project as proposed which include the following: 1) Conditional use permit for land alteration in excess of 100 cubic yards, 2) Variance for land alterations within 75* of the shoreline. 3) Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline, 4) Intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline and in a bluff impact zone, and 5) Hardcover in 75-250' zone in excess of 25% allowed. Gaffron indicated that the MCVVD has not yet responded to the proposal. He did note, however, that the State archaeologist felt the site was natural and did not contain dredge spoils. The archaeologist said there are no indications of any burial on the property. Gaffron reviewed the inconsistencies between the proposal and the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it was inappropriate to do any rew orking of the lakeshore. The bluff destruction to create a parking lot was not consistent with the Comp Plan. Gaffron mdicated that a variance was required for e.xtensive tree removals which would change the features of the bluff. The proposal would also change the neighbors view of the marina as well as the parked cars Gaffron reported that the iisue of safety w as suggested as a justification for granting the variance in the hardship statement In 1989, the LMCD approved the expansion of slips on Tanager Lake, which was then accommodated by the City by allowing parking expansion on the east side of the road However, the current parking situation does not meet code, and the proposal is an attempt to meet the code 28 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#11 - #2196 Genmar Inuustries - Continued) Gaffron said Police Chief Cheswick suguested that the proposal would not solve all of the proi ems present but would solve some parking needs. He was concerned that the project would bring trespassers closer to the channel and security could be a concern He saw the proposal as a solution for the slip customers. Cheswick had also suggested revisiting suggestions made in 1989 for a tunnel under the bridge, or a bridge over the road Gaffron said there are few documented incidents of pedestrian crossing problems, but he noted it was difficult to cross given the high volume and regularity of traffic on CoRd 15. Gaffron noted the City Engineer has reviewed the proposal, indicating it would require a larger pond in addition to the typical conditions such as a hauling route, disposal location, construction schedule, and traffic control plans Gaffron noted that the proposal would help applicant meet in the parking requirements for the new building proposed under Application #2195. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to consider the issues presented Staff recommends that other options be considered for safe access without removal of the bluff McConnell, in answering the issues brought forward by Gaffron, noted safety to be the reason behind the proposal and not the over development of the dockage system. She noted that the police department records did not reflect the near misses of accidents as a result of pedestrian crossing McConnell felt the proposal was the best solution. She also reiterated Hennepin County ’s approval of the access and provision of adequate sight line. McConnell indicated that it would only take one fatality to counter any of the issues brought forward McConnell addressed the issue of removal of a portion of the bluff*. The berm proposed is a counter to this issue according to McConnell. A cross section of the property was shown noting the proposal would preserve the rise in the topography and hide the parking area. From the Tanager Lake side, there would still be a raise in the land and a trail to the shore provided. McConnell said the proposal addressed the views and the noise issue. She also said the applicant was revisiting the storm water area to meet construction schedule needs. Melby informed the Commission that the proposal called for only the excavation of what was needed to the 950' contour and matched on the other side. The e.xisting plantings would be left as much as possible. He also noted that the plan calls for working from the inside out to eliminate any more excavation than necessary. McMillan asked if there would be any steps and was informed that steps would be placed where needed. She was also informed that the grade would be at a 3:1 slope. 29 1 V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18. 1996 (#11 - #2196 Genmar Industries - Continued) McConnell responded lo the suggestions made in I9G9 and again by Chief Cheswick for a tunnel or bridge. She noted that Hennepin County said a bridge was not feasible and a tunnel would be a security risk. Doug Schmitt noted the presence of Indian Mounds in the Orono area and questioned the review by the State archaeologist. Mabusth reiterated the findings by the archaeologist of a natural sight with no burial grounds. Gaffron read the letter written by lUe State archaeologist Schmitt inquired about a cut into the land on the north side by this site that had been stopped. Gaffron said he did not know the history of that excavation, but it was quite visible when standing on the north side of the bluff. Schmitt asked if there would be any opportunity for more slips. Gaffron said the LMCD has already provided a special density permit noting a marina must provide a number of amenities Gatfron indicated the number of slips is in direct correlation to the shoreline footage and amenities provided, and is within the jurisdiction of the LMCD. He did note that the Council may have an opinion as to whether additional slips might ever be developed at this site. Schmitt informed the Commission that he was concerned that another building such as a double wide mobile might be erected on the site. McConnell said they have no intention to add a structure or additional slips Hawn said she was opposed to cutting into the bluff'on the lakeshore Smith agreed noting the recommendation for denial by the DNR. McMillan and Berg also voiced their opposition to cutting into the bluff'. Lindquist asked the applicant if a vote or tabling was preferred. The applicant asked for a vote. Lindquist moveu. Smith seconded, to deny Application #2196. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. At Applicant's request, it was indicated that Applications #2195 and #2196 would be presented together to the Council, probably at their first meeting in February, 1997. SKETCH PLAN/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS (#12) #2190 JAMES G. FULLERTON, III., 3350/3400 FOX STREET - SKETCH OF A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION The applicant, John VVinjiton, was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#12 - #2190 James G. Fullerton - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property for sketch plan review includes Lot I, the original Fullerton estate. Lot 2, the homestead of James Fullerton 111, which will include a lot line rearrangement. Lot 3, a developed lot once part of the estate, and Lot 4, which was divided offbut served by Fox Street on the east side The current proposal is for a five lot subdivision It was noted that there will not be a back lot serving another property All of the lots meets the area and width requirements. There is a caretaker house which will be maintained Application will be made for a condition use permit and will meet the area standards but is located about 45’ from the lake shore. The accessory structure will be removed as it is located on the lot lines and will not meet the standards. Mabusth stated that the issue involves how to treat the upgrade of the road and whether a driveway access would be allowed Winston informed the Commission that Tract E has an easement to use Fox Street but does not currently use it. He also noted that the tract is not less than 2-1/2 acre lots as required by restrictive covenants Mabusth asked if the covenant restricts the number of units. Winston said the limitation is only to the size Mabusth said this would allow an additional unit to be served by Tract F for a total of possibly seven. Mabusth informed the Commission that the entrance to the area is 25' width and surrounded by retaining walls She noted that it would be ditllcult to upgrade the roadway The City Engineer reviewed the access and determined that it should remain a private road to a minimum width of 24'. Mabusth said it would be difficult for this to occur w'ithin the 500’ due to the wooded nature of the property. The fire and police departments will also review the plan Winston said it was his desire to retain the gate and amenities along the entry. Lindquist agreed that it was a beautiful entrance Mabusth said the plan calls for an innovative approach to an upgrade, and if the Commission supports it, it would be difficult to envision a 24' width with a ditch. The Commissioners all agreed to support some flexibility regarding this issue Winston reported that the division would result in lots of at least 4 acres in size. He noted that the most northerly lot would be accessed directly from the street and several lots would not utilize the entire length of the access. Only three lots would use the full extent of the driveway to include the Fullerton homestead. Tract E and Lot 1 almost immediately exist ofl'of the private driveway. Lindquist indicated that the private road would be maintained by the property owners. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#12 - #2190 James G. Fullerton - Continued) McMillan inquired about the no build area Winston said the no build area is to protect the main views from the Fullerton residence and would be protected by restrictive covenant for 30 years. Winston noted that it did not appear to hmder a potential buyer. The no build area could become a buildable site in the distant future as there is adequate area. Mabusth asked what the no build restriction included. Winston said no above grade building would be allowed, such as a pool house or tennis house, but a swimming pool was feasible. Mabusth informed Winston that building in that area may require an average lakeshore setback variance to include a swimming pool or any additions to the existing house. It was in< cated that the caretaker residence is hooked up to septic. It appears that access to the caretaker residence is from a uravel access Mabusth reported that the application would again appear before the Planning Commission in January, 1997. PLANNING COM.MISSION CO.M.MENTS (#13) REPO'^I <»F PLANiV.^G COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 (ELIZABETH IL4WN) AND NOVEMBER 12, 1996 (JAN BERG) No report was given (#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No additional issues were discussed. (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 21, 1996 MEETING Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 21, 1996 Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 25, 1996, DECEMBER 9, 1996, AND JANUARY 13, 1997 November 25, 1996 - Stoddard December 9, 1996 - Lindquist January 13, 1997 - McMillan MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 ADJOURNMENT Berg moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 11:37 p.m. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0, Dale Lindquist, Chair Person W"' 'r PRELIMINARY PLAT FULLERTON ESTATES PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR FULLERTON TRUST OF TRACT A, R. L S. NO. 1321, AND TRACTS A, B & F, R. L. S. NO. 1358 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA lake M\NN£T0NKA ^11 }pliT ‘-«CM 5liiIj Sss CO U E- 0 001 CCHs Q-KZ] t-JCL C zh : si* N . Sb i! '