Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-23-1998 Council Packet
r AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23,1998,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item’*' on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda ^ems are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet.‘'r-. ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA Advance Refunding of City Facilitie ^ l ms nds - Resolution Calling for Bond APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of February 9,1998 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS LAKr- Minnetonka conservation district - Lili McMlllan Representative ^PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #2290 Elaine & Steve Silus, 3225 Casco Circle - Conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall #2312 Claus Weiler & Renee Meerkins, 1135 North Arm Drive - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution #2316 Mike Hilbelink, having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive - Class 111 Final Subdivision - Resolution #2320 Mitchell & Asta Gershovitz, 3650 Casco Avenue - Variance - Resolution #2326 Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road - Variance/Commercial Site Plan Review - 9. #2327 Orono Development, LLC - Zoning Code Amendment. B-5, Conditional Uses •k 10. #2334 Lecy Construction for Jeff Jacobsen, 127 Chevy Chase Drive - Variance - Resolution ^11. #2337 Scott Young, 3359 Crystal Bay Road - Variances - Resolution ''12 #2.)42 Mark L. Casey, 255 Landmark Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution MAYOlUCOUNCi.. REPORT ENGINEER REPORT ”^13. Replacement of Plow Truck 14. Winter Maintenance of Trails 15. Shoreline Drive/Heritage Drive Sanitaiy- Sewer Project Feasibility Study - Resolution 416. Amend Seasonal Weight Restrictions - Resolution j 17. Highway 12/Old Crystal Bay Road Traffic S.gnal Modifications 418. Change Order #8 - North Long Lake/Long Lake Country' Club Sewer Project 419. Request for Payment #7 - North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sewer Project yJ20. Request for Payment #6 - Bay Ridge/Bracketts Point Sewer Project r AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23,1998,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 21. 1998 Engineer Fees 22. Highway 12 Land Use Concept Policy - Resolution 23. Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment - Update t^24. Park Plan Element of Comprehensive Plan - Conceptual Changes - Resolution ^ 25. Resignation of Irving English from Police Officer Position 26. Appointment of Steve McNally to Full-Time Police Officer Position 27. Appointment of Chris Fischer to Part-Time Police Officer Position 28. Scheduling of a Council Work Session ^ 29. Request for Disposal of Old Squad Cars 30. Conceptual Approval of Hennepin County Election Equipment Purchase CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ♦ 31. LICENSES * 32. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS im 02/23 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 03/02 - Park Commission meeting - Friends of the Park Award 7:00 p.m. 03/02 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. 03/03 - Precinct Caucus Day 7:00 p.m. 03/04 - Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. 03/09 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 03/16 - Planning Commission 6:30 p.m. 03/23 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. I ? r Public A ttendance Meeting D ate ^ j ^ T ^ o 0□ □ C ouncil Planntog C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information ti, '\t€- REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CTTY RECORDS NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1./t-Sc» J\~«-I 'I a TM I IL I I A V|o..A.-x.j 35-yi TFI 6. 7. 8. 9.. 10.. 11.. 12. 13.. 14. 15. moHA hM riMiiM ■. im m ,ifiaii j r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL r/E'"Ti‘- DATE: February 19, 1998 FEB 2 3 1998ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval:Administratoirlkevi^il?P^^Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Advance Refunding of City Facilities' Bonds - Resolution Calling for Bond Sale The current City facilities were financed through a lease/purchase arrangement involving the sale of $4,000,000 of bonds by the City HRA. The call date of these bonds is February 1,2001. The interest rates on the bonds maturing after the call date are from 5.5% to 6.5%. Current interest rates on municipal bonds have been at about 4.5%. Due to the very favorable interest rates in the bond market, the City's bond consultant has suggested the City consider an advance reftmding of the bonds used to finance the City facilities. Because of the sig^icantly lower current interest rates, the City could realize substantial savings in interest costs through an advance refunding of the City facilities' bonds. Carolyn Drude, the City's bond consultant, will attend the February 23 Council meeting to explain the advance refunding process and the savings to be realized. The net savings, including all costs of the new bonds, is projected to be approximately SI 19,000 over the remaining life of the bonds. The net present value of the savings is approximately $87,000. Staff Recommendation Staff believes the level of savings to be realized is significant enough to warrant the advance refunding process. If the Council agrees, staff recommends moving ahead with the process expeditiously based on the current very favorable bond market. It is recommended Council authorize a bond sale to be held on March 23, 1998. A resolution calling for the bond sale is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution calling for an advance refunding bond sale of the HRA City facilities' bonds on March 23, 1998. BONDREfU 1 t 1I ' L \ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1998 follows: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Orono, Minnesota (the City), as Section 1. P.wpQS9- It is he.'eby detennined to be in the best interests of the City to request the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Orono (the Authority) to issue its Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 (the Bonds), in the approximate principal amount of $2,400,000 to provide funds to pay the costs of issuance and to refund in advance of maturity the 2002 through 2008 maturities of the Authority's outstanding Public Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 1991, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 469 and 475, as amended, such refunding constituting a "crossover refunding" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subd. 13. Section 2. Further Action. The Authority will adopt a resolution providing for the sale of the Bonds. Ehlers and Associates, Inc., as an independent financial adviser, is hereby authorized to solicit a proposal or proposals for the Bonds on bchdf of the Authority and the City on a negotiated basis. Section 3. Sale Meeting. The Board of Commissioners of the Authority shall meet on March 23, 1998, for the purpose of con.«idering a proposal or proposals for the purchase of the Bonds. This Council shall meet on that seune date to approve the sale and authorize the execution and delivery of necessary documents on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, Citv Clerk Page 1 of 1 m jm 16 '98 0?:i8PM EHLERS S ASSOCIATES P.l/S 7 :L. J Ehlers & Associates, Inc, 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville. MN 55 1J3-J JOS (612) 697-8500 Fax: (612) 697-8555 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEEl^I Date: To: fax: Sender: January 16, 1998 Tom Kuehn: Finance Director 473-0510 Bob Ehlers: Ehlers A Associates, Inc. YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGEiS). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO _________not receive all the paces , please CALL (612) 339-8291. COMMENTS: Tom, enclosed are four pages outlining the potential savings from refinancing your existing lease financing. Savings net of all expenses are estimated at $119,540 with a present value benefit of $87,948. The ratio to bonds refunded is 3.767%. Carolyn will be back in the office on Monday. Please call either of us if you have any questions. From the desk of... Robert Ehlers, Jr. Vice President/Financial Advisor, CIPF.\ Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 city of Orono. KH $4,000,000 Le4Se .Purchase callable 2/1/01 DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 2/01/1998 .••• 2/01/1999 225,000.00 5.5001 186.205.00 411.205.00 2/01/2000 240.000.00 5.7001 173.830.00 413,830.00 2/01/2001 255.000.00 5.8001 160.150.00 415.150.00 2/01/2002 275,000.00 5.9001 145.360.00 420.360.00 2/01/2003 290.000.00 6.0001 129.135.00 419.135.00 2/01/2004 310.000.00 6.1001 111.735.00 421,735.00 2/01/2005 330.000.00 6.2001 92.825.00 422,825.00 2/01/2006 355.000.00 6.3001 72.365.00 427.365.00 2/01/2007 375.000.00 6.4001 50.000.00 425.000.00 2/01/2008 400.000.00 6.5001 26.000.00 426.000.00 total 3.OSS.000.00 •1.147.605.00 4.202.605.00 Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 2/01/1993 ••• 2/01/1999 ••103.635.00 103.635.002/01/2000 ••103,635.00 103.635.002/01/2001 ••103.635.00 103.635.002/01/2002 300.000.00 4.000t 103.635.00 403.6*5.002/01/2003 310.000.00 4.100*91.635.00 401.635.002/01/2004 325.000.00 4.2001 78.925.00 403,925.002/01/2005 340.000.00 4.300*65.275.00 405.275.002/01/2006 360.000.00 4.400*50.655.00 410.655.002/01/2007 375.000.00 4.500*34.815.00 409.815.002/01/2008 390.000.00 4.600*17.940.00 407.940.00 TOTAL 2.400.000.00 •753.785.00 3.153.785.00 1 City Of Orcno. MN Proposed Refunding S4,000.000 Lease Purchase callable 2/1/01 DEBT SERVICE COMPARISON 1 : t 1 Date Total P*I PCF Existing 0/S Net New 0/S Old Net D/S Savings 2/01/1998 •••••• 2/01/1999 103.63S.00 (103.635.00)411.205.00 411.205.00 411.20S!oO • 2/01/2000 103.635.00 (103.635.00)413.830.00 413.830.00 413.830.00 # 2/01/2001 103.63S.00 (2.438.63S.00)2.750.150.00 415.150.00 415.150.00 • « 2/01/2002 403.635.00 -403.635.00 420.360.00 16.725.00 2/01/2003 401.635.00 •401.635.00 419.135.00 17.500.00 ! 2/01/2004 403.925.00 -403.925.00 421.735.00 17.810.00 ‘ 2/01/2005 405,275.00 »405.275.00 422,825.00 17.550.00 2/01/2006 410.655.00 -410.655.00 427.365.00 16.710.00 2/01/2007 409,815.00 •409.815.00 425.000.00 15.185.00 2/01/2008 407.940.0:•407,940.00 426.000.00 18.060.00 TOTAL 3.153.785.00 (2.645.905.00)3.575.185.00 4,083.065.00 4,202,605.00 119.540.00 1 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY (NET TO NET) Net PV Cashflow Savings 8 4.786V (AIC). .87.948.91 NET PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT S87.948.91 NET PV BENEFIT / S2.335.000 REFUMOEO PRINCIPAL...3.767V NET PV BENEFIT / S2.400.000 REFUNDING PRINCIPAL..3.66SV JAH 16 '98 03:i9PN EHLERS S ASSOCIATES P.5/5 Ctty of Orono. HN Proposed Refunding S4.000.000 Lease Purchase callable 2/1/01 _ _ _ _ _ project SUHHARY Dated 02/01/1998 Delivered 02/01/1998 SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS of Bonds..... total sources .............. Total Unden»riter*s Discount (l.ooot) Costs of Issuance. . . . . . Deposit to Escrow Fund. . . Rounding Amount.. *. . total uses . . . . . . . . PLOW OF FUNDS DETAIL CROSSOVER ESCROW FUND SOLUTION METHOD To Lai Cost of Investments total draws PRESENT value analysis SUMMARY (NET TO NET) p S . WT W Si'I « WtlWIPAL...NET PV BENEFiT / 12.400,000 REFUNDING PRINCIPAL. bond STATISTICS Average ufe. . . . . . . . Average Coupon. . . . . Net Interest Cost (NIC). . . . Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes True Interest Cost (TIC) All Inclusive Cost (AIC)... . . ••••••• *2.400.000,00 *2.400,000.00 24.000. 00 36.000. 00 2.339.752.78 247,22 *2.400.000.00 Ne* Funded Interest Earnings P 4.366t . . . . . . . . . . . *2.33, '52.78 306.152.22 *2,645.905.00 87.948.91 *87.948.91 3.767t 3.665t Ehlers and Assoc Public Finance 7.181 Years 4.3735712» A. 51282271 4.3662517C A.53^4503^r 4.7857200.1 * ORONO-rfd 91 lease- single purpose 1/16/1998 2:01 PM H.R.A. LEASE PURCHASE BONDS Existing Debt Refinancing Princ + Int Princ + Int Difference 2/1/99 411,205.00 103,635.00 307,570.00 2/1/00 413,830.00 103,635.00 310,195.00 2/1/01 415,150.00 103,635.00 311,515.00 2/1/02 420,360.00 403,635.00 16,725.00 2/1/03 419,135.00 401,635.00 17,500.00 ?'l/04 421,735.00 403,925.00 17,810.00 .'•J/05 422,825.00 405,275.00 17,550.00 2/1/06 427,365.00 410,655.00 16,710.00 2/1/07 425,000.00 409,815.00 15,185.00 2/1/08 426,000.00 407,940.00 18,060.00 4.202.605.00 3.153.785.00 1,048,820.00 Existing Debt Refinancing Principal Only Principal O^v 2/1/02 275,000.00 300,000.00 25,000.00 2/1/03 290,000.00 310,000.00 20,000.00 2/1/04 310,000.00 325,000.00 15,000.00 2/1/05 330,000.00 340,000.00 10,000.00 2/1/06 355,000.00 360,000.00 5,000.00 2/1/07 375,000.00 375,000.00 0.00 2/1/08 400,000.00 390,000.00 no,ooo.oo) 2.335.000.00 2.400.000.00 65.000.00 ' '■ & * i i ki k k A J L J Ehlers & Associates, Inc. LEADERS IN PUBUC RNANCE February 23,1998 City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Re: Crossover Advance Refunding of 1991 Public Facililies Revenue Bonds it does qualify for refunding 6.50%. interest rates have savings of the $120,900 is $89,764.57 ° about $17,200 per year. Fhe “present value” Exhibi. 4.00, Sources and Uses, shows ,he es.ima.ed cosls involved in ,he refunding. Please note that the savings Is net of all costs of refunding. •"i"--"S’ for a crossover advance refunding be a, least 3.00a on apresent value” basis. We have computed Oris Savings to be 4.20a Sincerely, Carolyn DruSe, CIPFA Executive Vice President/Director enc N.\MlNNSOTA\ORONO\REFUNOIN\REaj.\DLTR D»’'ve • Roseville. Minnesota 55113-1105 (612) 697-8500 • FAX (612) 697-8555 • www.ehlers-inc.com ■V.- EXHIBIT 1.00 Orono Housing and Redevelopoient Authority (HRA), Minnesota S4.000.000 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Existing Issue (Callable February 1. 2001) PRIOR ORIGINAL DEBT SERVICE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 4/01/1998 .•.• 2/01/1999 -•121.133.33 121.133.33 121.133.338/01/1999 •-72.680.00 72.680.00 • 2/01/2000 ••72.680.00 72.680.00 145.360.008/01/2000 ••72.680.00 72.680.002/01/2001 ••72.680.00 72.680.00 145.360.008/01/2001 ••72.680.00 72.680.00 • 2/01/2002 275.000.00 5.900t 72.680.00 347.680.00 420.360.008/01/2002 •-64.567.50 64.567.50 2/01/2003 290.000.00 6.000t 64.567.50 354.567.50 419.135.008/01/2003 ••55.867.50 55.867.502/01/2004 310.000.00 6.loot 55.867.50 365.867.50 421.735.008/01/2004 •-46.412.50 46.412.50 2/01/2005 330.000.00 6.200t 46.412.50 376.412.50 422.825.008/01/2005 •-36.182.50 36.182.50 2/01/2006 355.000.00 6.300t 36.182.50 391.182.50 427.365.008/01/2006 --25.000.00 25.000.00 • 2/01/2007 375.000.00 6.400t 25.000.00 400.000.00 425.000.008/01/2007 •-13.000.00 13.000.00 2/01/2008 400.000.00 6.500t 13.000.00 413.000.00 426.000.00 TOTAL 2.335.000.00 -1.039.273.33 3.374.273.33 • Public Finance FILE ORONO-91 lease-SINGLE PURPOSE 2/23/1998 10:36 AM ■4 EXHIBIT 2.00 Orono Housing and Redevelopnent Authority. Minnesota Proposed Refunding of $4,000,000 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Refunding Issue DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 4/01/1998 2/01/1999 8/01/1999 2/01/20C-> 8/01/2000 2/C1/2001 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 300.000.00 4.000t 310.000.00 4.100$ 325.000.00 4.200$ 340.000.00 4.200$ 360.000.00 4.400$ 375.000.00 4.500$ 390.000.00 4.600$ 86.079.17 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 45.647.50 45.647.50 39.292.50 39.292.50 32.467.50 32.467.50 25.327.50 25.327.50 17.407.50 17.407.50 8.970.00 8.970.CO 86.079.17 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 351.647.50 45.647.50 355.647.50 39.292.50 364.292.50 32.467.50 372.467.50 25.327.50 385.327.50 17.407.50 392.407.50 8.970.00 398.970.00 86.079.17 103.295.00 103.295.00 403.295.00 401.295.00 403.585.00 404.935.00 410.655.00 409.815.00 407.940.00 TOTAL 2.400.000.00 734.189.17 3.134.189.17 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16,835.00 Average Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.015 Years Average Coupon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3610880t Net Interest Cost (NIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5036482t True Interest Cost (TIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5187215t Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes. . . . . . . . 4.3494019t All Inclusive Cost (AIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7767487t IRS FORH 8038 Net Interest Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3610880t Weighted Average Maturity. . . . . . . . . . . . 7.015 Years Ehlers & Associates. Inc. FILE ■ ORONO-98 xref 91 leas- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 2/23/1998 10:36 AM j r I EXHIBIT 3.00 Orono Housing and Redevelopaent Authority. Minnesota Proposed Refunding of $4,000,000 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Refunding Issue DEBT SERVICE COMPARISON Date Total P+I PCF Existing 0/S Net New D/S Old Net 0/S Savings FISCAL TOTAL 1 t , i r.T-1 ' [ • < .r. I k ^ !t 4/01/1998 2/01/1999 8/01/1999 2/01/2000 8/01/2000 2/01/2001 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 86.079.17 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 51.647.50 351.647.50 45.647.50 355.647.50 39.292.50 364.292.50 32.467.50 372.467.50 25.327.50 385.327.50 17.407.50 392.407.50 8.970.00 398.970.00 (86.079.17) (51.647.50) (51.647.50) (51.647.50) (2.386.647.50) 121.133.33 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 2.407.680.00 121.133.33 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 51.647.50 351.647.50 45.647.50 355.647.50 39.292.50 364.292.50 32.467.50 372.467.50 25.327.50 385.327.50 17.407.50 392.407.50 8.970.00 398.970.00 121.133.33 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 347.680.00 64.567.50 354.567.50 55.867.50 365.867.50 46.412.50 376.412.50 36.182.50 391.182.50 25.000. 00 400.000. 00 13.000. 00 413.000. 00 21.032.50 (3.967.50) 18.920.00 (1.080.00) 16.575.00 1.575.00 13.945.00 3.945.00 10.855.00 5.855.00 7.592.50 7.592.50 4.030.00 14.030.00 17.065.00 17.840.00 18.150.00 17.890.00 16.710.00 15.185.00 18.060.00 TOTAL 3.134.189.17 (2.627.669.17) 2.746.853.33 3.253.373.33 3.374.273.33 120.900.00 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY (NET TO NET) Net PV Cashflow Savings 8 4.777t (AIC)89.764.57 NET PRESENT VALUE BENE.'IT $89,764.57 NET PV BENEFIT / $2,335,000 REFUNDED PRINCIPAL. NET PV BENEFIT / $2,400,000 REFUNDING PRINCIPAL 3.844t 3.740* Ehlers & Associates. Inc. Public Finance FILE - ORONO-98 xref 91 leas- SINGLE PURPOSE 2/23/1998 10:36 AM laMlkl ■liiMl ml I V ! EXHIBIT 4.00 Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Minnesota Proposed Refunding of $4,000,000 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Refunding Issue SOURCES & USES Dated 04/01/1998 Delivered 04/01/1998 SOURCES OF FUNDS . . $2,400,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES $2,400,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter’s Discount (l.OOOt). . . . 24.000.00 . . 36.000.00 Ui .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dorvicit to Fscrow Fufid . . . .. 2,339.013.24U6pOSik tu LdLi tm .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL USES $2,400,000.00 Ehlers & Associates. Inc. Public Finance FILE - ORONO-98 xref 91 leas- SINGLE PURPOSE 2/23/1998 10:36 AM - 1 >vrti- - ^■iinr-rr-nnri^^T-^—T-ri-nr>frni'^ i tf t im-minianiinrtfiu^Ti-n $ag»n J BOND INDEX 7.25% 7.05% 6.85% 6.65% 6.45% 6.25% Bond Buyer Index (20 Bond, 20 Years) Regional Index (20 Bond, 10 Years) Revenue Bond Index (25 Bond, 30 Years) August 1996 through February 1998 RBI ■r— 4.25% As of February 23,1998 Revenue Bond Index........... 5.29% Bond Buyer Index.............. 5.07% Regional Index ................. 4.43% '"qilllllllll Bbichart.xls Page 1 . I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9,1998 COUIVC/LMh'i^r- ROLL 6 2 3 hjJb mentioned date with the following members pfiSS^ier Cnot o Members!. Diann Goeiten, Barbara Peterson, and ^chard Flint Charles Kelley was absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Mo^se, Oty Attorney Tom Barrett, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, Public Services Dirwtor Greg Gappa, City Engineer Tom KeUogg, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jaobour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (Agenda Item #1 follows Park Commission Comments.) PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Ch^r Wilson reported that the Park Commission is working on park planning, park dedication issues, and Comprehensive Plan update. Open spaces have been identified Revisions have been made to the bike trail routes. Capital improvements in parks for the next 10 years are being determined. These will be presented to Council in the near future for approval. Wilson invited the Council to attend the Friends of the Parks Award at the March meeting. (#1) EDGEWOOD HILLS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:05-7:28 P.M. A.ORDER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EDGEWOOD HILLS SANITARY SEWER PROJECT - RESOLUTION NO. 4028 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Jabbour reported that the public hearing is to receive citizen input and determine whether the plans and specifications should be ordered for the Edgewood Hills Sanitary Sewer Project. He informed the audience of the pro-active approach the City has taken in determining the 10 hot spots” for sewering. Met Council was asked to approve and approval was received to include these areas in the MUSA. The areas are being sewered in order of need, and in order of requests by neighborhoods. Gappa indicated that City Engineer Kellogg would present the sewer alignment and options. J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 9,1998 Kellogg described the area being proposed for sewering. He noted that all but one property has access from Hidden Hills Road. The option presented allowed for sewer lines to be installed m the front of the properties with an 8" line. The service and manhole locations were noted. Directional boring would be used to eliminate excavating except for the manhole and main line locations for service connections. The service connection for property #5 would be on the east side of the road, while the other 7 would be on the west side of the road. Kellogg reported that another option would be to open up the street to install the sewer. It was determined that cost and access would be issues in this option. Another option reviewed was for sewer installation to the rear of the properties. This would incur additional costs and additional manholes. It would also result in the loss of vegetation Maintenance access was found to be an issue as well. The recommended option includes the cost of street repairs and road overlay. The meeting was opened for public comment. Tom and Charlene Cusick, 965 Edgewood Hills Road, were present. Mr. Cusick asked and received confirmation that the system was gravity based. He said he was delighted and happy with the proposal. Kellogg indicated that the Jackson property may present some problems with the horseshoe shaped driveway. Kellogg said there were two proposals for providing service to the residences. Each residence would be provided 60' of service. The property owner would then be responsible from that point on for any additional line and cost of hook up. Another option would be to directionally bore to within 20’ of where the service would be connected. This would decrease the amount of e.xcavation. Cusick asked if the line into the property had to be straight. Kellogg said it did not but bending of the 4" pipe should be limited. Jabbour informed Cusick that directional boring allowed for a machine to insert the piping, eliminating the need for a trench. Kellogg showed Cusick where this would occur on his property. Jabbour informed the public that existing septic systems would have to be collapsed and filled in. This w ould require machinery to complete the work. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY % 1998 (Ul - Edgewood Hills Improvement Project - Continued) Jabbour asked if the home orientations were positive in relation to the sewer location. Kellogg said that in most cases the sewer line comes out to the back or to one side of the residence. Kellogg reported that the cost for the directionally bored option within 20' of the service results in an assessment of $21,140 for each of the 8 properties. Jabbour noted that a separate assessment hearing would be scheduled. Cusick asked about finance plans. Jabbour indicated that the City’s high bond rating allows for the City to receive a good interest rate. He did note that the project would be included with another project to keep costs down. There are some administrative costs involved. The assessments would be paid over a 15 year period. Goetten noted that the cost could also be paid upfront if the residents so choose. Jm Nielson, 340 North Arm Lane, asked if there would be any problem in transitioning the additional lift to the roadway from the driveways. Kellogg said the 1-1/2" lift would be tr^sitioned back on the driveway and would be smooth. Kellogg informed Nielson that the hole dug for the sewer would be 16-18' deep. Nielson asked if the lower level wodd bTsered"^ basements "If 'he proposal is for a hV ■"‘‘■ea'ed that the project is ahead of sch^ule at this lime but another project may affect the construction outcome. Jabbour noted that "“f O' effect the lime frame. Slmtr hat the assessment hearing would allow the public to comment about any problems they may have with the project. heering would be held after bids and ^ifications are completed, bids are advertised and received. Kellogg thought the tomg would occur m May or June. Gappa indicated that there is aTo-day tailing can be eXilSSt ta”' fccttrhoZ'f" “ 'T over . dunng the construction period. Goetten noted that there is usually only times emergency vehicle access is maintained at all 7acces?D?obTem. T'k"*! T of directional boring eliminates alot navJno r ^ Consideration in the design Kellogg noted that paving IS done half at a time to allow for access on the other half Some traffic delay occurs dunng that time. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 9,1998 « I (#1 - Edgevvood Hills Improvement Project - Continued) Cusick said he would like to see the project completed as soon as possible with the septic systems becoming obsolete. Jabbour said the City has delayed the effective date for the septic updates. Kellogg said the project requires cooperation between the neighbors noting that Cusick and his neighbor would have to arrange for parking during the construction. ? 5 t- • There were no other public comments and the hearing was closed. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4028, ordering the preparation of plans and specifications for the Edgewood Hills Sanitary Sewer Project. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*«) CONSENT AGENDA Agenda items #5, 7, 8, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#3) REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 26,1998 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 26, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Hawn had no additional comments to the report submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#4) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SEASONALLY ALLOW A HORSE IN THE LR-IA ZONING DISTRICT - RESOLUTION NO. 4029 The applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting held on FEBRUARY 9,1998 (#4 • #2289 Jon Pendleton - Continued) Bressler reported that the applicant would like to keep a horse on his property durine the non-wtnter months from approximately April to November. There are two pm^d aCTer # I IS 1 .14 acres and pasture #2 is .67 acres for a toj of 1 .8 1 Th^Ple^f^! T A CUP is required k.« J 8 Commission unammously recommended approval conditioned on the use of In 11 ^ f Pasture #2 is considered a Sth! I '* allow one acre for one animal unit. Pasture #1 meets the 75' from 300' setback Pendleton had no comments at this time. Flint said his conc^ were related to the property's proximity to the lake and the primary pasture teng closest to the lake. With the recent clemi-up project of Long Lake Flint IS concerned with affecting the lake quality. J«-i oi i-ong Laxe, c!m.^nK 'he manure would be processed Pendleton referenced Mr. Geske's estSld if n^* "01 express a concern but recommended a manure site be matted if necessary. Pendleton said he would look to Geske for guidance in this Flint thought Geske's report was vague. He is concerned with runoff Flint noted that '“""Posied on site. Pendleton said he would do so He ot^ pwtur® #1 WM higher ground and the best location. Flint asked for Staff clanficalion. Bressler ^d the recommendation did not show the necessity for cZSotr* °"i f * °"® ®"'™' **“' '* ®®“'‘‘ ho done on site if a n^ for .il"® “ T ®™"®d hy Mr. Geske. Pendleton said he would invite Geske to pr^*s'^' *"* '^®"‘^ ®“" he elso is concerned that no problems ensue in the Hint asked how the application as a CUP is reviewed. Barrett responded that conditions Meuori^M '“"“T® T"**if requested. He indicated Geske's letter did not 2rionf'I occur. Jabbour noted the difiiculty in following up on ronditions placed for the future He felt any conditions should be set in place at this time J^our informed Pendleton that the Council cannot design the pasture for him but it is ddBcult to approve the application witiiout the necessary knowledge. t l\ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 9,1998 (U4 - #2289 Jon Pendleton - Continued) Pendleton asked if Geske could determine the process through a site visit. Flint said he would like to see a baseline established for water testing. Jabbour noted the difficulty in doing so with the water quality changes that occur during the year. Jabbour felt the leaching effect should be determined referencing the City's philosophy in maintaining lake quality. Barrett said a CUP can be revoked if found to violate the Comprehensive Plan. He did not know if Geske was an expert on water quality. Flint questioned who would be. Jabbour reiterated the difficulty in checking water quality. Planning Commissioner Hawn suggested the use of a stringent condition in providing as part of the CUP, a compost station to be established that is contained to eliminate the runoff problems from occurring. Flint said this would satisfy his concerns. He would like to see the compost station set up on pasture #2 as it is farthest from the lake. Pendleton said he personally had no preference on location but would like to know what Geske felt about the location. He noted the drainage easement on the property. Flint withdrew his comment due to the drainage easement. He said the station could be placed at a determined acceptable site. Jabbour clarified that the CUP would include conditions that the applicant provide developed plans for a compost station that must be reviewed by Staff. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4029 with the condition that the applicant develop plans for containment of manure that is acceptable to Staff. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour noted the City was excluded from dialogue pertaining to the LMCD's activities concerning public access on the lake. Jabbour said the DNR has agreed to drop the joint grant application with the LMCD regarding public access on the lake. Jabbour felt the LMCD should work with the DNR to allow the power to be placed in the cities' hands regarding public access on the lake. Jabbour indicated that the DNR would be represented to discuss the issue at the February 17 Mayors Breakfast and invited the Council to attend. Jabbour said an objection was raised on why the City of Orono was so involved in the issue of public access. He noted Orono's unique location in respect to encompassing another city, being adjacent to and sharing boundaries with, or sharing a bay with, 10 of the 13 lake area cities. This results in decisions made elsewhere affecting Orono and being the reason behind Orono's concern and involvement. It was noted that over 40% of the lakeshore is in Orono as well. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 9, i99» (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Goetten asked for an update on North Femdale Road Project. Kellogg said the project report for the City of Plymouth should be completed this week. At that time, Plymouth will schedule a public information meeting. Jabbour asked if Plymouth has agreed to Orono's approval of a 28' wide road. Kellogg said Plymouth has asked that all three options be presented in the report for a 28', 32' and 36' wide road. Jabbour e.xpressed that presenting these options would waste taxpayers money due to the time delays. He noted that Orono would only approve a 28 ’ wide road and would not agree to any other width. Goetten expressed concern with the delays and the affect on the time line of the project. Flint verified with Kellogg that plans were not being developed for all three road widths. Jabbour asked the cost of preparing plans. Kellogg said the plans including administrative and legal costs run about 15-17% of the whole project; the plans themselves would be about 7-8%. Jabbour said it is important that the Council is aware of the cost for preparing plans. Kellogg acknowledged that the time frame for the project may be affected by the delays. Mike Taylor of the Lakeshore News asked who pays for the plans. Gappa informed him that the cost is split between the two cities. Flint asked about the proceedings from Highway 12 meetings. Jabbour said the issue would be discussed at the work session. Goetten indicated that the design meetings are progressing. The Orono design committee has decided to meet with Long Lake’s design committee to share information. A meeting will then be held with the east and west citizens committees and a public information meeting scheduled. Goetten said they are attempting to hold these meetings prior to the next design meeting. Jabbour noted that past mayor, Ed Callahan, will be present at the work session. He asked that the Planning Commissioners be informed of the work session. Jabbour also noted that he had met with representatives of Long Lake and a joint meeting may be scheduled. ENGINEER REPORT (*#5) AUTHORIZE GRANT APPLICATION FOR 1 & I SEWER REPAIRS RESOLUTION NO. 4030 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4030, authorizing the submittal of an 1/1 reduction grant from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. • *kA IXinfVKIH MINUTES OF THL REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 9,1998 (#6) U.S. WEST WATER TOWER LEASE AGREEMENTS Moorse reported that an agreement has been worked out with US West for lease agreements to enable US West to locate PCS antennas on both the Navarre and Hwy 12 water towers. The annual lease will be $12,000 for each tower with minor language revisions in the included draft. Steve Mangold was present and said he is the regional real estate manager for US West. Flint asked how the rate was determined. Moorse reviewed the fee schedule, which is based on the number of antennas for the towers, which is limited in both space and frequency. The rate for 0-6 antennas is $12,000, 7-9 antennas is $13,000, and 10-12 antennas is $14,500. The rate is in the range of rates charged by other cities. Nextel will have 9 antennas but will begin with three at a rate of $13,000. Sprint will be charged a rate of $14,500. ® Goetten asked if the money would be part of the General Fund. Moorse said the fees would be collected for use in the Water Fund as the antennas are being placed on the water towers. Flint was informed by Mangold that US West's antennas will be used for PCS network, which will be going on-line in July. The longevity of the technology is unclear. Mangold s^d the technology can be used in greater Minnesota through a roaming frequency. The CS will use digital technology in the metro area and analog for the roaming area. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to approve lease agreements with US West for the installation of PCS antennas on the Navarre water tower and the Highway 12 water tower, with annual lease rates of $12,000 for each tower; and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the lease agreements. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#7) SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS - RESOLUTION NO. 4031 seconded, that Council adoption Resolution No. 4031, establishing the 1998 Weight Limits for City streets from March 15 through May 15 1998 Vote Ayes 4, Nays 0. Fhnt questioned the lack of the seasonal weight restrictions applying to private roadways Moorse informed him that the homeowners association would have to agree to seasonal weight restrictions to allow the City to enforce policing Jabbour did not believe the City has the right to police these roads. Barrett indicated that the City only has the right to enforce the issue of trespassing. 8 rrai i ■■■in ■■■■■ n i f«\ t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 9,1998 (*#8) BID AWARD - 1998 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to accept the bids as presented for the calendar year 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) PLANNING COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS Jabbour confirmed that Commissioners Smith and Hawn desire to continue serving on the Planning Commission. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to reappoint Sandy Smith and Liz Hawn to additional 3- year terms on the Planning Commission expiring March 31, 2001. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARK COMMISSION CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS Jabbour said the purpose of rotating chairs of these commissions is to allow the commissioners to gain experience. The Council members agreed that rotating chairs was a good idea. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to appoint Sandy Smith as Chair of the Planning Commission, and to appoint Andrew McDermott as Chair of the Park Commission. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to appoint Liz Hawn as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission and James White as Vice Chair of the Park Commission. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#11) APPOINTMENT OF PARK COMMISSION MEMBER Jabbour indicated that the Council believes the opening on the Park Commission should be opened to the residents to allow for community changes that have occurred since the last appointment. The Council decided that the applicants, who are currently on file for the position, will be informed that no resubmittal of application is necessary if renewed interest in the opening is expressed. Susan Wilson asked that the opening be filbd as soon as possible. Goetten felt it was necessary to see who is interested in serving on the Park Commission. Flint suggested that Wilson encourage residents to apply if they are interested. Peterson inquired of the time frame for the appointment. It was determined that the process would require about 6 weeks time. ■ 1 irafi I ~nrr‘ffTrf rfri~'"r-‘T‘*T'~i iiyin‘n'‘rTifm II iMi-11'm w —tictwit-. ■ .wi t— MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 9» 1998 (#12) COMMUNITY SERVICE OFnCER WORK SCHEDULE AND PAY ADJUSTMENT, AND BUDGET AMENDMENT Moorse said this item is a follow through on the agreement to provide animal control services to the South Lake Cities, requiring a full time position be filled to allow for one part-time and one full-time employee to serve in this capacity. There were previously two part-time employees. Chris Fischer is recommended to become full-time at an increased rate of pay. The budget would then be amended to reflect the additional expenditures and revenues. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Chris Fischer's work schedule being increased to a fiili-time schedule at a pay rate of $10.38 per hour, effective February 2, 1998, and to amend the 1998 General Fund Budget to reflect the additional $26,000 of both expenditures and revenues. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#13) APPOINTMENT OF MARY ANN JOHNSON TO PART-TIME CUSTOMER SERVICE/DATA ASSISTANT POSITION Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the appointment of Mary Ann Johnson to the part-time office support/customer service position at a pay rate of $9.90 per hour (Step 1 of Level 2 of the City's pay plan), effective February 17, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett requested adjournment to an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. (•#14) LICENSES Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the following licenses: Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Residential Kennel License:Jayne Paasch 2150 Kenwood Way Cigarettte License:Don Scherven Navarre Lanes, Inc. 3435 Shoreline Drive Set-Up License:Don Scherven Navarre Lanes, Inc. 3435 Shoreline Drive r r * To:Orono Mayor and Councilmembers From:Lili McMillcUi. LMCD representative COUN'CfL Date:February 20, 1998 Subject: LMCD update 2 3 1998 crn^cr oro MO Here is a brief review of LMCD actions during the past month: 1. Application submitted for $5 million grant from the LCMR: -project is for land acquisition and development of 1-2 public access sites on the lake that would provide 100-200 quality off-street car/trailor parking spaces. -this project is to be modeled after the successful completion of the Maxwell Bay public access. Land acquisition and development is to be consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the 1992 LMCD Lake Access Task Force Report. Mayor Jabbour helped assist in creating a Memorandum of Understanding between the DNR and LMCD that calls for the city governments to be consulted and fully involved in the review and approval of any proposed public access site. 2. Water Quality Report: -John Barton presented the results of the 97 water testing season. Poor water quahty in the west end bays of the lake appears to be due to both watershed runoff and internal loading. -attached are the phosphorus and chloride concentration graphs. 3. Proposed Personal Watercraft Legislation: -attached is the board's response to pending state legislation. J BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair. Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Chair. Deephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary. Minnetnsta Craig Nelson Treasurer. Spring Paik Andrea Ahrens Mound B?b Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Tom Gilman Excelsior Uli McMillan Orono Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood Minnetonka Victoria o 6C'. RervdeJ Content 30*# Pcs! Consumtf Wtstt LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2500 SHADYV/OOD PrAD. SUITE 19 • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • TELEPHONE 612'471-9588 ♦ FAX 612 471-0632 Gregory S. Nybeck. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR February 12, 1998 TO:State Representatives Ron Abrams, Kris Hasskamp, Peggy Leppik, Steve Smith, Barbara Sykora, Todd Van Dellen, Tom Workman State Senators Janet Johnson, Jane Krentz, Cal Larson, Edward Oliver, Gen Olson, Martha Robertson, Don Samuelson FROM: LMCD Board of Directors SUBJECT: Proposed Personal Watercraft Legislation The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) was established by Minnesota State legislation in 1967 to regulate a wide variety of activities on Lake Minnetonka. We would like to take this opportunity to present feedback from the LMCD Board related to the proposed personal watercraft (PW) legislation in SF374 and HR1690. We would also like to inform you of some of the steps the District has taken to regulate PW use on Lake Miimetonka. The LMCD supports the expanded slow-no wake zone and the consecutive operation provisions in the proposed legislation. We have successfully implemented a 3(X)’ slow-no wake zone for PW's on Lake Minnetonka, which is double the 150' zone previously established for all watercraft. The District also prohibits PW's from operating in one specific area of the lake for more than 30 consecutive minutes. Botli these ordinances have helped reduce the number of noise and operation complaints related to PW use on the lake. We have a concern with the legislation's provision that PW's may not be operated on lakes less than 2(X) acres in size. If this provision is adopted, it may have the unintended consequence of focusing any remaining PW problems on larger lakes, including Lake Minnetonka. Even though Lake Minnetonka is primarily made up of many small bays (some less than 2(X) acres), the bays are connected and managed as a single "lake", and so would not be included in the proposed ban. We feel a better long term solution would be to more thoroughly address the issues pertaining to noise, operation, and education, instead of concentrating PW use on a smaller number of lakes and rivers. The idea of education, training, and licensing of personal watercraft operators, especially for our youth, is legislation the LMCD fully supports. \l/e also agree that mandatory insurance for PW's is a good idea. While the proposed legislation contains laudable provisions in these areas, we do not think they should be focused strictly on PW's. We believe most of the proposed legislation's provisions will be Web Page Address: http://wv\Ay winternet com/-lmcd/ t-i•mail Address; lmcd@winternet.com \ ; , i t * proposed PW legislation memo , 2/12/98, PAGE 2 •>« consislcnUy applied to everyone whomg blue waters. In dosing, we would welcome ih dnming „d -i* «>e legislators on believe we c^oroviri^ !T:J!T!!^ legislation for the State We Miindoir" “»*"• fro” «-e e*%rien^TeZd 'on ^e ^^onlJ'in“^S2 ‘^yoo have ,uestions or if you would like mCP BOARD OF nrep.Tvyj^g ®»b^Toda &y (ciS) aSL ah”"’ CTreasui^Andrea Ahrens, Mound Bob Ambrose, Wayzata Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach Tom GBman, Excelsior ^^bak, Minnetonka Lili McMillan, Orono Robert Rascc^, Shorewood Herb Suerth, Woodland Sheldon Wert, Greenwood J 0 t »• ••* • • •• • ^ co so •• I . . • ST ALBANS : WAYZATA •. LAFAYETTE LOWER LAKE SO SPRING PARK BROWNS LOWER LAKE NO. • I . •» WEST UPPER •CRYSTAL NORTH ARM MAXWELL . . COOKS STUBBS • HARRISONS m WEST ARM FOREST LAKE LAKE MINNETONKA T9# lean Total Phosphorus Concentration: 0 • • • • •• .r -____________ ; V ^ • -T.r J * • Mean * • ;•> • •>' • « '•*. ■ • •• # • ••^ _ • • • '•.*.•■■ ■ ■ •.. ^': • i-, Phosphorus criteria to support full use. " • C' • * • . • i .• * *., * *V • * • , • • X*' . » • % • . i r-. • s *• « ••» *. V .» Mw^ * V- .-.v . Figure 1 • • ' ^ , REST LAKE ps^S^SSSS^^gagaggaaggaasagaep^^ JENNINGS MAI .qTPD.q ^ ----------------------------------------,--------------------------------------- 0 24 48 72 96 i^ 1 Tnfol DhrYcnhnriic fnnil \ * .: •• • . • 48 72 Total Phosphorus (ug/L) ■ •• •'••■• * • •• ;V:'• 1/ • •• %'.' -»/ ‘ *. • f . •! t /.- ♦ •*• » 4^ ■ ■ • ■ . •■ ••• .“■. ' • ^ • * * V-’ ■••'.',■•' r• * •*. * ’•. •,• «..* *-,v.. ...*•►. ;/>:•. N jr*'* •• • ^ % *I * •*.. . . *• «Vj» * .»•* *"• .** •.‘•/i. ‘ vj*. * .• ■*. *'• ■■•-;?••%• - .,«*;••.•• «..* *. ••.*•’./ '*1 *• • ^* • - ^ ij- -vV'-V. •. .♦•..., ••■•<< .*• ^ ,. 1. Pm . • ' .••*: • ^ f- M. .• »'V • /.-• • *. , ?.!•*: > .!-^ • ! • • y.. V - . / « • V • • . / : •;• •' ••• » "• 5 / ■ . ^ ,•..•: .VsT ‘. ..-. .. - • • ,’ ’ .•*“ .. * ••V- • • i.» » *. • ••• :• ■.• i'x • • , • 120 • *• V - ••• - . i^LA£\P rn^mt.0rt. i LAKE MINNETONKA 1997 Mean Chloride Concentrations HALSTEDS COOKS WEST UPPER SPRING PARK NORTH ARM JENNINGS WEST ARM CRYSTALc % LAFAYETTE § LOWER LAKE SO HARRISONS FOREST LAKE LOWER LAKE NO MAXWELL BROWNS ST ALBANS WAYZATA STUBBS VNW' >X -J jggssgs^sggsiasgass^ssssigsSa^^ Figure 26 20 30 40 Chloride (mg/L) 4 C^^jfcx/>A. /^4yd7 _ - = r f. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 21, 1998 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2290 Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit—Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) sewered Lot Area:22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Application: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to grade within 5’ of the south property line to allow the driveway and retaining wall to be located 2 from the property line opposite of the garage doors to provide more paved area to enter and exit the 3-car side-loaded garage. Background: Thr s'_.riect property received variances in March 1997 for average lakeshore setback, haiucovcr in the 75'-250' and 250'-500 ’ setbacks, and structural coverage. See Resolution #3851 in par-ket. The architectural and building plans for the new residence were based on the City’s topographical maps that can vary by 2', During construction it became apparent that there would not be sufficient room to maneuver in and out of the garage. The standard area for driving in and out of a side-loaded garage is 30'. If the driveway and retaining wall are located 5' from the property line, the area between the garage doors and the curb of the driveway on top of the wall would be approximately 23 ; a deficiency of 7'. If the driveway and retaining wall are constructed 2' off of the property line as proposed, the area increases to approxunately 26'; a deficiency of 4 . Conditional Use Permit A conditional use is used to authorize and regulate a specific use in a specific district as indicated by the Zoning Code. Grading within 5' of the property line is a conditional use. Criteria used to determine whether a conditional use pemut should be granted is based on whether the proposed use is appropriate in the proposed location and is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district. k r • Ti Ml I *— - r PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: created by the neighborhood residents who felt that they would be adversely impacted by the grading and subsequent driveway and reuining wail being located T from the nronertv li« COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution for denial. Attachments A B C D E Resolution Survey Proposed Landscaping Plan Staff report to PC on 1/20/98 Packet from applicant I ' A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 21.3 FILE ^2290 N WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Steve and Elaine Silus (hereinaaer "the applicants") property owners of 3235 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore Avenue and of the tract of land lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lie between the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lying of said Lot 19; and (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21.3, to permit grading within 5' of the southerly property line to allow for a driveway and retaining wall to be located 2' from the property line; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission after due public notice held a public hearing on January 20, 1998, to review the application, at which time the applicant, and all other interested members of the public were allowed to comment on the proposed application; and Page 1 of3 ^ ••' *i*- j WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the reports of the City staff, the comments of the Planning Commission, and of the comments and written statements submitted by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, hereby denies the conditional use permit application as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property and application: FINDINGS 2. 3. 4. 5. This property is located in the LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District and consist of 22,420 s.f or .51 acres where a minimum of (1/2) one-half acre is required. The subject property received multiple variances on March 10, 1997, for average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75-250' and 250'-500' setback and structural coverage as set forth in Resolution #3851 . The subject lot does not meet the minimum lot width requirements for the LR-IC Zoning District. The minimum lot width requirement is 100' measured at the 30* street yard setback. The subject property lot width at the 30' setback is approximately 57'. The Planning Commission voted to deny the application as proposed on the following findings: A. There are alternative design options for locating the garage and driveway that do not require a conditional use permit. B.The commission has heard testimony from adjacent property owners and the neighborhood regarding adverse impact. In review of the factual findings noted above, the Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of the property line is not in accordance with the objective of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: The City Council finds that the proposed location of the grading for the purposes of installing a driveway and retaining wall would have an adverse impact of the adjacent property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 26th day of January, 1998. Linda S . Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of January, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour, & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.4 ' 1 Notary Public Page 3 of3 I , -1 V ^ • . • I • ; v . }_ ■ f . r !jioy{an "ls)e<fcfiny DlCusic Consuflanl Uocafisl 7^'. TUm & ^TilPiyU^ dpAn7'£icl7 , S5(^ (UloaI a y9Cc S ddAiJ 4^AyU^t-^j2^ a/'J ‘^^-i^ KbO^ TTa/-}^diUccu^ Au-Tf-uAi/ A^aiaA/, ^ ' Z/2^2jUJv) A.-'T^-cUy ^4 ‘ 7-^*-^ / 1) A y^it^^''Z^i^ty' , /y ^ j / ^ .M^ ^ ^ JF» m ^ .^Pv'huAu yYo 3!9J Casco T^ml Ci^MJs)ayv^la,^Ctnn93ota S539I 612-471/^22* 612’47IS926 (fax) I290if«xan</itr09uenua, Snowmass, Coforacfo87654 970-927-9736*Y-SOO-944-7048 * 970-927-9737 ffax) __' \ I ~> I fi I rm I »I ^ ^ ^ t City of Orono 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Planning Commission October 21,1997 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your notification of tonight ’s consideration of the construction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle — some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some ^ thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Silus’ the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors inter.tions to raise the level ot the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure ^ on a : oundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions — fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is ^ that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of ^ j their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor ' expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you. Susan Smith Swanson (S^ . 11 ■*■■■ H'M I -- r Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 September 8, 1997 Ms. Janice Berg , 2655 Lydiard Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Berg, This letter is regarding our opposition to item #7 (#2290) of the September 15 planning commission agenda. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) to move an 80’ long , 4’ high retaining wall 5 ’ which would put it up to our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has Indicated to me that they are already ^ at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared driveway that we have used for the last 17 years had to_goipe.ouL whichweallowed with noncompensation offered or^iven to us: ' ** is isrge for the lot size, wth the roof line well above the adjoining homes . With thej pw 4* elevated driv^av our house looks very crowded In. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more. ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with It would go on Cy our property as it has during the construction. Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining J wall onto our property. J Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork ^Hft or other equipment In on our lawn. a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? Orono has not normally allowed "90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A "straight .^'drive in" garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the ^ neighborhood. We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono. Thank you for your attention in this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. Sincerely, L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed, Bnice Vang said he informed the builder that the topography and garage were different from the plans submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property line with the retaining wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem then and the garage was lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the builder and applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vang said he had this conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could work without creat'mg any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5' from the property line. Spilseth asked if the 5' requirement from the property line pertained to all retaining walls. Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5' of the property line where grading is involved. Spilseth said she did not understand how a variance could be granted when larger properties in the neighborhood have been denied variances. She said a neighboring property requested a similar access to their garage and was denied. She noted the builder said access could be chanced. Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan showing a retaining wall 2' from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lindquist said the / ^ • • • • • _ ..1 _______i:^i__^1 Anv ritViArPlaiming Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any other matter would have to be taken up with Staff. i) Silus said he was attempting to save a tree and understood the design would be a tight fit, He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5* from the property line. Silus said he had preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itself. Spilseth questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive. Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well Schrocder moved. Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate information. He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 6, NaysO. ^ S r minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) ^ Dunng public comments, Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the nmoffon her propel^. Dunng a heavy rainstorm this summer, the water came within \ this problem which had never existed before the construction began. Lmdquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not. hnif. by raising the level of the home work was never stopped. Spilseth said the garage should be changed from a side-loadine nSrhoor - «the Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans. setoeder said it was critical to solve the problems. He asked why the plan was just submitted at the beginning Of the meeting. was just Silus said he had been out of town and only received the plans himself. He has not b^uTder wa^r ^ engineered wall instead of the previous S^tTw'sot'^oooir^ ** ‘^“‘=0 Po*"'. and SusanSmith Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan. Van Zomeren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions. Lindquist said the irfotmation provided wouid have to be reviewed. He noted the plan ridSO’eappUcatior Silus indicated that snow removal will not change. M garage and access it from the street side. Silus said that would be costly. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the newly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed <9 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant had to leave the meeting early due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on a school night. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated a survey is required to verify calculations. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant's absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23 P.M. \e The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the application. She reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within S' of the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located 2' from the property line. Grading will increase the driveway width to 3' from the property line. If this is not approved, the retaining wall must be located S' from the property line. Incqrrect aerial photographs were used in determining the grading plans and resulted in the current situation. Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30' is required. The plan proposes 24-2S' instead of the original 21'. The purpose of the grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage. Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems with cars driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required for grading, the Commission is asked to consider where the wall should be located and how it affects the flow of drainage. The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but was attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what was submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property. C0> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the City Engineer. Gappa indicated that the engineered wall should be no closer than 5' from the property line. Silus was informed that it is unknown how the changes would affect the approved site plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors. Susie Swanson, who lives four homes to the south, asked what ordinances apply to water runoff. She saw the problem as being the garage built on a new grade from the previously existing grade and IS concerned with a change ».n drainage. She felt the side setback variance was a problem. Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property. Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. Diane Carlson said she had requested side facing doors about 8 years ago and had to turn the garage. I She felt the garage could be built without the type of entrance as proposed. She felt the property \ owners caused their own problems. Pat Spilseth indicated the change in grade has caused her to view the wall and cars. She noted tlie prescriptive easemen what was occurring. ^ prescriptive easement. She voiced concern that as the next-door neighbor she was not informed of Schroeder noted it was not the job of the Planning Commission to inform the neighbors. He asked if there was a grading plan and elevations with respect to the driveway at the time of original application. Mayor Jabbour answered on behalf of the City. Kc asked that applicant provide hardcover calculations that not reflect the boulder walls. The wall \V3S not part of the calculations. 32 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Silus said he was not requesting to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75' down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be • closer than 5'. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5'. Silus said he was unaware of the ordinance. He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied with an interlocking wall system. Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the lot line. Silus said the ^ [. landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line. He would like to move part of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawn questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the neighboring property in the past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Silus said he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located. Lindquist noted the need for new notification and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given. Silus said he would like the opportunity to work with Staff within the hardcover guidelines authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too nairow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lindquist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive notification. He /N reported that the problem, with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should ^ / have been foreseen. He noted fric wall is straight and has no arch to it. Silus indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding :£) the proposal. (isP TO: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Admini'^trator January 2,1998 SUBJECT: #2290 Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit-Continuation of Public Heal ing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre), Sewered Lot Size:22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Background: NOTE: Application: This applicant has been tabled or postponed several times. The applicant has requested that this item be placed back on the January 20th agenda. A large packet was delivered to you in December regarding this item. Please bring it to the January 20th meeting. If you need another copy, please contact staff before the meeting. The application is for a conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow the driveway and retaining wall to extend into the side yard to provide more space to get in and out of the garage. ANALYSIS A conditional use permit is used to authorize and regulate a specific use in a specific district as indicated by the Zoning Code. Grading within 5' of the property line in a residential district is a conditional use. Uses that are classified as a conditional use are reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if the use is appropriate in the proposed location and are consistent with the stated purpose of the zoning district. U2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page~l 1.Is the proposed location of the conditional use in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which it is located and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan? The subject lot meets the minimum lot area requirement for the zoning district. It does not meet the minimum lot width requirement which contributes to the problem of siting a three- car side loading garage with an adequate driveway. The subject lot was granted previous variances for structural coverage, average lakeshore setback ^d hardcover. The principal structure meets the required 10 ’ side yard setback. The Zoning Code provides for normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planmng Commission. One of the guidelines to determine if a grading plan shou.d be referred to the Planning Commission is whether grading or alterations would propose any changes in elevations within 5 ft. of the adjacent residential lot lines, except for drainage swales and ditches. (Section 10.03, Subd. 21 (3)). The comprehensive plan does not specifically address grading within 5' of a property line for the installation of a driveway and retaining wall. In the Land Use chapter of the plan, statement # 15 states: "All physical improvements must conform to city standards. Physical Imp.ovements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans." Grading witliin 5’ of the property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall may be considered a physical improvement to the subject property. However, staff believes that this plan statement refers to new development. There is no clear policy direction in the plan that relates to rebuilding on a site and locating driveways. In the Environment chapter, statement #13, the plan states that on-site water retention facilities will be required for development projects whenever necessary to maintain or improve the existing storm water runoff patterns. The policy also states that no development will be permitted to adversely impact it's neighbors, or the City, by changing drainc^.e patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting storm water drainage. H2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page-2 ^ '■ - ' V The proposed driveway and retaining wall plan includes a curb that will intercept water flowing from the north to the east and south across the property from the road. Runoff would follow the curb and drain along the side yard. Previously there was a shared driveway between the subject property and the adjacent property to the south. Please compare the two topographical maps from before and after the construction of the new residence to understand the drainage pattern. 2. Does the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity? The adjacent property owners have written a letter objecting to a retaining wall and driveway being located 2' from their property line. The Planning Commission needs to discuss whether the grading to accomplish the proposed driveway and retaining wall would be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. A conditional use permit may be revokable, may be granted for limited time, or may be granted subject to such conditions that the Council may prescribe. The conditional use permit may remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and consider the following issues: i I 1. 2. 3. Should the 5' setback for grading be reduced to 2' to provide a driveway and retaining wall? What are the consequences of reducing this standard for other lakcshore lots that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements? Does the proposed grading improve drainage? What impact, if any, does it have on other properties? Would the grading within 2' of the property line negatively impact the adjacent property? What conditions could be placed on the conditional use permit to negate or eliminate any negative impacts? If the Planning Commission flnds in the affirmative to the above three questions, then the conditional use permit should be approved. If the Planning Commission flnds that the application should not be approved, then staff should be directed to work with the City .Attorney to prepare in detail written reasons for the denial. U2290 Elaine and Sieve Silus 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/9S page-3 r D CITY OF ORONOV Vi/r-.wn<Li I Dear Planning Commission, Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 Dec 31. 1997 iJAN 6 1998 rr-n We are the next door neighbor to the North of the Silas property. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend tonight’s meeting since we made travel plans over this date several months ago. We realize we have voiced the following points in prior meetings, however since some time has elapsed since this issue was last tabled, we would appreciate it if you could read these points again in lieu of our absence. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) for construction of an 80 ’ long , 4’ high retaining wall within 2’ of our property line. We ask that the planning commission uphold the Orono city code which states that ifie wall must be 5’ from our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows; ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared driveway that we have used for the last 17 years had to come out, which we allowed with no compensation offered or given to us. ’** The Silas house is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes. With the now 4’ elevated driveway our house looks very crowded In. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more. ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with It would go on our property as it has during the construction. ** Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. ** Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn. ** If a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? ** Orono has not normally allowed “90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A “straight drive in" garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the neighborhood. A “straight drive in” garage would create less hardcover. ** We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono. Thank you for your attention ir j manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. Sincerely, Ml*. r f City of Orono 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Planning Commission October 21,1997 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your notification of tonight ’s consideration of the construction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the h id has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Silus’ the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions — fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design st^f or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. \^at is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other iiearby residents should not be made to pay for the mi^kes of their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you. Susan Smith Swanson #—*ji» ■! ^ ttm ii« ■■ i n Hi w ' >■ t ■ ■ iMiMi ii^i i r nrr ■■ ami i TO; FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Conunission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator December 1, 1997 SUBJECT: #2290, Steve and Elaine Silus, 3235 Casco Circle On Wednesday, November 26, 1997, Mr. Silus came to the City offices with the enclosed information. This item was tabled at the November meeting at the request of the applicant. Mr. Silus asked that this information be sent to you. It is being sent separate from the regular packet to give you time to review it. * t { t ’ ^ , E November 21, 1997 Steve and Elaine Sllus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, I am writing In response to a 44 page packet of material sent to me on November 13, 1997 by Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Commission. I believe that all of you have received the same Information. This Is the first time I have seen all of the meeting minutes along with prior applications and neighbors letters all put Into one packet. For that reason, I would like to clarify some of the Issues brought up. I have nvimbered the pages In the lower right hand corner for ease of reference. I have also highlighted the Items to be addressed. Page 2. Note a) In abiding by the Building Inspectors recommendations to lower the footings of the garage. It appears that access to the garage would not be a problem. Otherwise why redo the footings In the first place? Page 2. Note b) Prior to demolition, the Sllus' had a fence on their property along the lot line that restricted utility access In a worse manner than Is proposed. In other words, the new proposal Is an Improvement. Page 28. Note a) The structure is a one (1) story with walkout residence and we feel Is aesthetically pleasing. The Hackberry tree was saved and Is currently In good condition. The floor levels of the structure are at the approximate height of both the residence to the north and the residence to the south. The roof line coincides with the two adjoining residences to the north and to the residence two (2) lots to the south. The obvious visual difference Is that the Spllseth residence is constructed with a flat roof. Thus the low profile to the surrounding structures. Page 28. Note b) Residences to our north and south were shown plans of the new structure and acknowledged same. The side entry garage was shown at that time. I f ii I I 11 Iff If f II I > I II I r I nil I i i i i i i i ■ iii — L. Page 2. Page 31. This shows the original findings of the Planning Commission as presented to and passed by the City Council. Noted Findings: A. Conforms to height requirements. B. Hackberry tree was preserved. C. Reduced hardcover. D. The residence conforms more closely to the average lakeshore setback than the former structure. E. One story design used. F. No negative comments were received from the adjacent property owners. I must emphasis, adjacent property owners were aware of the side entry garage at this time with no objections. This was the time to express their concern, not after construction was started. Page 36. Note a) The Site Plan which is stamped, approved, and signed by Lyle Oman on The City of Orono clearly shows a boulder wall within the five (5) foot area in question. Mr. Oman stated to me in the city offices that this was an oversight on his part. I truly take him at his word. Hov»ever, so was our oversight as to the five (5) foot setback ordinance. Page 36. Note b) We have agreed to go to a block constructed wall within the five (5) foot area. This wall does not need to be engineered for it is only 42” high at the highest point. Page 36. Note c) The third line should read: The approval on the site building plans show the wall two (2) feet off the lot line. The grade of the garage was lowered per recommendations of the building inspector. Page S'/. Note a) None of the properties opposing construction of the retaining wall have ever asked questions of us as to where the wa would run. The current drawings show its position. I was not aware of the ordinance in issue. This ordinance was an oversight on my part, my builders part, Lyle Oman's part, and the surveyors part. Our oversight', was driven by our neighbors to the north being allowed access to the five (5) foot area of question (this poses no problems to anyone), by Lyle Oman's approval of the site plans, by no knowledge of the ordinance by the surveying company, and total non acknowledgement of the ordinance. Even though we had thought that a bo'xlder wall would be more natural to the area, we have agreed to go to the interlocking wall system if used within the five (5) foot area. •. iN Mie I' f> awwi IT* e m\ ii\rDv MMw A -................................................................................................~ ■ — — -■ * —-.i-i".'.-' 'J f . Page 3. Page 37. Note b) The new drawing contained show the proposal. ‘’®®'’ •* P'^oblem with enow removal in any prxor year. I can only hope that the Spilseth's, with a new circuit r drxveway blacktopped to our mutual lot line, will conduct their snow removal in the same respectful manner as we have. Page 37. Note temporary.^ Jay Richards was not aware that the wall he saw was He never asked anyone who knew the correct facts comiaaift^ comments were made to the planning mmission being totally unxnformed or misinformed of the situation. After being informed prior by Pat Spilseth that she «eak with Builder, Bruce Bren, tried to «™!!ni«Uons Sprlaeth's. They were totally against any drainage situation has been improved from the prior situation. All runoff has been addressed in the proposal. facts of the construction project. Page 39 -—Note a). This was one of the causes of the ensuing problem been a construction site with all proper present. When there was a problem with barriers, HonSo happened very little, the problems were corrected within 24 nours. ^ter that would have come within inches of the Spilseth's door would have been from their own driveway, rtidewalk, and property. Ail accommodatxons to runoff from the construction site have always een addressed. We can not be held responsible for their own property Page 4. runo££. Page 41. Note a) Bruce Vang had never diacueaed thia problem with the applicant, Steve and Elaine Silua. Page 41. Note b) Aa previoualy atated, thia waa a dl££erent aituation and a irreaponaible comment to be made by Pat Spilaeth. _41. Note c) Thia waa one o£ the reaaona £or the ordinance overalght. Page 41. Note d) We are aaking £or a CUP in the garage area only. Aa £ar aa anyone kncv,c, the Hackberry tree ia alive and well, contrary to Pat Spilaeth'a unaubatantiated allegation. Page 41 Note e) Drainage has been addressed per the proposal. With regard to letters sxibmitted to the Planning Commission, I would like to respond to some o£ the Issues brought up by the writers. From Dave and Pat Spilaeth; Page 42. Note a) The spelling o£ our last name is Silua. The wall would not be eighty (80) £eet long, nor £our (4) £eet high, and we are requesting two (2) feet £rom the lot line. Page 42. Note b) There is no basis for the Spilaeth'a stating that hardcover would go up. Notes to the contrary have been presented prior. The shared £ence was our fence as explained to us when we purchased the property, as shown by the survey, and acknowledged to Elaine when she was asked by Pat Spilaeth if we were going to remove "our" fence. The fence had to be removed to reduce hardcover. The driveway was being relocated as to better suit the new house and yard. Compensation, as used in their letter, usually refers to monetary compensation. We do not feel that the Spilaeth's should receive compensation to remove our fence or relocate our driveway on our property. Page 42. Note c) This is unfounded, drainage has been addressed. Page 42. Note d) We have never infringed on our neighbors property and would never do so. Unfortunately, I feel that they can not state the same situation with regard to their infringement on our property. Page 5. 42.—Note e) No more than their children playing in our yard and getting hurt. ^2.—Note—f)_ They knew of this design from the start. Where were they then. From Susan Smith Swanson 43,.—Note a) 1 feel that we have addressed the thorny problems alluded to in this letter. There are also residence of Casco Circle who are very happy with the new construction. We have received nximerous compliments from residence and non residence alike. »—Spte b) I will give Ms. Swanson the benefit of the doubt on comment with regard to the garage doors facing the wrong way. she was not aware that a drawing of the house was shown to the adjacent home owners prior to any building permits being issued. any change in water, runoff is minimal^ would be improved, and has been addressed. If Ms. Swanson had concerns for these supposed being the neighbor that she states, you would have thought she would have brought these concerns to our attention in the first place. P^Sf6—43«—Note c) Nothing has ever been hidden from the neighbors. I welcome Ms. Swanson's basis for her comment. Page 43.—Note_d)_ When the construction project is done, and they do take time, there will be no damage to anyone's lawns, gardens, their own driveways usability, or their views. How Ms. Swanson or other neighbors not mentioned by Ms. Swanson are affected by the above puzzles me. From Judith Boytim With reference to Ms. Boyum's letter, when she was asked of the basis of content in her letter by Bruce Bren, she stated that she felt embarrassed about sending same. She knew none of the pertinent facts and was given incomplete information by others. She apologized for the letter at all. it seems strange that she also spelled our last name Silas. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator November 13,1997 SUBJECT: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use—Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1/2 Acre) Sewered Lot Size:22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Application:Applicants are seeking a conditional use peimit in order to grade within 5' of the southerly property line to install 25' of retaining wall along the edge of the driveway which would allow the driveway to be approximately 24'- 25' wide in front of the garage doors instead of 21' where 30' is typically needed for a 3 car side-loading garage. Background: The applicants applied for variances (#2206) in March 1997 to allow removal of a residence and construction of a new residence. Resolution #3851 granted approval for the following variances: 1. To allow the deck to be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2.To allow 3,685 sq. ft. (29.64%) of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback where 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) was existing and 3,109 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. 3.To allow 1,208 sq. ft. (31.23%) of hardcover in the 250'-500' setback where 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) was existing and where 1,160 sq. ft. (30%) is allowed. 4.To allow 3,435 sq. ft. (15.32%) of structural coverage where 2,510 sq. ft. was existing and 3,363 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. U2290 Elaine and Steve Silns 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page-1 k i ! The house construction proceeded following approval for the variances. The topo information that was used to obtain the variances was based on city topo maps which are drawn from aerial photos. These topo maps can be off on an individual zoning lot by 2'. It was discovered during construction that the topo maps did not reflect the actual elevations on site. Fill from the excavated basement was used to elevate the site to provide for a lakeside walk*out. During the footings inspection it was determined that there would not be adequate room to back oiif of the three car side-loading garage. The Building Inspector instructed the builder to reduce the elevation of the garage floor because there was a 5 foot difference between the grade at the floor level and the southerly property line. It was apparent that a 5 ft. difference in grade over approximately 25 ft. of driveway would cause access problems for the garage. The garage floor is currently proposed at the 959 elevation and the southerly property line is proposed at a 956 elevation. A 3' grade change is an improvement over the 5' change that was originally planned due to inaccurage topo maps. In order to increase the si re of the driveway, the applicants are asking for a conditional use permit to grade within 2' of the southerly property line to construct a retaining wall approximately 2.5' to 3' in height. Grading within 5' of the property line requires a conditional use permit. If the applicante chose to build a retaining wall 5' from the property line and less than 42’ in height it would not require a conditional use permit for grading nor a side yard setback as the retaining wall would be considered a non-encroachment and grading would be considered normal and customary.. As proposed, the retaining wall 2’ from the property line provides approximately 24' of driveway between the garage doors and wall. If the retaining wall was constructed 5' from the property line, the driveway would be 21’ in width from the garage doors to the retaining wall. Turning of vehicles will be difficult at either length as 30' is recommended for driveways serving a side-loading garage. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and indicated that 10' is usually recommended along side yards for drainage. City subdivision regulations require a 5' drainage and utility easement along each internal lot line. This provides for a 10' wide drainage and utility easement between all lots. The recommended 5 distance is in accordance with City policy. Grass is also recommended in the drainage swale rather than rock mulch. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19. Prohibitions and Subd. 21. Exceptions U2290 Elaine and Sieve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 1 1/17/97 page-2 Subd. 1^- Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to: a. remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; b.to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; c.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 the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" 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. Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern: a. the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or b. the grading of a driveway serving such building, nor c.to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not advcisely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance ot the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal o; grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Conunission and the Council for action in accordance to 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 feet depth is to be stockpiled on site. 2.Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate fi’ost footings protection. #2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Cascc Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page~3 I ■L - ?:|,- ki wri 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in e.^vations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. • Section 10.09 Conditional Uses, Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Granting of Permit Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1/2 acre (21,780 sq. ft.) 100*30'10'75' and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lc)t Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard .517 acres (22,420 sq. ft.) 55'55' to new garage 10* on each side of new house, 2' proposed for wail 170'+ The subject property meets the lot area requirements. The property does not meet the lot width requirements. A conditional use permit is required because of the grading within 5' of the property line. A 55 wide lot does not provide adequate width to meet the 10' side yard requirements and a 30' driveway pad in front of the garage. U2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page-^4 (3 r i I Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage % of Total Lot 22,420 sq. ft.3,435 sq. ft.15.32 A variance was granted in February 1997 for 72 sq. ft. of structural coverage. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Hardcover with former residence Hardcover proposed with new construction Hardcover proposed with retaining wall 0'-75’6,117 sq. ft.None 13 sq.ft. (.21%) None None 75'-250'12,436 sq. ft.3,109 sq. ft. (25%) 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) 3,685 sq. ft. (29.6%) 3,685 sq. ft. (29.6%) 250'-500'3,867 sq. ft.1,160 sq. ft. (30%) 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) 1,208 sq. ft. (31.2%) 1,208 sq. ft. (31.2%) The applicant has redesigned the driveway so that previous variances for hardcover can be met with the proposed retaining wall. Findings: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; Land alteration or grading is difficult to consider as a "use”. Nonetheless, the Planning Conunission shall consider whether allowing the grade to be changed within 2' of the property line along the retaining wall for the driveway is consistent with the intent of both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code requires that grading changes be reviewed and U2290 Elaine and Sieve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 pages (V r fei [1 not have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission would have to find that the application meets the objectives of the zoning code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.That the proposed location of the conditional use and tlie proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In order to meet this condition the grading plan needs to demonstrate that it will be maintained in a manner that does not impact the adjacent property. The proposed retaining wall will collect water that from the driveway and channel it into the side yard where a concrete spilllway previously was located. The applicants have indicated that the concrete spillway was old and in disrepair. Other issues relating to how the grade would be maintained involve snow removal, screening, vehicle emissions, and vehicle safety. Snow removal would need to be done in a manner that does not place snow on the adjacent property. The 2' strip and the south side yard is shown as rip/rap or rock mulch. The City Engineer has advised that the slope could be planted with sod to have less impact on the adjacent property. His recommendation to remain 5' off the property line has not changed. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the location of the conditional use is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The conditional use permit would have to be in compliance with all other regulations, including previous resolutions regarding hardcover. In order to approve the application, the Planning Commisson must find that the application complies with all other zoning requirements. Considerations 1 . If the conditional use permit is denied, the applicant can install a retaining wall 5' from the property line and have a 21' driveway from the garage. This will result in the driveway being 9' shorter than what is recommended. If the applicant finds that a 21' driveway is not suitable, the applicant can change the orientation of the garage to have a street facing double door instead of a three car side if 2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page-6 Q 1 — I loading garage. This would provide better access but may increase the amount of hardcover depending on the width of the driveway. 2. The grade of the garage floor is 3' higher than the south property line. Reducing the grade 3' so that no conditional use permit is needed would require substantial modification to the garage. Staff Recommendation The retaining wall proposal 2' from the property line would provide a 24' driveway where 30' is usually needed and recommended. The City Engineer has recommended that the wall remain 5' from the property line and the side yard be landscaped with sod and planting to screen the driveway from the adjacent property. The proposed wall location only provides for a 2' drainage swale at the base of the wall. This is not in compliance with standard city policy for subdivisions for new construction which requires a S' easement for drainage purposes along lot lines. The plan as submitted does not comply with the Planning Commission's previous directives to keep the wall S' from the property line which would eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. Attachments New plans follow staff report 1-S A Application Applicant's hardship statement B Plat map C Topo map of previous situation D Permit record E Adjacent Owner’s Acknowledgement Form F Zoning Code excerpt regarding non-encroachments G Hardcover calculations H 2/18/97 minutes for previous variances I Resolution 3 8S1 J Minutes from September 1997 meeting K Minutes from October 1997 meeting L Letters from neighbors #2290 Elaine and Sieve Siltts 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page~7 1 • M • «••• :. 1 n ^ \ r: eoJTWS/^ um n Is froposcd Hc-kumn^ W^U -'. > . f 1 %) M p-ip-IVH' ^eeu6«e>g^ eW/H^ •r^’ CA/ (Vneei?' PR'V&'A'aY'—^ m • • WA^ HB-i^HT With ^ni ■ __________ __________________ .. • • • .# * ' «i « »• ••« « 4- $fiuw*r <(S-\‘S{CX^ WA>J^ r Application # O \ Date Received -cro ^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ‘ f ^ & XD jy Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220* 0 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A- PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress_ S 2- L Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /o AHflch __tc_________• t • \*• Attach legal description to applicatioii if norhcluded' on ^uh^ s^^ Date Property Acquired I (do) ^o no ^ also own the adjacent parcels of land..(month/year) Present use of property: _X~ residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: ^ ^ / APPLICANT N®roc />-».>g _____ Address:^g/_^-r a. city: .»' _ ' __ Phone (home ) f Phone (work ) ^7^-Si W ________Zip: 9 i OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ^ I.,>X>___________^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ------Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback:Front X Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: .v., _______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) (if ■ iiiMi.Mi kVUiaiM, M iriirt^ ' r i ' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must he submitted bv the apnlicatipn deadline M nrder for vour application to be considered complete; 1.. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ^ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you ”” must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). y Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4' x 11 for reproduction. __ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing / grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 Vi" x 11' for reproduction. r Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8!4 x 11 )• 2 List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in / the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). •' As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. / 8. / persons you wisn noiiiiea oi mis appiicauuu. ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yPHE variiince anplication is not comnlete if the above information Hftt intludjd. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE , >7 • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authori2es reasona e entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pl^ng 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, p ease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 1.1 I < II ~ ~ Tfi-TT-T- 1-------T r r I I lii j I ^ !!■■ ■ I f ^«ii~~itniiMiiMMi ■ ■tth riiar^irin~i I.i; iji ^jCX L i . .-A^LCiVXrr- "SC^LJCW WOT" WA'OC’ -^T<^^jC!AOC=r- .ixrsoc^e^ TO /*=^vjLCiUO eivjr^coQJs: -A(oo ^rr . u 3ma _ 4^VC=MT to . ^1 ^TJJT^(g>^T" ^ovwrr TO "TT^^-S^ Tt::^ p / l:>e:&Cj£iX'pTVOO C^ UyJL\^^<iAL_ CoO^^mtiO^- ^ts:Ci<2UjiS^ c:^ OA:^j^.qx O U^T lO v G“W- . “WPElBiSr V3 Ohnr CSWV5?t I eA.^^3^ 3p4:i:;c::i^ . ^^iJQ<LTVO:P^W- 0\2l. ^SJV^^KJQJ^ / SIKCT TX.'Tt? .Tv^ <^eA^=:cr s^i_L^ ujv-TAs^oir StiLiucr^ioG- -A fe£T3A\>0v>06^ U^U- <JL3WAVJ SvEXfeACrJc-S 0^^4:)\OA:OCLtE \0 ^JglV^ATVOVj C:£rVA d? ; U«t«r 929.6 Ac^eoec.-r . I • \ Permit No, ,^5Q| lois yjooo 3oS "7 ^idi^ ADDRESS V Cjh PERMIT RECORD . ^ •• • Date /1 - >? f ^'/7'C, <D ?- 0-0'? S'-_r^.'6 9 7, ■/' / (J ■ ys L'f<9' ‘9~? la ■//) '<^'7 •• •* Type of Permit • •f^iTxisk ‘10ai23i» L-^aX £j.a^auA^ '~yLeaoO y\^/>70 I (we) * * . \.. Si' Adjacent Property Owners^^^toi ___SPi L • of •/ iv \ [print name(s)]Ca^q c.^ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property loca'ed ------------referred to as Land Use Application No. decte acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to Council thTt I (we) am (m1 " ““ “ eonfim for the City project or use Lquir« SSiclT^plaL ** P™P»aed neighbor’s Property Owner Date Property Owner Date *********ti****i,i,i,*i,i,***AA I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proimsed improvement or proposed use of the property located .— -------— ------ also referred to as Land Use Application No. understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to ^1^1 Im? f " ““ >=“' ">a«'y ‘u confirm Z tt Cire p?o^t ofus! ^,/fy ^Topei^ Owner ---------^^^Date i Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use primn^l'^le?Sg"da'te“ “ Rear - § 10.03 residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools and ' when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint a , shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: Front - 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30* minimum and not within the required side yard area 30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area Source. Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 ^ Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, cilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical ‘devices, lornices” eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/i feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. family dwellings; liqhts for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yar ® safety and security purposes, provided the is not visible from the public right-of-way or property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in fences not over 6 feet in height along the street lot frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill no? exceed 6 feet above the height of the terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar ®t » whicS do not L^end above the height of the ground ^ the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences an—- off-: to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and op^ff street r-a^'kina except for lakeshore lots, no fence or W not iiTtxcess o'f 7 2 inches ihn eigh _^a‘ oye g?ade may be located closer to the shoreline ^nan the average distance from the shoreline of existing residen .... 75^ feet adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within of the shoreline. source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 (4-1-84) ORONO CC 256-1 § 10.03 outdoor plcnlc"-shrife/s"f„a°"iycreVtTo":f^^^^ regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than ® shall a fence or wall constructed ^ rear yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. 1 ^1- , Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a sidelrard exceed a height of fi aKotTT original grade. - - - - - - - Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences, structures or planting more than three feet high in the "R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection fuj curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chapter shall requxr® a permit for all structures including utility poles, and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation, as for transmitting power, water, heat, communica tions, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public servdLces welfare will not be harmed by the essential imc K Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975 shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: No new "stock farms" shall be created or ®^istir^ stock farms enlarged more than twenty—five percent (25%) over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January i, 1975 with animals over one year old except under the a conditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) § 10.03 Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and 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 Building 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 hy a builder shall Be referred by the Building inspector to the Planning Commission Shd the COUrtdi'l for actio n in accordance with this Chapter. The Building Inspectcfr shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: . ., • ■3 k:in<is +ha-f c.utp. 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet 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 an_ changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. needy a condi honal I-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 rip-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 accompanied by a drawing showing the location of the proposed rip-rap and such other information as the City 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. Source: Ordinance No. 196 Effective Date: 8-22-77 ORONO CC 258-1 (4-1-84) r > ■5 * I.f. •;* . r It I . ^ 1* |4 ti. 1•1 ■« ij 1 HAl ‘COVElLCALCULATlUiN \VUKK5iiEli. i SETBACK ZOISHE: (CIRCLE ONE) 3VE1LCA D (^0-75^75-250*25-500*500-1000 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House • • Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Dnvcwav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck • • X X F. Landscape Underlain • By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X tPtORoac ‘ G. Other I? TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A . /9 -r B (f//7 X 100 Al 17- 0.21 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length wyth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patid/Dcck* ‘X X F, Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O * B . </n C/t'7 X 100 - • *t# •• •• k • . .1 ^fu. /o- 7-9 7 nni ^ S I* 0.1 , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .S F. S.F. s;t. S.F,. S.F. S.F. S.F. •*� .S _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 D A D I 1 • • u HAiU)COVER CAJLCUL/VnaCiWUKKiiJ±:i:. j ' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ (j5-250 ’^ 25-500’ ^rU, 500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House f •P 5 - > Of-oacv^ALK-tu Bao< MCK ^r^Ps B. Garage C. Driveway Len|(h Width 22- X X X Ho<^5£-1 64^ s p 9>0 I: mt* !/• X. X ^PlUvJAY D. -CtdewaH c f yJA(KlCHf^ X X- V.V. '¥ • u * i i •t % • E. Pacio/Deck X X F. Landscape _/_ Underlain ___ By Plastic. ___ Or Fabric • Pai2T 0r G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A. 3SCZ + B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X *“ • •• • •• • • • • tt--»— t Lenjih Width • •• X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk jfAo/offt) srfpj 2 0 X X E. Patio/Deck X X ^f-r< fj* tt, F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X C. Other /fr. UyAH. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •? €IS + B n.43C X 100 - • ft •• • 14 I I s S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1157 S.F. S.F. I9B ^3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1<=I S.F. 356Z S.F. 12.43^ S.F. 20.6^ % Z 7CZ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 700 S.F. S.F. 9 O S.F. /O O S.F. 3^0 S.F. J7.S S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. IQ S.F. • S.F. /2.43 g -S F- Z3UI. A B B . ■!I r Si“ M SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 HARDCOVER CALCJULATlOiN WUKlv 75-250'500-1000' » o 97 # EXISTING HARDrnVER IN ZONE A. House i i .• Length Width S.F. i} X |{ X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage 30.^22.4 -€ €6 S.F. C. Driveway ^•wooosTePs ©6ara «e I X X ~l\o it J!; If I • '► 4 •*. !?<.#• ■V 51 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck • •• ••.» . •• . V* • «• X X *••••• ¥ • • • .1 S.F. •S.F. F. Landscape Underlain . ~By. Plastic. . Or Fabric • X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - + B 386 7 X 100 /4291M7 _S.F. _S.F. 36. 9S % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7.0NF. A. House 7_______ X Length Width 3^8 I S.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage X -S.F. C. Driveway V A€t,C*^AUS X X ^66 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other UJAU S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A /20^ H- B 3^6 7 X 100 - /ZO? . S.F. S.F. % 3P€-7 3/,2< A B A B • ••• • • •• ••«••• «• • • •. ' • * 14 ■ ■S i I i • I ’ r f ,r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18,1997 H (#1 - #2211 Zoning Amendment - Continued) Van Zomeren said when the policy comes back to the March meeting, there may be language guiding the location of antennas within the City. Council Member Goetten said the Counc’d has many of the same concerns expressed and felt the need for more information. She indicated an applicant is not prohibited from making an application for an antenna, but it is the wish of the Council that they are not located all throughout the City. The schedule regarding the moratorium and amendment was discussed. The moratorium could be extended. Van Zomeren also indicated a land use moratorium under State law could run as long as 30 months, but that is too prohibitive for this issue. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. , 2nd Series. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Hawn. McMillan noted the motion was allowing for the start of the process. ACTION ITEM (#5) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:35-7:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for variances to hardcover, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage for a lakeshore residence in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring 1/2 acres. The structural coverage variance is a 0.28% increase over the 15% allowable. Thelot width requirement is 100'. The property in question is 55'wide. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure. A new deck would be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The proposal would result in a 123 s.f. increase of hardcover in the 75-250' setback and a 221 s.f. reduction in the 250-500' setback. The structure would be located beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the two adjoining properties. Van Zomeren indicated the issues include the narrow lot, which is consistent with the neighboring properties, a reduction in hardcover, increase in structural coverage, and an attempt to prohibit any negative impact to a Hackbeny tree located on the property. i ^ I J r >0 minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (US - #2206 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) kee^the heiriif nf A '7'***' “ 7"'"" “ f«idence with basement in order tokeep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure Thev rfso are attempting to save the hackberty tree. He noted the pfoposX “ nof extend My fiirther forward towards the lake than the existing house. The proposed house k“" "'e garage by the street will be removed cantilevered Sm a'rXr”' ^ She suggested a tree sti^ni^rinhe't " k ™ basement under the ^heTon the Hawn '"fomied the appUcant of the series of requests being made in the area by oivners of substandard loK The ordinances require that new construction meet the zoning requirements. Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in stnictural coverage Silus “d sa »"ernative is to build a two-stoiy house, and they would prefer not to Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. Mc^llan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional ardcover in the 75-250’ setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the There were no public comments. McNIiUan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors. Silus said he discussed ledi’rdfeom .he deXr wa^proportb^ Sarage and driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the pL iiiirfi ‘-i—f ii inif^vii' t*ti ri ^ t i t - - i n mil T ■■ 11 nil — HUM VMtv' t WM m ai fvtr aa i/»r^vatar»«tt i iBMii ■laii MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10,1997 (#7 - #2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction - Continued) Jabbour said he did not see the need to require the mitigation in Orono as the sites in Excelsior and Independence would benefit Orono. In regards to the potential concerns with granting conditional approval prior to EAW completion. Radio informed Jabbour that there mi^t be no benefit in distinguishing between public and private projects as a private resident would say there is no difference. It was recognized that the County will have 3-30 days, or between March 15 and April 15, to make their determination firom the comment reporting end of March 12. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to continue the agenda item to a Special Council Meeting to be held on April 1. 1997 at 8:00 a.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Settles asked Gaffiron to check for the information required by the Council. Kelley asked if an EAW would be required on CoRd 6 reconstruction project. The County representatives will verify and report to Gaffiron. Radio said the County is put on notice that the EAW approval would be required to obtain the permit. (#8) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SDLUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 3851 A/ Silus asked for clarification of #1 in the conclusions of the resolution. He questioned the timing of the hardcover removals. Sihis asked that the temporaiy storage facility and unattached garage be allowed to remain during construction. He said he would remove those structures when the project is completed. The Council agreed with the request. Jabbour informed Silus that he would not obtain the occupancy permit until the structures were removed. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3851. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2210 iOENT E. AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3852 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3852. Vote: Ayes 4, NaysO. (#10) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3625 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CUP - RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL Neil Heiipel represented the applicants. I r IIill CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OETHE CITY COUNCIL 3851NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C-6) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2206 WHEREAS, Elaine Silus and Steve Silus (hereinafter ”the applicants ) owners of the property located at 3235 Casco Circle wthin the City of Orono (hereinafter the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore Avenue and of the tract of land lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lies between the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of said Lot 19 (hereinafter "the property"); and shall be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore ".^ere no s allowed Per Section 10.22. Subdivision 2. hardcover within the 75-250 setback ma proposed at 3.685 s.f. (29.64%) where 3.562 s.f (28.64%) is rosv.l is allowed In the 250-500 ’ setback area, hardcover is proposed at 1.208 s.f. (41-2.} ) whe« m"' (36.95%) is existing and where 1.160 s.f. (30%) is allowed. Per Se«.on 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C). structural coverage is proposed at 3.435 s.f. where 2. existing and 3.363 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2206. Page 1 of 5 1 r I r;: I CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a R 1 2. 3. 4. The property, is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The total lot area is 22,420 s.f. (.51 acres) in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 18, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The proposed residence conforms to side yard setbacks and height requirements. B. The proposed residence seeks to preserve a manire hackberry tree located at the street side of the property. C. The proposed residence reduces overall hardcover (5,004 s.f. e.xisting; 4,893 s.f. proposed). D. The proposed residence more closely conforms to the average lakeshore setback than the existing residence. E. The proposed design (one-stoiy) will minimize the visual impact of structure on a lot that is substandard in lot width. F.The City has not received any negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of this application. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 clP I J r CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 51 5.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 vjiriances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), to permit removal of an existing structure and construction of a new residence to be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback line, hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area of 576 s.f. or 4.64% and a 48 s.f or 1.23% variance in the 250-500' setback area, and structural coverage variance of 72 s.f. or .32%, Approval was subject to the following conditions:. 1.All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed as shown on the approved survey and shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction, except that the storage area in the existing garage may be used during construction. The existing garage/storage area shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must bi exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 10, 1998). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.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 3 of 5 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 851 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of March, 1997. AT/TEST: /Dorothy M.^lin, City Clerk Gabriel wbbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of March, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. V CAROLE A HASEMAN NOTARY PUBUC4«NNES0n HtNNCFW COUNTY Notary Public ( /■ Page 4 of 5 v> CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 51 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this _____day of _____________________, 199"7 . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared F/g.'r.f 6.| .a ^ 4. hu-^ka^f! known to me to be the peison(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they/ executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOTMTPUBUMlINNtSOU NOINEPIN COUNTY I g My Commljslon Expires Jan. 31.2<XX) ^K ^n {"t • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. Notary Public On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared_____________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#10 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Stoddard asked Theis his opinion of the Staff recommendation. Theis said he was satisfied with the recommendation. He is willing to scale back the driveway and working on correcting the slope. Theis told Lindquist he would provide a grading plan. Dressier indicated that engineering of the plan has not occurred. Berg asked that this be done. Theis reported there is a 5' drop from the top of the existing driveway to the garage. He did not feel that span was a problem with a 30' area. McMillan ;.»*4icatcd there is a runoff problem existing along the retaining wall on the west side. Theis said thfe problem exists by the stairs which need to be reconstructed. With th(; of the driveway and flooding possibilities, Lindquist reconunended a 8% slcoe instead of 10^^ Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2288 for an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space above for hardcover and front setback variances subject to Staff recommendation. The 10' side setback is to be met and a revised plan submitted showing a 10 driveway meeting the hardcover in the 75-250' setback. The grading plan is to be provided prior to Council review. Staff is to review flooding requirements. Berg asked why the particular size as proposed. She was informed that there was only 372 s.f. above grade and no bathroom on the main level. The second bedroom is only 6'x9', and the applicant would like a larger master bedroom. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:22-11:57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. r ORONO PLANING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 I ^ 1 1 (#11 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application was reviewed earlier in 1997. Pictures of the property were distributed. The applicants received variances for average lakeshore setback for construction of a deck, hardcover, and structural coverage. There was concern for saving trees at that time. The 3-car garage is a side load with a driveway about 5' from the lot line. The plan was submitted to the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, in June of 1997 with the addition of a boulder wall along the driveway that had not been previously reviewed. The proposal is to allow grading within 5' of the property line for a boulder wall for the house under construction. Staff is concerned with the hardcover calculations being incorrect and affected in the 75-250' setback and 250'-500' setback. Van Zomeren said Greg Gappa has recommended that boulders not be used as engineering is difficult. Staff recommends denial of a boulder wall for replacement with an engineered wall to be located 5' from the property line. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 10 required side yard if it does not exceed 6' in height. Hardcover variances may still be required. The City Engineer's approval is also required. Silus said he received the information packet on Saturday. He reported that he knew prior to construction that access would be difficult. The builder had approved on-site the building of the wall 2'off the lot line. The builder had told Silus that he did not need a variance. Silus said the grade of the garage was lowered per instructions from the building inspector and new footings were poured. Schroeder told Silus that the builder must know that a variance was required. He also indicated that the public was improperly notified, which would require tabling of the application to allow for proper notification. Van Zomeren indicated that the public notification list was from December, 1996, and she originally thought only a side yard variance was required. It was determined that a CUP would be required for grading and the legal notice did not specify this requirement. Silus said he originally submitted the application with Gaffron and had a conversation with Hawn regarding hardcover. He indicated he is not requesting approval of additional hardcover and had originally reduced it. He said he is attempting to extend out the garage portion only. Lindquist read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Spilseth in opposition to the hardcover and proximity to their property line being requested in the application. r i: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Silus said he was not requesting to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75' down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be • closer than 5'. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5'. Silus said he was unaware ^ of the ordinance. He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied vwth an interlocking wall system. Z' Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the lot line. Silus said the I • landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line. He would like to move part V of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawn questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the ighboring property in the past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Silus saidneignoonng propeny UI me puai. rja»u leii uua wu»m .. j..---------- he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located, Lindquist noted the need for new notification and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given, Silus said he would like the opportunity to work with Staff within the hardcover guidelines authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too narrow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lindquist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive notification. He reported that the problem with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should have been foreseen. He noted the wall is straight and has no arch to it. Silus indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. 0 Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding the proposal. S> •! tf T- tft '* • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING mNUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11- #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the City Engineer. Gappa indicated that the engineered wall should be no closer than 5’ from the property line. Silus was informed that it is unknown how the changes would affect the approved site plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors. Susie Swanson, «'ho lives four homes to the south, asked what ordinances apply to water runoff. She saw the problem as being the garage built on a new grade from the previously existing grade and IS concerned with a change in drainage. She felt the side setback variance was a problem. Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property. Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. A Diane Carlson said she had requested side facing doors about 8 years ago and had to turn the garage. ^ I She felt the garage could be built without the type of entrance as proposed. She felt the property V^owners caused their own problems. Pat Spilseth indicated the change in grade has caused her to view the wall and cars. She noted the prescriptive easemei what was occurring, prescriptive easement. She voiced concern that as the next-door neighbor she was not informed of Schroeder noted it was not the job of the Plaiming Commission to inform the neighbors. He asked if there was a grading plan and elevations with respect to the driveway at the time of original application. Mayor Jabbour answered on behalf of the City. He asked that applicant provide hardcover calculations that not reflect the boulder walls. The wall was not part of the calculations. dP ■ f M^aniMAit mrtiitirra t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANt'.'C'^G COM^SSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOE -R 20,1997 (#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant had to leave the meeting early due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on a school night. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated a survey is required to verify calculations, Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant’s absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - ^ ^ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the application. She reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within o the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located 2' from the property line. Grading will increase the driveway width to 3’ from the property line. If this is not approved, the retaining vyall must be located 5* from the property line. Incorrect aerial photographs were used in determining the gra mg p ans and resulted in the current situation. Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30 is required. The plan proposes 24-25' instead of the original 21'. The purpose of the grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage. Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems vdth cars driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required or grading, the Commission is asked to consider where the wall should be located and how it affects the flow of drainage. The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what waswas submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property. \ \k &> minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) r ^ «^niment^Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the ^ inch« of her doT She bd""! *ho water came within \ this nrohlf»m v^h' i,», ^ “^^^cated that the applicant has offered no accoramodati \ this problem which had never existed before the construction began.ions to Lindquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not. The old difficulties by raising the level of the home The old house was on the same elevation level as her home. She reported that the nveway was found inadequate for access immediately after construction began but the g ge to a double car straight-m garage from Casco Pt. Rd., like other garages in the neighborhood. Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans. Ilem eittr" ft ** "as not ”ouTd« wSl * ^ “ engineered wall instead of the pre VIOUS ™w radd«« thtm^^^ * “O"* V*' waited until Sclvoeder read letters into the record from Judith Boylan, 3195 Casco Point and Susan Smith Swanson. 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan. Van Zomeren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions. Lindquist said the i^ormation provided would have to be reviewed. He noted the plan Silus indicated that snow removal will not change. Silus said thaf If M K ^ app leant change the garage and access it from the street side. newlv submitted^^ ^ cost y. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the ne ly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed. '. ,-r TTlV*-~TT**rifWT'rrir~VTTTrr~jrr«rjav’-i>i r - irnaftfi i~ nrw~n (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed. Bruce Vang said he informed the builder that the topography and garage were different from the plans submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property line with the retai^g wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem toen and the garage was lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vangsai e a s conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could work without creating any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5 from the property line. Spilseth asked if the 5 ’ requirement from the property line pertained to all retaimng walls. Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5 ’ of the property line where grading is involved. Spilseth said she did not understand how a variance could be granted when l^ger properties in the neighborhood have been denied variances. She said a neighb™g N property requested a similar access to their garage and was demed. She noted the builder said access could be changed. Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan shovying a ^ wall 2'from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lmdquis sai e ' __:__MtMOfinnrT tVip rnnflitinnal use oermit only. Any other matter Wail A liuiu UiVi aiiiw — —------------- -if -- Planning Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any o er m would have to be taken up with Staff. Silus said he was attempting to save a tree and understood the design would <>f » He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5' from the property line. Silus sai e a 0\ preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itse . pise questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive. Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate information. He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 5, NaysO. ^ I I i Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 Septembers. 1997 Ms. Janice Berg 2655 Lydiard Avenue ' Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Berg, planning comm^sion agenda (^2290) of the September 15 cC) Elaine Silas (3235 Casco CircleTto move an'^so ’^lonn® h^"h® ®'’'' ^ square feef hardcover E?a1ne*S^ square feet and possibly up to 400 ^ at the edge of the hardcover iimftaton ®l!f ®'"^'=a ‘ed 'o me that they are already the shared fence an d the shared diiur^Jw^^ hardcove r is the reason that to come out, whinhT^^^e~ai iowcd with nn •-^^^■^VgLijsedJojithe last IV year^h^ - Thi^house MuitS^S adjolninq homes. With the now a' well abo ve the or,rT^Giilo5i«~ver^ more. ^ ® closer would accentuate that effect even ^^our property as co^nes with It would go on r XeT '' the snow off the retaining Jlft or other equipment toon our lawa necessitate bringing a fork Joronihas noSal^^^^^ "e liable? ^rive in- garage would be more con^s^tent rtlTiS^n ® ''neighborhood consistent with the Orono and the Sincerely, Ti,h S^JUK. • I* 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata.MN 55391 City of Orono Planning Commission October 21,1997 expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson (s9 IW —r«n ■ aii lai itiH iTt f ^ucfii/i !Jioyfan ~(s)e(f</iny UlCusic Cjonsufitini ’Vocafist 77: UoM^aTi^i )?L^ ^ ^yiTl^UyCt^ , Ssif/'d'^LdAj^T^ y^ S d-dTiJ 4'7lA.-i7i-^/z^ ^z/' )>^'tz/'1^ JAUt/M/zE'y, /?c/ ^Acy ' 2) y> y^iyA^ TTf'TiC^tA' 27d^7^'?l'tjeL_j I 129 Otfaxcm</(k -47l~892S{fax) 48*970-927^9137 2 fa:^) ^••' • (Oil #!«»«• •I*lcf CT« H r«i ii«i« [•mTi i04r«i« •F7S^r«i»pp«H*i • ^«C*li( r«iyTr*»?M»pt* page 2. Staff in more than one Planning Commiesion meeting. We were aware that we had but twenty-six (26) feet to the lot line and felt that would be adequate for access to our garage. To find out during construction in the last part of August 1997 that we had to be at least five (5) feet off the lot line, meaning twenty-une (21) feet access, gave us virtually no choice but to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Since our application for a Conditional Use Permit, we have done everything asked of us by the City Staff. There have been plans sxibmitted that compromise a wall that will be two (2) feet from the lot line for a distance just in front of the garage openings. The rest of the wall, which tapers from a height of 3 1/2 feet at the house to nothing half way up the yard, would be 5 feet from the lot line. This is not a six foot wall. This would at least allow us twenty-four (24) feet of access to our garage. It was also brought up in the Planning Commission meeting of Jotnuary 20, 1996 that the drainage situation was much improved over what had existed prior. I am only bringing this up because the drainage issue seemed to be of utmost concern by different groups of people. This improvement was attested to by C^ty Engineer Greg Gappa. At the seune meeting, a member of the Coiicrt«xssion asked building inspector Bruce Vang if he or anyone else at the city had come up with a reasonable alternative plan for access to the garage. His response was NO. Well, we have a plan. 2) Situation not created by neighborhood that feels adversely Impacted. We have not solicited comments or letters from any of the neighbors with regard to this situation. Why drag people into this when it totally does not affect them. However, there are neighbors who feel that the new house is a positive addition to the neighborhood and that this minimal rec[uest should be granted. If letters are what this is all about, let me know and we will get some for the records. For a statement to be made that this situation impacts any members of our neighborhood except minimally the Spilseth's is not analyzing the facts. The Spilseth's objections have centered around a side loading garage. However, the Spilseth's have been aware of a side loading garage since October 15, 1996. page 3. >ne fi properly. The°pro'jeot*file''at^ looked at information than ie included in thi^ letter® ? ‘**'=*il«<* si.rs.“r S.Si' H?.H; ~ Respectively, Steve and Elaine Silus i i\ «">!■»> HUM »d at ailed your have We page 3. properly. The°pr’oject**ne'irt^ the^cltv^’iff^^ **“* «t information than ia included in this letter*lookina at the property if you letter. I also welcome your eny questions ot me; feel frei^ to o»^l recently. If you haye thank you for your review of this matter reasonable time. Me Respectively, I:3u^ Steve and Elaine Silus i COUNCIL f/£cri.. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '"^6 ? 3 loss DATE: 2/23/98C/TVorc;,2„,j ITEM NO.: 5^ Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2312 Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins 1135 North Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:46,755 (total) square feet (1.07 acre) 36,455 (contiguous) square feet (.84 acre) 10,300 (non-contiguous) square feet (.24 acre) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of an additional garage and the replacement of previously existing first and second level decks on the rear of the residence. The garage requires a variance for locating an accessory structure ahead of the principal structure on a through lot. A conditional use permit is also required for locating an accessory structure on a through lot. The decks require bluff and street setback variances. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1.Approve a variance to allow the accessory structure to be located ahead of the principal structure on the zoning lot. 2. 3. Approve a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure on a through lot. Approve a bluff setback variance of 19' to allow the deck to be located 11’ from the top of the bluff where 30' is required. 4.Approve a street setback variance of 7' to allow the deck to be constructed 28' from the platted Elmwood Avenue where 35' is required. 5. As a condition of approval, the 8.8' by 10' shed encroaching into the property to the north must be removed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(D), SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5(B) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C2) AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 10 FILE NO. #2312 WHEREAS, Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins (hereinafter "the applicants") are he owners of the property located at 1135 North Amt Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the City ) and legally described as follows: Lot 6 and Lots 20, 21, 32 and 33 and the South 14.5 feel of Lots 22 and 31 Skarp and Lindquist's Femhill (hereinafter "the property"); and -7 • ^ j WIffiREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C2) and a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 to permit the construction of an additional accessory structure located in front of the principal Structure on a through lot and the construction of first and second level decks on the rear of the existing residence that encroach into required bluff and street setbacks. Minnesota:NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2312. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential ^nmg Disinct requiring I acre in area. The property consists of 46,755 s.f, or .07 acres. The platted Elmwood Avenue separates the building site from the lakeshore lot which results in a contiguous building site of 36,455 s.f or 84 acre. Page 1 of 5 1 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 4. 5. 1.The platted, but unbuilt Elmwood Avenue bisects the subject property resulting in it not being considered a lakeshore lot despite having direct lake access. This situation results the building site being considered a through lot. This necessitates the variance and conditional use permit for the proposed accessory structure, as well as the street setback variance for the construction of the decks. 2.The proposed decks on the rear of the existing residence are a replacement of decks that were removed approximately one year ago. The proposed decks are approximately 374 smaller than those that had previously existed. 3.Hardcover and structural coverage requirements will not be exceeded as a result of granting the variances and the conditional use permit. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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 welf, 'e of the community. Page 2 of 5 r CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS grants variances to IvlSni'cipal ^dn^Cocte Swtion W 03* Subd'o^i?' Subdivision 5(B) and Section 10.56 SubdivLon I6(C2) 'afd a'co^", ’ Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 to allow th#» rvrsn » »• ^ conditional use permit per Where the principal V^atld' Structures are allowed to be locaipH nparsarai, r i where no accessory allowing construction of an accessory structure on ^fh hT principal structure and and second level decks oT t^eTa^f ^ construction of the first allow the decks to be located a bluff setback variance of 19‘ to setback variance of 7* to allow the deTks to lo iofa street where a 35’ setback is required. ^ Elmwood Avenue 1. 2. expire on that date (February 23, 1998). * ^PP''°val, or this variance will 3. 4.Ue undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs successorsTd ^e propeny. * 'he Chain of Title of Page 3 of 5 r Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of February, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 K I’lWIlWp. iini.. I I , STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of _________________ 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared__________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of __., 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_______ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE:February 11,1998 SUBJECT:#2312 Claus Weiler/Rente Meerkins 1135 North Aim Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:46,755 (total) 36,455 (contiguous) 10,300 (non-contiguous) square feet (1.07 acres) square feet (.84 acre) square feet (.24 acre) Application: The applicants are proposing the construction of an additional garage ana replacement of a previously existing first and second level decks on the rear of the residence. The garage requires a variance for an accessory structure located in front of the principal structure. A conditional use permit is also required for locating an accessory structure on a through lot. The proposed decks require street and bluff setback variances. The application was tabled at the January 20, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant was directed to reduce the size of the garage to meet the required side setback and to provide information regarding the size of the previous decks. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 0(D): Location of Accessory Structures Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C2): Lot Coverage Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B); LR-IB Lot Requirements Section 10.56, Subd. 3, Definition 2: Bluffs Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C 2 and 3): Bluff Setback, Impact Zone M2) 12 Claus Weiler/Rtnu Meerkins 1133 Sorth Arm Drive yariancts and Conditional Use Permit 2/rn Page I J ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB require ments subject property Lot Area 1 acre 1.07 acres (total) .84 acre (contiguous) .24 acre (non contiguous) Lot Width 140 ’ 115’ at street setback 53’at OHWL and 75’ setback Front Yard 35’ 183 ’ existing 159’ proposed Side Yard 10 ’(15’for accessory structures >750 s.f.) -2.1 ’ 33.8’ proposed for new accessory structure Rear Yard 35’ (abutting street) 41.22 ’ existing 28’ proposed Bluff Setback 30’ 28’ existing 19 ’ proposed The combined lots currently meets lot area, rear and front setbacks. The lot does not meet width, side yard and bluff setbacks. An existing shed is located on the property line which does not meet the side yard setback. The applicant has indicated the shed will be removed when the additional garage is constructed. As proposed, setbacks for bluff and rear yard abutting a street will not be met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 36,455 s.f contiguous 10,300 s.f non-contiguous 3,458 s.f (proposed)9.5% (based on contiguous area) Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Claus WeiUr/Renee Metrklns 11 S3 S orth Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/98 Page 2 r Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’-75'4,075 s.f.none none none none 75’-250'9,873 s.f.none 2,468.3 s.f. (25%) none none 250 ’-500 ’8,245 s.f.6,543 s.f. (22.67%) 8,661.9 s.f. (30%) 8,236.5 s.f. (28.5%) none 500'-1000'3,934 s.f.387 s.f. (9.84%) 1,376.9 s.f. (35%) 387 s.f. (9.84%) none Hardcover is not an issue with this application. It should be noted that the proposed portion of the driveway leading to the new garage does not appear feasible as there is only 15' allowed for back-out space, where appro.ximately 30' is necessary. Staff does not foresee any hardcover problems with an e.xpanded driveway of sufficient size. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The owners' statement of hardship is included on the application. Attachment A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could continue to be used in its current state without the construction of an additional garage and decks, however, the variance and conditional use permit required for the garage are due to a peculiar lot configuration. The decks eit replacing previously existing decks that were approximately 374 s.f larger and encroached 23' further into the street and bluff setbacks. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. ^2312 Claus WilUr/Rinee SUerkins U33 Sorth Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/98 Page} The platted Elmwood Avenue separating Lot 6 from the building site makes the lot technically a through lot and therefore requires a conditional use permit.. This situation further requires variances for locating an accessory structure in front of the principal structure. The subject property is not considered a lakeshore lot, therefore a variance is needed for the rear yard to meet the 35' street setback. 3. The varimces, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for locating an accessory structure in front of the principal structure, rear setback abutting a street, bluff setback and a conditional use permit for locating an accessory structure on a through lot will not change the character of tlie area. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Accessory structures are allowed in this zoning district provided they do not exceed 1,000 s.f. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Several residences in the area are located belov.' the bluff on lots directly abutting the lake. These lots are not considered through lots. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lot is unique because it functions as a lakeshore lot. However, due to the location of the platted Elmwood Avenue which separates the lakefront lot from the building site it is considered a through lot. Additional variances and a conditional use permit are necessar>' because of its through lot classification. The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\ ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance and conditional use permit for the garage are required due because platted Elmwood Avenue bisects the lot. The previously existing first and second level decks cannot be replaced without the granting of the rear and bluff setback variances. U2}12 Claus Wtilir/Rente Sfeerkins J135 Sorth Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/1V9 8 Page 4 8.The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Constructing an accessory structure that does not require variances and a conditional use permit is not possible due to the lot being considered a through lot and significant topography on the property. The residence has been constructed to accommodate the previous and proposed decks on the rear of the residence. Issues n 3. 5. 1 . Property consists of two portions: the building site fronting on North Arm Drive and Lot 6, the separate lakeshore lot. The platted, but unbuilt Elmwood Avenue separates the two lots. Lot 6 is a separate ta.x parcel. The topography slopes away dramatically adjacent to the rear of the house. Staff has determined the top of the bluff to be the 978' elevation. Any additions to the rear of the house would be located within the required bluff setback. A portion of the area where the decks would be located would be visible from the lake. A variance was granted to allow the combination of the lots for the building site and to subdivide the lot to the north in 1972 because the two resulting lots did not meet lot area requirements. In 1986, a lot line rearrangement between the two properties occurred. At that time the non-conforming shed was not shown on the survey. No permit was obtained for the construction of the shed according to city records. 4. A three car garage currently exists on the property. First and second level decks previously existed on the rear of the residence that were removed several years ago. The applicant has provided a sketch (Attachment L) showing the approximate location of these decks as they existed and as proposed. The rear of the residence currently has sliding doors on the main and upper levels which would open to the proposed decks. ^2312 Claus We tier/Renee Sfeerkins ! 135 Sorth Arm Drive Varlances and Condilional Use Permit 2/17/98 Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances for the construction of an additional garage in front of the principal structure on a through lot and replacement of decks on the rear of the residence subject to a condition. • Staff recommends approval of a variance allowing the an accessory structure to be located 159' from the front lot line where the principal structure is located 216' from the front lot line. The existing accessory structure is located 183 ’ from the front lot line where no accessory structure is allowed to be located in front of the principal structure. • Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure on a through lot. • Staff recommends approval of a bluff setback variance of 19’ to allow the nearest portion of the proposed deck to be located 11' from the top of the bluff where 30' is required. While it-iB not-possible to construct-decks on the-rear of the residence without the grantinc of v^ances, a similar deck could be constructed On ihe SuuJ i siile of the lesidcnco that would •not require viflance^; • Staff recommends approval of a rear yard adjacent to a street setback variance of T to allow the nearest portion of the deck to the street to be located 28'-to the edge of the street where 35 is required. The platted street does not exist and will not be constructed in the future. • Staff recommends as a condition of the approval of the variances, the 8.8' by 10' shed encroaching onto the neighboring property to the north either be moved to a location on the property confomiing to zoning requirements or removed from the property altogether. The applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with this condition if a garage is allowed to be constructed. ^2112 Ctaus Weiler/Renee M'trkins 1135 North Arm Drrve Variances and Conditional Use Peimit 2/17/98 Page 6 r 'X'tachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Property Owners List Survey Hardcover Worksheets Elevation Drawings for Garage Elevation Drawings for Decks Bluff Calculations Applicants Diagram of Existing and Proposed Decks 02312 Ciaus Weiler/Renee Sfeerkins 2135 North Arm Dri\e Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/93 Page 7 t - Application tt Date Received A’ - ^7 Amount Paid _r2^r>- 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Addres s fj r-r,,,, / / Property Identification Number ff'l.D.) inn Atmch legai description to application if not included on required'' survey Date Property Acquired____________ amvcy. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^-----------------------(month/year) Presentee of property: ----residential ____other (specif-A ZonmgPistnct: t - I r.t > ^____ Address;/yzsAA/ rm"A/: „,,., vt OWNER (if different than applicant) fd/A- Name Address: C\ty:_fY\OLLAJ^S l/\JJ ^Zin: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City.\Zip:. 0^ —/ O' m # VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area (attach additional sheets if necessary) Setback:Front Lot Width •• ••• • . ^ 'Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual . property conditionsDescribe iinrlne (attach additional sheets if necessary) M7.3 60 50 T” « O r r ^a\^ *(9) RUN DATE 10/2^/97 BATCH 503 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 W 0008 01001 LOMA LINDA AVE GILMAN 6 SORENSON GILMAN G SORENSON 1001 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND HN 5536^ HEWEPIN CCnNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 0023 OIlOl ELMWOOD AVE WILLIAM R HIBBS WILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMWOOD AVE ORONO MN 55364- REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 38 07-117-23 14 0026 01137 ELMWOOD AVE C G WEILER & R S MEORKINS RENEE S MEERKI^ 1135 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 14 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GARY E BEITO ETAL TODD VAN DEN EINDE 1169 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0033 01180 ELMt'IOOO AVE JENNIFER ANNE WELSH JENNIFER ANNE WELCH 1180 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0029 01161 ELMWOOD AVE B E 3 R K GARLOCK BRUCE E GARLOCK 1179 ELMWOOD AV MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0034 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 07-117-23 14 0030 01179 ELMWOOD AVE B E GARLOCK 2 R K GARLOCK BRUCE GARLOCK 1179 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 33 07-117-23 14 0052 01151 NORTH ARM DR RAY E KUT2 RAY E KUTZ 14113 GLENRIDGE RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 PROP ADDR CM4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 14 0057 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM R HIBBS WILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMWOOD AVE ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0060 01169 NORTH ARM DR TODD M VAN DEN EINDE ET AL TODD M VAN DEN EINDE 1169 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0061 01140 NORTH ARM DR TIMOTHY L BRO TIMOTHY L BRO 1140 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 I \ PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TA)0’AYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 14 0062 01160 NORTH ARM DR K A A L M KELSEY KENNETH A A LOURITA M KELSEY 1160 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0065 01125 NORTH ARM DR VALERIE JULIANNA PET.-RSEN VALERIE JULIAfJNA PETERSEN 1125 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0063 01121 ELMWOOD AVE JAMES DESPLIt4TER JANES DESPLINTER 1121 ELhWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0067 01180 NORTH ARM DR M W ERICKSON A N J ERICKSON MARK A NANCY ERICKSON 1180 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0064 01135 NORTH ARM DR C G WEILER A R S MEERKINS RENEE S MEERKINS 1135 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 33 07-117-23 14 0069 01153 ELKliOOD AVE RICHARD JAMES HEIT RICHARD JAMES HEIT 1153 ELr^lOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 1 -Id-1998 3:24PM CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZONE FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 P, 2 612A730510 01/08/98 16:05 :0A/07 NO;528________________ : (CIRCLE ONEj^Jo^YfO • • • •' 75-250'250-500' Hyycnwf? ha M)COVER JN_ZQME A. Koui*_____________ Un|ih WMA X X X B. Gv*|c C. Driveway X X D. SWewalk X X E. Pillo/Deck X X F. Ludxctpe Uodtrlaiit By Plutlc Or Ftbric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 - PPftpQSEP HABpf OVER PS ZONE U 0 ) A. Houm _____________ * ----- Ltflith Wid* X X TL B. Oirt|e C. Orivewxy X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pado/Deck X X F. Uadictpe Uoderlalii By Plaitic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Q fi .X 100 500-1000' S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B r m- 4-1998 3:25PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 88A 53AJ.=>. 3 CITY OF ORONO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 01/08/98 16;05 S :05/07 NO:528 f 9 A SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' ^75-J50 250-500' |T,7 n^C gA^PCOVER IN ZONE A. Hou»e__________— Lm|A V;Ab X X X B. Oan|c __ C. Drivewty X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patlo/Deek X X F. Ludicapt Uodcriaio By nisric Or Pxbrtc X X X O. Oibtr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O - pBftPftfiEP hardcover 1K2! A. House _ + B fjQNjC xlOO - Leo|dl WidA B. Girtfe C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X r. Laxidicape Uaderlain By Plastic ^ Ot Fabric 0. Oiber TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in ZONE A _ _ + » .XlOO 500-1000* S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ _ _ _S.F. S.F. O % A B _S,F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 8.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. % A B K.WTT* I aji - . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSipjET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE Z/S-/96 500-1000’ A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage 6^S C. Driveway VCo/vjC.AAtA X K 2S47 D. Sidewalk ^ Cor\c E. Patto/Deck X X X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G, Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -i- B 'IBEl'h 6 6*43 2-38 7 3 X 100 Z Z • PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length SHFO TO <5e Width X X X “* 8Z. B. Garage whc A€ GAfLAfrG C. Driveway _____________ x K/EtN> GRAvLv. X 968 0VC«.\,AP1> lStlN-«,DUlKC 31 h D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X 568 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A VTO'U B Z8a*^3 X 100 S-89 V AvV\ cAd drouDrx r /. 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. {102^ S.F. _S.F. % 3 A B A B V n«lh r.^Mi k~. I . - rr^—I ^rr rr* *~*w —i"nr^r"^naiinui’ r 1-14-1998 3:26PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 CITY OF ORONO ® 6124730510 SETBACK ZONE; (CDtCLE ONE) P. 5 0-75'75.250’ 01/08/98 16:05 (5 :07/07 NO:528 /J 2S0.500V '* ^00-1000’ • ’ ' li A. Hoom UflfA WUA X X X B. Otrifc C. Driveway X X ^35^7 D. Sidewalk X X E. Pario/Deek X X F. Landseepe Uoderlaio ^ PlasUc Or Fibrie X X X O. Other TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A S91 ^ B 3934 3g7 393 X 100 9!8T PR0P08ED HARDCOVER IN ZONE fVON€ A. Heuse _______ . x Laaidi WldJl X X X B. Gan|e C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pario/Dcck X X F. Ludaeape Uoderlaio By Plaatic Or Pahrle X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROP^TY AREA IN ZONE A 0_____d B X 100 • 7^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. 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 SJ'. A S.F- B C^CCoc./i'TGP OT/yu(^ 55012 oe Yg O A n C? J?/69F7<£"^P AuTC>*C/^tO t • U m* i.Minx reiA *-i*i T r«-'ef “J •E2 i H REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUWci(.Mjcr,,,g '"^'5 ? 3 1999 Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed: DATE: 2/23/98 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning - / Item Description: #2316 Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Final Subdivision-Resolution Zoning District: RR-IB I Lot Area: Application: 347,173.2 s.f. One Family Rural Residential District (7.97 acres) The applicant proposes the division of the existing parcel into three lots. The developer has met the requirements for final plat approval as stated in the approved resolution for preliminary plat approval with the exception of the park dedication fee. The applicant has indicated the fee will be paid at the time of the meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF A PLAT AT 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE FILE NO. 2316 under .he IawsTh “te regulations for the orderly, economic an"d Tafe Ivebpmlt^'onr^^ of a an existing lotTo^'Lelots ^ nn^ fn I the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IBone family rural residential zoning district; and arnnfino r -^“"“ary 26. 1998 the City Council adopted Resolution #4022 approvfl: ‘ "’“'’"S f°"°wing requirements for final ”a. Plat: I ■ Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies has been provided. 2. °'d5 “ wi^‘'all!ni!^-1'“''' 'O’ “'“"g all exterior lot linesana o wide along interior lot lines. 3.The plat has been named Hallson Estates Second Addition. Legal Documents: 1.A title opinion addressed to the City has been provided. The owners and mortgage holders have signed the plat. Page 1 of 4 r 2. There are no existing easements affecting the property, Fees: 1. The $200.00 filing fee has been paid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota hereby approves the final plat application for Mike Hilbelink for Hallson Estates Second Addition subdivision located at 120 Golden View Drive per the survey dated December 16, 1997 by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg attached as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1.A park dedication fee of $8,960 (8%) must be paid prior to filing of the final plat. 2.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder’s office or Registrar of Titles office on or before February 23, 1999 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements noted. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has noi been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 2 of 4 _ Ul* >1 II I II III I I !■ I I I fITl II If! *1 J STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) f u".r ";x£src£ juvr z i Orono, a Minnesota municipal coiporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Notary Public Page 3 of 4 <c HALLSON ESTATES SECOND ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JOHN T. HALLSON OF LOT 2. BLOCK HALLSON ESTATES HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA I"**' •••t ■ I •4 vt ^ ill "3ooc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; 1/26/98 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2316 Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Lot Area:347,173.2 s.f. One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) square feet (7.97 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the division of the existing parcel into three lots. The existing building site will consist of 3.97 acres, while the two new lots will be 2 acres each. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve the application as submitted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. h CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO./I n o o*J /- » A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT AT 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE FILE NO. 2316 WHEREAS, Mike Hilbelink, (hereinafter the "subdivider”) on November 20,1997, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a three lot residential plat oi property legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Hallson Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning, Platting and On-Site Septic Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 20, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on January 26, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Mike Hilbelink noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains a total of approximately 7.97 acres, all considered dry buildable. 3.The proposed plat contains three residential lots that each contain the 2 acre minimum. Lots 1 and 2, the newly created lots, contains 2 acres. Lot 3, the existing building site, contains 3.97 acres. 4. 5. Access to all lots shall be provided by the existing Golden View Drive. A primary and secondary septic area have been located for Lots 1 and 2. Page 1 of 4 J r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 i) 9. P. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application for Mike Hilbelink for the property located at 120 Golden View Drive per the survey dated December 16, 1997, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. attached as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to new construction, future owners shall be responsible for staking and protecting the primary and alternate septic sites. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Planner/Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. 1. Record plat drawings in the form of tv^o (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated December 16, 1997. B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. C. Name of plat (Hallson Estates Second Addition). 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant shall provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: S 200.00* Page 2 of 4 r TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Conmiission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant January 6,1998 SUBJECT: #2316 Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision-Public Hearing i Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:347,173.2 square feet (7.97 acres) Annlication: The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the existing parcel into thJTe lots. The existing building site would consist of 3.97 acres, while the two new lots would be two acres each. The applicants previouslv nre^^ntpH tUJs os a sketch plan at the October Planning Commission meeting. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.28, Subi • Section 11.03, Subc . I 11.3 1, Subd. 2: Lot Dimensions icnts I Subdivision Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary^ Subdivision January 20, 1998 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Configurations: RR-IB Lot Requirements Lot Area 2 acres Lot Width 200' Front Yard 50’ Side Yard 30' Rear Yard 50' Proposed Lot Configurations: Lot Number Lot Area 2 acres 2 acres 3.97 acres Lot Width 252.03’ 222.03' 247.5' Front Yard 179’ Side Yard The proposed lots meet all requirements of the RR-IB zoning district. Lot 3, the existing building site would continue to meet all building setback requirements. Lots 1 and 2 will not require variances to build residences. The side lot line dividing Lots 2 and 3 has been modified to meet the required 20' septic site setback for the alternate septic site location on Lot 3. Access: Access to Lots 1 and 2 will be provided by Golden View Drive. Access to Lot 3 will continue to be provided from Golden View Drive. Septic: The septic inspector has reviewed septic tests for each of the three proposed lots and does not see problems. His findings are included as Attachment F. Each primary and alternate site meets the required setbacks from lot lines. Mike Hilbeltnk having an interest in 120 Golden Hew Drive Class III Preliminary* Subdivision January 20. 1998 Page! r Drainage: The topography of the subject property is fairly level with a gentle slope away from the approximate center of Lots 1 and 2. There are no wetlands or apparent pondinp, areas located on or immediately adjacent to the property. Park Dedication: The city assessor is currently determining the value of the proposed subdivision. The Park Commission will require the 8% dedication fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments: A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Preliminary Plat Septic Inspector's Report Minutes from Sketch Plan Review I ! ! ^ Mike Hilbetink hir ing an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Cu^s III Preliminary Subdivision January' 20, 1993 Page 3 •41 ^)}plication ff Bjate Received Amount Paid imam CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION - Site address 1^0 (^Oi_DP.AJ (3£.V.t/^. LJlvOf^O Property Identification Number ID) 3 3 IIS* V3 00c!)6~' Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. 0lc>c.k i j l_C?T 2- APPLICANT Name hJ^US(/^ gsrm-cs (V\\k- Address Citv aS (5Olo4e/0 IJii O f^-tTyuo fV\t) Vl^ rnoneinomej Zip<S'3SL>Phone fwork) </ ')(o "^3 38' OWNER (if different than applicant)(■AalLSi/^Name 4 l«uOA- Address \1 jo \J\^^Phone (home) City Zip Phone fwork) S SiT"* S~2.oS~ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District / 7.AC' .* Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__/ Other (specify)_________ 1^5 PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ^ Subdivision for New Building Sites _____I Existing Units 2 New Units ^ Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Units per Acres ^ fVC- Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land 2 C3) !i I S' (6) **/*4' 9 9 V 1 (7)OS c —1»-« to m :z m »40. 1 ... SILVER j^nr" a^un 0 :« —. (16) :» T <B) s©i^ *.x .'V,% fj' no) ir *« — •;.<, tM»-.ri T2JIMAS! Am I IWSOt <*ii-2ri <it (t? «l %f in.r 5*4.43 « 4»< ' T ‘ > '<il„ Jli '4». « 4I1M 45? a PS|TEffiiAS>: * 43?, % J*L5 *4TX $£€0^;^ ,10. i$::-;:>.x:;-;:x:>::x:<r-x:; - t::x x;::x:x:x:;-x:x::X;: fx ::::x:x;;:x:::x:::;y;:x; 1 > g: ::x:x;::>'x^::.x:;::>>;;:mmmm.*<;:<>x.:;::;;:&::x:x:x:| >:<•:• :<-:v:V@:‘:v:vx'? ^::;:x:x:x::^:;:::x:::;:x : xi: x:;v:::^5:x:x:::<::- y ;:-x:j^x:>x:::x:;<: m^0 0 0 0 •*♦ •*« % u M3 ic cy£ s « 441.1 4’4_f —TT]B \ 5(U T (•0)r, i- §) »B) /IT .4 / 1 § ■^' r I g t § i 3 i ELM*-' ..k ' b (3) 2 (4) -12. XT. I’ Si iC i»:,a «’.9€'v .X a; »2 (35) g 1 *0) £ ^'7 g t * BCl) » 217i :S 1 217 /?>. 1 jS ^ s (13) 51 2»» ( ' ■ 3 • (14) 8 ?ir 5»( *5) I’T ^ 1 3 iSn •« S-i(16) H 117 T3* ; « » 1 II ^ (r; -1 2ir 3 ' 15) 5 _ f|7 13 S? 03 ‘ 221? 1 Xl 1 ^ (;: 4 ?S> («) S-rf (7)^ __'•) 11 A MAPI 1 VO1 '> 0-\Tl) 4.......1.1... \U2) 1 X • ft] — 1 . 1 XTi jr A C»l oM-«>25-I2. *4ac.tt« tA'T »«4 ‘C4'2?f 3 i5l< i5 » 1 CZ5' •ar »a 22 5 (u; OW-ll7-V3~ll 3§ 2*9 V i f 7 >5 r 2L>> / /C»: !*• i / * r/.i / rrra'^^rrT^^r i\ ^ / ^ i ^ 9.n,3r : (23) g^••ix. •71*#' . 117 u ^ srti 2 (»&i ,4i an 41 31 r :«i ?? eRnH?.-37§3C5 241. y r 3- OB; 4T» ?! «»•■ fU.3 5M*5t 4C*f ‘ /V/c4 MAKaa • -0 20 Gdafe/;\ \j^l^ U)rivve W i HALLSON ESTATES SECOND ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JOHN T. HALLSON OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. HALLSON ESTATES HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA «oif r Min dr •( r TO:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:January 5,1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2316, Hallson Estates - Subdivision The proposed three lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Site evaluation/design has been completed for primary and alternate drainfield sites for five bedroom residences on each lot. All proposed septic systems meet both City and State standards. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the application. The city requires the drainfield sites to be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration. I ar««tr- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#15 - #2308 Paul Larson - Continued) There were no public comments. Smith informed Larson that with new construction, the 25% hardcover allowance should be met. She noted that the applicant was aware of the lot size prior to purchase. Larson suggested eliminating the turnaround and removing T off the deck. Dressier said it was not advised to reduce the turnaround size. Larson said he was concerned with theft of items left out on the property. Larson reported the proposed house is less than 1100 s.f. and the lot is of record. He says he needs space for storage. Smith said the Commission recognizes the difficulties with the small lot by allowing lot width and lot area variances. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2309 for lot area and lot width variances. The proposal is to meet the 25% hardcover allowance without elimination of the turnaround. Van Zomeren suggested Gappa review the turnaround. Gaffron suggested the house be pulled back on the lot to reduce the amount of driveway and meet the hardcover requirement. Larson was concerned with the neighboring house being loeated in front of the residence and having to look out and see the side of the neighboring house. Berg noted the lot was substandard and concessions will be required. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#16) #2299 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - SKETCH REVIEW FOR TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION Dressier reported that the applicant is proposing a 3-Iot subdivision of a 7.97 acre parcel. Two lots will be about 2 acres and the other will be 3.97 acres. Septic testing is being conducted but Dressier does not anticipate a problem. Drainage is satisfactory. The topography of the lots was reviewed. No information is available on Park Dedication. Access will be provided on Golden View Drive. Planning Commissioners voiced support of the plan as proposed. p I IIIIM ' I ^.'?pr W J r Cou/v C/i, .. -N J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/23/98 ^ 3 I99S C/Ty .) ITEM NO.: 7 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:<5^2320 Mitchell and Asta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Avenue Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:38,060 s.f. (.87 acre) Application: The applicants are proposing the construction of a bay window over an existing deck and a dormer over the existing attached garage. An average lakeshore setback variance is required. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1.Approve an average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the bay window 61.6' ahead of the average lakeshore setback and a dormer over the existing garage 38* ahead of the average lakeshore setback where 83 ’ encroachment is existing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1(B), FILE NO. #2320 WHEREAS, Mitchell and Asia Gersovitz (hereinafter "the applicants") having an interest in the property located at 3650 Casco Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1137, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) to permit the construction of a bay window over an existing deck on the lakeside of the residence and a dormer over the attached garage that are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2320. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Residential Zoning District requiring 1/2 acre in area. The property consists of 38,060 s.f. or .87 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1.The adjacent lot to the south, 3630 Casco Avenue is considered a lakeshore lot as the zoning lot has a 20' strip that abuts the lake. The location of the residence on this property places the entire residence on the subject property ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Page 1 of 4 4. 5. 2.The additions will not further encroach upon the average lakeshore setback or diminish existing views. 3. No other variances are necessary in the construction the additions. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) to allow the construction of a bay window over the existing deck on the lake side of the residence and a dormer over the existing attached garage that encroach 61.6' and 38’ ahead of the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is allowed and 83’ is existing. 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 23, 1998). Page 2 of 4 2.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. 3. 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNFPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of February, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 r • ^ STA l E OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of __199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC 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 tc me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 . d f ‘&.I te.wi r & TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant 1/28/1998 SUBJECT;#2320 Mitchell and Asta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Avenue Variance —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:38,060 square feet (.87 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing to construct a bay window over a portion of an existing deck and a dormer over the existing attached garage. An average lakeshore setback variance is required. This application was previously tabled from the January 20, 1998 meeting to allow the applicant to revise their application to include the dormer. Pertinent Ordinance.s: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback *^2320 Mitchell and Asia Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance2/rm Page I J ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-IC .5 acre 100'75'10'30' subject property .87 acre 131'atOHWL 158' at 75' setback 119'11'n/a The subject property meets all zoning requirements, Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Staff estimates the amount of structural coverage at approximately 10%. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application. Since the bay window will be constructed over an existing deck and the dormer will be constructed over the existing garage, the amount of hardcover will not increase. Hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback includes steps, a retaining wall, 9 s.f. deck and 18 s.f. lock box. There is a disproportionate amount of hardcover in the 250' ^00' lakeshore setback, the "panhandle" portion of the yard that contains the driveway. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants' should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue, Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The location of the adjacent residence on what is technically a lakeshore lot makes any construction on the lot subject to an average lakeshore setback variance. « ti2520 SUtchell and Asta Gersoviiz having an intenst tn 3650 Casco Circle V’arianre 2/17/98 Page! The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created bv the landowner. The neighboring lot to the south has a 20' wide strip extending to thp lake, making it a lakeshore lot. Due to this unusual configuration and the placement of the neighboring residence farther back from the lakeshore on this property, an average lakeshore setback variance is required for any addition. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for average lakeshore setback will not change the character of the area. 4. 5. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Bay windows £ dormers arc permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The presence of a tong, 20' wide strip of land abutting the lake on the neighboring property to the south makes that propeP.y a lakeshore lot, despite the residence being located farther back from the lake than the neighboring residences. Because it is adjacent to the subject property, it skews the average lakeshore setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. The properties on either side of 3630 Casco Avenue are subject to a more restrictive average lakeshore setback because of the unusual platting of the area. The granting of the application is necessar>' for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. All structures on the lot are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Any additions require an average lakeshore setback variance. 02320 Mitchell and Aiia Cersovilz having an interest in 3630 Casco Circle I ‘ariance 2/17/98 I*age 3 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Due to the platting of 3630 Casco Avenue as a lakeshore lot, the subject property is subject to an interpretation of the average lakeshore setback requirement that prohibits further improvements unless variances are granted. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The property meets all zoning requirements except average lakeshore setback. The iMation of the residence on 3630 Casco Avenue, which is considered a lakeshore lot prohibits improvements without variances. ^e bay window and dormer over the garage will not further encroach upon the average lakeshore setback or diminish existing views. An average lakeshore setback variance was granted in 1992 to allow the construction of the new residence. At the time, hardcover was proposed at less than 25% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. A disproportionate amount of hardcover exists in the 250' to 500' lakeshore setback due to this being the "panhandle" portion of the lot containing the driveway. A small amount of hardcover exists in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. The 18 s.f lock box and 9 s.f deck located near the lakeshore appear to meets code requirements for water oriented accessory structures per Section 10.56, Subdivision 14(E). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a bay window over the existing deck on the lake side of the residence and a dormer over the existing attached garage 61.6' and 38' ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The existing residence encroaches 83' in front of the average lakeshore setback line and where no encroachment is allowed. 6. ^2320 Shtchtll and Asia Gersovtiz having an inierest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance 2/17/98 Page 4 ,5 : f ii I ; Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings ^2320 Mitchell and Asta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance 2/17/98 Page 5 ■v; Application U A3 Date Received Amount Paid 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 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) j /I 5" ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddiess------34SO ___Cf\Sca Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) - //^ ^ no ■fs-h ^ / Attach legal description to application if not included on reqimed survey. Date Property Acquired - i ttpidin.cuiuu u noi inciuaea on reqiurea ^ hie a.r ^ f /^ I (do) (1g_^) also own the adjacent par(fcls of land. Present use of property: y* residential ___pother (specify) I r .(month/year) Zoning District: n/tavxo APPLICANT Name . \\\ \tcwP i \ 4-/ ■ sh\ Phone (home ) ^ __ ^ ^________ Phone (woric ) ^^r> q-7/?? Address.—jQ .tUr' City: ^ uZip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^liri^-lcpIwT. f OUruj Address: 34-5C' Cgsrc Av/enuj Phone (home ) ^ Sr 3^ _____ Phone (work)_____________ City: Or on 0 ________Zip:_____ Estimated Construction Cost $ OOOJ-DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: -----\< i-r (Oj J^(ep\r if\^ fhn-'r' C<Sv\A/ctu4ifry^r)n (attach additional sheets if necessary) 04-'4^ c ^\htcUC VARIANCES REQUIRED DrL/Wu,^^ ------Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover ____^Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) • • HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS .Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirem'' ______________ -Li__locA'\-e.<0 ^UoorrO ^^prJThrPC C. f<> ^fpP.AjCJP (attach additional sheets if necessary) kBto ■.*hdWI. .•al&a'kat'1/ - L t ^ 7/ ■ V / (25) -I;' (33)V( X \ '\ * V \//\ 4 PT Off 4 \> LOT/2 \U\.^v .\ r. ^ ^ ■^‘i S\«-, T>: *. J/o/^ '7^110- . '„t^, ( c) > \ lr»^1' 3P (V •2^' c (4I).<^ ^%\ %'\ 20-in-23-Z ‘{ .vy- \ X '•. ?o •f. • \ d^\ f \ B 3nc»o ri>' 'v (40)m \T3 ’ ^0 ! ^ } Sj •S. 7.\ \V 'Mro>-- / ^■ ^-5>C^!?T39) 7/ (s: f « >:vi \i 'S'.• « « • a « • • 4 « a • a • • • 4a ^ • a • « ^. « • • a • a « • • • • «^a r/ /So(4) * y. •• 20. 93 CP A 3<b3o I «*a a*a •*! «*a*#S'.•.*.%'.v^/SC>;v;o:o>! ' 3too f'<5^ ' ^^'<7 i\/ (21) <Cvr '<P -X \ / <i0 («) .<9 \16!. ^9 / 356.3 WEST ^(27)- r^/P-.Tw.o \4.0&-^3 ^ J / ^ <73) : 187.4 vl R-3I0> ^.02 ^Xo: (26)/ ( / (72)s^ / -X / i5vn <?-;v •. 7 .-Q> t?^ lf|Q / \ ^''•'' .' <5v ;n / !07 ^ 1^97 //"/ « . f C^W /'.' \ .f / 33) ' '^'-■ 5®-1,/r*L'J v> \ /o (34) :o.•/ \ o^j 22» RUN DATE 12/10/97 I BATCH 501 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR CMtmn NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 2^ 00^1 02732 CAROLINE AVE CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL CHARLES & SUSAN PERCIVAL 2732 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0005 03709 CASCO AVE R PRESLER/E J PRESLER TRSTES ROBERT PRESLER 3709 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0031 02914 CASCO POINT RD 8 I CLASSMAN SNA CLASSMAN BARRY I A NANCY A CLASSMAN 2914 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN ’ 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0041 03630 CASCO AVE P CRAFFUNDER I K GRAFFUNOER PETER A KERRY CRAFFUNDER 3630 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0062 02740 CAROLINE AVE 8 L A J M ROSSTEDT SCOTT A JANET ROSSTEDT 2740 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGf^ED ROY SCHRADER ET AL W/L EST ROY SCHRADER 3704 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY m 55323 38 20-117-23 31 0039 03704 CASCO AVE ROY SCHRADER ET AL W/L EST ROY SCHRADER 3704 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0042 03600 CASCO AVE RICHARD J HAEhELE A WIFE RICHARD HAEFELE 3600 CASCO AVENUE WAYZATA NN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0073 02918 CASCO POINT RD JEFFREY L FAWBUSH ET AL JEFFREY L A RENAE T FAWBUSH 2918 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 20-117-23 31 0004 03703 CASCO AVE CARLOTTA F GABLES CARLOTTA F GABLES 3703 CASCO AVE WAYZAIA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENf4EPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 31 0040 03700 CASCO AVE J W DONGOSKE/P A DONGOSKE JAMES W 6 PATRICIA DONGOSKE 3700 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0043 03650 CASCO AVE CHRISTCPHER J SMITH ET AL CHRISTOPHER J SMITH 3650 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00014 r Pi PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date 5-3VA,‘o Type of Permit /j ,mh/r\'^ 14-72 5' Ib-A"?h/Vr/^un ^ ■5050 4.- -~7!hr^Jy, h ~ 35-70 _ _Y^^iffl/fy? ^d_l2______ ^ S-l5-b^/(Wi7A' s-^ y . 13-L2.Q. . ..IS“ 6 ?!Vd(:k ) T)- ao-6b nnllyl T^JJ. ^ IS6^ _ .(''dm'7ij?(l 1^0 7 •hG ■ shff ski'kFL -7 -7.5?-6b 92R b -6-5^'TMyi. /tt ) St sf A (j &7 a^9-30-73 T^adAiynj^ 9'-A' ‘Poil A 7'^^Uau llsk YX jT ji) {Z la Jiai ___ 4^^'- ■ . v9-<513-7 o? H;(gd V' ^-7.? f 6-/f-C. /■ /j.V 7.10 Pi : f:S ^ j^60 7-/;i 9 y (^OS^l -4 y AiuuiJ duuAldP U‘^1 6'^■9'^niair^ 9,'If, -C\4 Ifh/Al Aj^ASrA U " /o ' J if A# PERMIT RECORD 1^4 « % !4 •• • • i< I •S‘ . . - /*/ .• 1 CERiriCATE OF SURVEY FOR MITCH AND ASIA GERSOVITZ OF TRACT A. R. L. S. NO. 1147 HENNEPW COUNTY, MNNESOTA '‘-a » mi. aertgaragryAsa; »» . V > »* m ‘I m § I ':-ir "RlGMT Sit>e Euet^ATieO m n 1 '•—; I* r in u 1 1 i!Ifm jf? r ___L iE33l m 1 1 i ‘. 9 .....................- ^ ir?rr^v:n~;ni:: i! Uli^f •If tL pTTTirui..i:i:inr; mt'ii -i —!: ■“'g'' III 4 ,. ’« . •.» !m: !i l-= 51 Tiwosep BAV 'REAR LAKE So>e Et-EvATioiJ \ r ■ 4 *jI i""- 15 '. A -. ** .-^!»*♦ - ^ b F It J REQUEST FOR COOMffil8,L;),0^pN 2 3 iggg — \J Date: February 19,1998 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gafiron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning ItempcMription: #2326, Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Requesting commercial site plan approval for a multi-tenant, one story 11,000 s.f. retail/service center building. The variances identified include: a. 500-1,000' zone hardcover (North zone 48%, south zone 77%, 35% allowed). b. Parking setback from front lot line (Required = 20’, proposed = 5') c. Building facade material (Proposed is cedar shake above brick) The site is 1.86 acres in area including the portions of Navarre Lane which the City has agreed to vacate concurrent with development of this site. List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/19/98 B - Planning Commission Minutes 1/20/98 C - Memos and Exhibits of 2/12/98 and 1/16/98 ^^ote: Due to the short time betwwn the Planning Commission and Council meetings, no resolution has been prepared as of this writing; however, applicant has requested Council review of the application on February 23 rather than waiting until March 9) Summary of Request Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of Februaiy 12. Briefly, the applicant (Tom Dillon of O.ono Development, LLC) proposes a to construct a one-story commercial building to include a 3,150 s.f bank with drive-thru, a 5.300 s.f retail space, and a 2,800 s.f office space. The site plan mcludes a generally counterclockwise traffic pattern, 62 parking stalls, a vehicular connection to the adjacent Culver ’s site, and provisions for expansion of the NURP pond which also serves the Culver's site. Review of the plans has included comments on the City ’s behalf by Wally Case, landscape planner V •JtJOViliTii W ■ KMfilwj »RT5 k*AV/iItIt 1 rfimi I L»JlWJ*3(ifiniIlliHlgiuiRl MiliTIiXTnfnKI [tJefOTilVi^[imiWiiiTii KTYirnr ®¥m1 •V.YiTi sininn [•Rijrre •111^^IliUlfisl SmUUlliTiTiR [•¥#721 rorr^i LllHi] •iMir«iiiT!4 [•HTTilKI [•TO riiviivj #2326 - Orono Development, LLC February 19,1998 Page 3 the required 20 ’ front yard area is primarily a function of the shape and topography of the site and the proposed uses. In order to maintain two rows of conforming parking spaces and an adequate driving aisle, approximately a 65 ’ width is required. The applicant has indicated that the building itself is designed at the minimum depth to allow for functionality for tenants. The rear drive-thru lane does double duty as a rear entrance for deliveries to the building, and cannot be narrowed substantially and still allow vehicle passage. The NURP pond is already constricted between Olive Avenue and the 12’ retaining wall. From both a safety pnd engineering standpoint, it may be difficult to reduce the distance between the rear drive-thru lane and the retaining wall, or between the wall and the pond. Nevertheless, in staffs opinion, and apparently also in Planning Commission ’s opinion, maintaining a substantial parking setback to Shadywood is critical for a number of reasons, including: providing a green strip for tree and landscape planting providing for future expansion of Shadywood Road (not planned, but who can predict what the future holds...) - maintaining the natural character that Orono envisions in its comprehensive planning, especially in relation to the B-5 district Maintaining the full 20 ’ front yard as a green space could be accomplished in a number of ways, all of which would have a major impact on the site plan: 1. Eliminate the row of parking spaces within the required front yard (the site would then be severely short of the parking requirements). 2. Reduce the depth of the building. 3. Revise the site layout behind the building. In light of the above. Planning Commission suggested that applicant should consider all possibilities for a combination of site revisions that would result in at least a 15’ parking setback from the front lot line, maintaining a 15’ landscaped green space within the front yard area. Topics for Discussion Topics which have been discussed at the Planning Commission level and which are further discussed in the attached staff memos include: . , .j. - General site plan and layout - Building design and facade materials - Landscape plan, screening ■ Hardcover - Lighting and signage < * 1 curb cut entrance vs 2 entrances - Connection to Culver’s site =- - Grading and drainage - Pedestrian/bicycle access trail Council may wish to further explore one or more of these topics. ji- #2326 - Orono Dc velopment, LLC February 19,1998 Page 4 A topic which will need followup and resolution is the vacation of Navarre Lane, which the City agreed to via resolution #3830 in January 1997. The primary issue for discussion is whether some or all of the trail easements identified in that approval will be needed, given that the currently proposed walkway layout makes use of the building sidewalks. The vacation approval indicated the City would be granted a 10' trail easement along Olive Avenue, as well as over the walkway through the site. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council grant conceptual approval for the commercial site plan as well as the hardcover, facade materials and 5' parking setback variances per the Planning Commission's recommendation. The applicant was advised by Planning Commission to explore all possible ways to accomplish the 15'front parking setback. If Council concludes that the parking setback issue and all other issues have been adequately addressed. Council should direct staff to prepare a formal resolution for adoption at the March 9 Council meeting, such resolution to include fmdings in support of the variances to be approved, and including specific conditions of commercial site plan approval. Council should advise staff of any special conditions you may wish to have included. Council Action Requested Grant conceptual approval, establish any special conditions or unique findings that may be appropriate, and direct staff to draft an approval resolution for adoption at the March 9 Council meeting. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2326 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION 2 ^ ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 2/18/98 TO:Orono Development 5000 Glenwood Ave. #225 Minneapolis MN 55442 Attn: Tom Dillon COPIES: Adam Smith Co. 700 Cedar St #121 Alexandria MN 56308 Attn: Ted Christanson TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance & Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 2/17/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. Approval of a 51 mms£ for front parking setback, allowing the front yard to be ^uced from 20' to 15'; i.e. recommendation is for a 15' parking setback rather than the 5 proposed (please be prepared to address this at tlie February 23, Council meeting). Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed, to allow 48% in the northerly 500- 1000' zone and 77% in the southerly 500-1000' zone. Approval of the general building design per the revised elevation views, including approv^ of a variance to the building materials requirements to allow the 'cedar shake over bnck' facade. 4. Approval of the landscape plan as revised except in relation to the amount of green space in required front yard. 5. Approval of revised site layout generally, including trash enclosure location and onentation, entrance monument and pylon sign locations, building signage plan, pedestrian trail location, etc., with some stipulations: a. Pedestrian trail crossing at drive-thru exit to parking lot should be striped and signed. b. In reviewing building signage when permits are requested, staff should look for uniformity and consistency in signage as well as signage that is in keeping with the architecture of the building. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, February 23, 1998; 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. - ■- 1.... t 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JAIWARY 20, 1998 ■ 1 (#18 - #2327 Orono B^elopment - Continued) Gaflfron said he would recohimend that limitjli^ be placed on the use as a separate line. The limitations would need He has been given some suggestions from Shardlow, which is currently not^lK^d in the proposed language. Lindquist and Smith said they would like to revie^lW^an^j^ge when drafted. Schroeder felt satisfied with staff handling the matter^idndquist a^^^to let staff develop the details and send it forward to the Counpil^r review. Vote: Ayes>»fNays 1, Hawn. CoqjiW will review the application at their February 2?yeeting. Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances (#19) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Variances for hardcover and front yard parking setback and a commercial site plan review to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. retail/service center building - 12:03-1:00 a.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a commercial site plan review and variance approval for the multi-retail building noted in agenda item #18. Variances include 500- 1000' zone hardcover and parking setback from street. The property is 1.86 acre site. Gaffron noted the property as it exists today and with proposed improvements for a bank building and retail sales. A portion of Navarre Lane was vacated last year. The site contains stormwater management ponding serving the Culver site. Gaffron reviewed the application with regards to conformity with performance standards of the B-5 District as laid out in the information packet. He noted that the building layout is similar to what has previously been shown. Gaffron reported that the hardcover is less than what is seen elsewhere in Navarre. There will be building space for 6-8 tenants. Inside floor plans are not yet available. The permitted and conditional uses are in conformance as are lot eirea and lot width. The front yard setback requirement is 20* minimum and proposed at 5'. The landscape architect has commented that more space should be provided for plantings. A 20' rear setback is required for the through lot but proposed at 14'. Entrance monuments are also being proposed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) r p- Gaflfron indicated that fencing is not being proposed. Fencing is required, however, where the property abuts the residential district. A arborvitae hedge is being proposed. Landscape Architect Case suggested additional screening in the landscape plan. Gaf&on asked the Commission to consider whether screening should be included along the Olive Avenue frontage. Gaflfron reported that the City does not usually get involved with design, but the proposed buildings will be significant to the area. He reviewed the exterior finish. Elevation reviews must be provided to ensure a consistent appearance. In Staffs opinion, Gaflffon said the building lacks character and consideration needs to be given to the expanse of uninterrupted roof The only outbuilding will be a trash enclosure proposed 30' from Olive Avenue, which Gaffron feels may not be the best location. Screening of that enclosure is required and building exterior should also be compatible with the other buildings. A drainage plan has been submitted. A grading pl an indicates an expansion of the retention pond existing on the site. The City Ent eer has made recommendations, including the need to revisit the proposed storm sewer lines in that storm sewer and ponding calculations need to be provided. The entire site will drain to this storm pond via grading and a series of catch basins and storm sewer lines. Gaffron said the City Engineer has commented on the grading plan submitted. He noted that design grades, especially down to Olive Avenue, are steep. Grades and slopes need to be examined and erosion control materials used. Plantings should strive for a 1:5 slope. The proposed retaining wall is over 10* in height. A pedestrian path had teen discussed for location along the wall but eliminated due to the safety issue with the height of the wall. Concern was also voiced over the starkness of the wall as viewed from Olive Avenue. O'Sullivan had suggested the pedestrian path by the north lot line but felt this may be difficult to do. A path through the parking lot would need alot of review. Gaf&on noted the wall would need to be screened. The building height meets requirements but the broad expanse of roof should be modified. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the general performance standards noted in the application in relation to exterior storage, traffic control and site circulation, signage, lighting, and parking standards. The traffic will move in a counter-clockwise rotation through the bank drive- through window. Both a north and south access is proposed. Exiting traffic may be a problem with the close proximity to the Culver's Restaurant. There will be two-way traffic on the exit and in front of the building. The City Engineer suggested the use of a right-in, right-out scenario if two accesses are provided; he recommended only one access. Hennepin County will need to review this issue. The City Engineer felt the entrance was too close to the intersection. A condition was placed on the Culver's Development for ! other review of the access due to this issue. Gaffron said Staff questioned the need for the entrance monuments and indicated they must meet the 10' setback. More detail is required regarding lighting. The parking standards are met with 62 spaces proposed and 56 required. The code calls for one space for every 200 s.f of office space; the plan has one space for every 150 s.f. of space. Gaffron said the intensity of the restaurant use can be limited by the parking. No joint parking is planned, but O’Sullivan had previously suggested overflow parking for Culver's on this site. The setback for parking in the front is an issue for co.isideration. If the road expands, the parking will disappear. At least a 10' wide green strip for landscaping should be provided. The setback is also important in maintaining the natural character of the City. Gaffron reviewed how the 20' front yard could be accomplished as cited by 1-4 in the packet. He added that the building could be pushed back on the lot to accomplish #2. Gaffron said it is unclear whether the intent of the code section regarding drive-in standards applies to restaurants or general drive through services. Gaffron felt the canopy area should not impact the neighborhood except for the possibility of headlight glare, which may require screening. Gaffron expressed the need for additional landscaping due to the loss of trees on the property. Gaffron reviewed the variance requests including hardcover. He questioned the granting of the magnitude of hardcover variances considering the lack of detail or hardship statement. The question arose of whether the storm water treatment concludes that the excessive hardcover has a limited impact. Gaffron said the front parking setback should be evaluated in its regard to what is appropriate in Navarre. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Gafiron, while acknowledging guidelines, said additional work is required on the plans. lorn Dillon noted that the 11,000 s.f. building is less than what was previously planned. He anticipates a 5-6 month construction period. Dillon feels the t o egress locations on CoRd 19, with the southern egress being shared with Culver's, is an improvement for the property. He noted the service window location is toward the rear of the building being the best location for both the building and the neighborhood. Dillon felt the hardcover issue was difficult to solve with the slopes, elevations, and pond. He noted the lack of flexibility with the property being within two lakeshore zones. He indicated the ponding and filtration to marsh areas will aid water quality. Dillon asked for clarification on the 20' setback requirement fi-om Olive Avenue. It was his belief the setback would be at 23' and meet the requirement. Dillon noted he has not answered all of the concerns but will work with Staflf. Mike Sepena reviewed the site plan. He referenced the confining steep elevations, which drop, for a minimum depth. Changes to this and the driveway are being kept to a minimum to reduce the need for fill. He indicated the 10' wall does taper upward. The 5' variance to the front yard setback is necessary, according to Dillon, to maintain lineal integrity. He felt if Shadywood Road was expanded, this site is only one of many that would be affected. Gafiron clarified the setback issue. John Erickson comments that the Shadywood setback is unrealistic as the property falls away to the back. He thought the plan for planters would be an improvement. Erickson feels Olive Avenue is so narrow that it is practically a bike path now. He did not believe the neighbors would object to the parking extending to the back of the building and would most likely be the area where employees would park. Erickson is in support of bushes planted separating the retaining wall from liis property, which he says would be a vast improvement to what currently exists. There were no other public comments. Schroeder agreed that a 20' setback would not be possible. McMillan said she would like to see more green space, however. Dillon said the area in fi'ont of the building on the County right-of-way is all green space, along with other areas he pointed out. Sepena also noted the open areas on the comers where landscaping could be located. Dillon said he would work with Staff on a landscaping plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Dillon said he understands the need to change the roof line. He will work with Staff on the lighting plan. Dillon said he spoke with the Watershed District, who were satisfied with the preliminary plan and with the ponding, but required the City hearing prior to their formal review. Dillon indicated that a 5’ setback is built in with the sidewalk separating the parking area. He preferred unrestricted ingress and egress for the two access points, especially on the south where it is shared with Culver’s. Hawn asked how much more land would be required to gain two lanes of parking in front. Sepena said it would be a tradeoff and impact the rest of the lot noting 64' is at the minimum. Lindquist asked what should be added in front of the building. Schroeder suggested trees planted in pots. Dillon replied that it w'ould create a problem with snowplowing. Smith felt that 5' would not make a difference. Schroeder indicated it would encroach on the Olive Avenue parking. Gaffron suggested bump-outs in order to save trees. Sepena said it would depend on the parking allotment. Dillon informed Schroeder that his intent is to frame the property with trees. Gaffron indicated that further work with the development on the issues is necessary. Schroeder felt the Planning Commission should see the plan agam. Conunissioners agreed. Lindquist asked Staff to work through the issues and develop a list of topics for discussion. Gaffron said the plan will be reviewed at the February 17 Planning Commission meeting and the February 23 Council meeting. Smith felt the two locations for access were intensive with the combined use with Culver’s, the sea of concrete that would exist, and the increased traffic. She is worried about the level of activity in the area and asked Staff to review this issue. Schroeder, Lindquist, and McMillan felt that two accesses were necessary. Smith asked to see options. Schroeder indicated the building could be reduced in size but limited depthwise. Smith acknowledged the current plan is an improvement. Smith asked that the exterior design be reviewed. Schroeder suggested the drive through be located to the side to gain the 20' setback. Dillon said that was possible but would present a problem with stacking and gaining access to the back of the building if eliminated. Gaffion said a possibility is to eliminate a portion of the 20' driveway. Schroeder asked that more than 5' be provided in front. He would like to see a landscaping plan such as the 5' plus trees. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2326 for additional review of plan and work on landscaping, roof design, signage, exterior design and issues noted in this discussion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ■ miMIBiMliii 1 ’ \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAJWING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Dillon asked about the hardcover variance. Schroeder indicated that the building has been reduced in size. Lindquist and Schroeder were in support of the variance request. Sketch Plans (#20) #2321 DAN ANDERSON, OWNER OF 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into 8 lots for residential development The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the review is of a sketch plan for the 17-1/2 acre Carpenter property located on Old Crystal Bay Road. All existing buildings have been removed. The plan calls for 8 lots with two cul-de-sacs, with septic systems and wells. Lot 8 is to be served by an individual driveway. The property also contains woodlands and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline, which will impact lake setbacks and tree preservation. The blufiflocated on 3 of 4 lots forces the setback to an average 150', where normally the setback is 75'. Gaffron indicated the issues for discussion include access, lot area/width standards, on site sewage treatment, bluff impacts, tree preservation, park dedication, archaeological sites, wetlands, and stormwater drainage. Gaffron said the code would generally limit individual access to major roadways. A change will be necessary for access to Lot 8, possibly by an outlot road. Hennepin County will also need to review' access. Gaffron said the best plan would be for all lots to access from one road, but with circumstances being as they are, two roads would make sense. Gaffron reported that the lots meet the 2 acre zoning. Lot 3 does not meet the 200' width requirement. The four lakeshore lots are narrow, and the angle of the existing property boundaries v/ith the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out the lots. The setbacks are 50' front, 30' side, 50' rear, and 75' setback from the bluff. Septic sites have been tested. There is limited building flexibility, especially for Lot 6. Steve Weckman has reviewed the sites and is concerned that the 6% slope is not being met. More mound systems may be necessary and additional review required. The bluff affects 3 of 4 lakeshore lots. Gaffron indicated that the tree line follows the shoreline presenting pristine views from the bay, which should be preserved. He is concerned with building a corridor to the lake and suggests some limitations within the corridor to ensure that trees are not cut down to the lake. He suggested a tree conservation easement. 1r ■ i i I ■ ;; i To;Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12,1998 Subject:#2326 Orono Development LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review & Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/2/98 B - Applicant's Letter Responding to City Comments 2/2/98 C - Revised Site Plan D - Revised Elevation Views E - Revised Landscape Plan F - Revised Grading Plan G - Revised Utility Plan H - Letter from Hennepin County Public Works 2/2/98 I - Comments from Wallace Case of DSU Inc. (City’s Landscape Planning Consultant) J - City Engineer Conunents 2/13/98 K - Memo &||Exhibits of 1/16/98 Revised Proposal The applicant has responded in writing to the site plan and variance review comments noted in the January staff memo as well as the comments of Wally Case and City Engineer Tom Kellogg. The responses are enumerated in the AMCON letter of February 2 (Exhibit B). Please review that letter and the revised plan, Exhibits C thru G. A brief review of the revisions follows: 1. Site Plan (Exhibit C): a. b. The building floor plan and location has not changed. The general traffic flow pattern remains as previously shown. c.One entrance monument has been eliminated and the remaining monument and pylon sign have been relocated to meet a 10' setback. d.The location of the trash enclosure has been slightly reoriented to be less visible to the neighborhood. File #2326 February 12,1998 Page 2 3. e.A sidewalk from Olive Avenue to the building sidewalks has been added to provide neighborhood access through the site. f.The 5' parking setback is still requested; three bumpouts for tree locations at the edge of the parking lot have been added to the plan (note that existing tree locations have also been shown on the site plan). g The electrical transformer has been moved to the back of the building to be less visible. h.The total number of parking spaces has been reduced from 64 to 62, but still meets the 56 space requirement based on the bank/ofRce/retail combination; if the entire 5280 s.f. retail space becomes restaurant-type uses and 50% is public space, then an additional 3 spaces for a total of 59 would be needed under the zoning code formula, which the proposal would still meet. 2. F.levation View5;/Building Design (Exhibit D): a.Applicant has added design features which help break up the large expanse of roof, and has provided elevation views of all four sides of the building b.The cedar shake over brick wall facade is still proposed, and will require the granting of a variance. c.Not shown on the plan, but inherent in the design, will be railings along the retail space walkway in front and the two elevated access doors at the rear. T.andscane Plan (Exhibit E): (Also see Wally Case's original comments. Exhibit I, which were not available at the January meeting) a.Additional trees are now being shown across the front of the site, including one in the County right-of-way near the O'Sullivan access drive. b.Additional more dense plantings including Black Hills Spruce are shown along the north boundary of the property adjacent to the residential property. c.Additional plantings are shown around the stormwater pond and along Olive Avenue. d. Screening plantings are proposed along the east side of the retaining wall behind the building. ‘ 'iiii Jif 4 .. , S__ r ir ri . I i File #2326 February 12, 1998 Page 3 e.The overall landscape plan appears to be much more in concert with the landscape architect's suggestions. 4. Grading Plan (Exhibit F): a.The building has been raised approximately 1.5’ in order to reduce some of the steepness in the parking lot and at the slope at the north end of the site. b.The steepest slopes in the parking lot appear to be near 4% as recommended by the City Engineer. c.The slope at the north end of the site adjacent to the residential property has been decreased from 1:1.5 to 1:2. d.The retaining wall behind the building will range from 12 ’ to 14' in height, lower at both ends. Prior to its construction, an engineered design will need to be submitted. e.Additional grading is shown in the portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated to make that area more maintainable. f.See City Engineer Comments, Exhibit J. A few minor engineering details are needed. 5. Utility Plan (Exhibit G): a.Minor revisions have been made to the site storm sewer system. b. Additional information and minor changes to the NURP pond are shown, This also needs to be reviewed by the MCWD. Issues for Discussion 1.Has applicant provided sufficient hardships and justification for the variance for front yard parking setback of 5 rather than 20' as required by code? Do the additional trees proposed along Shadywood Road resolve the concerns about lack of a green buffer within the front yard of this site? 2.Are the revised building elevations acceptable? Does Planning Commission feel the variance to allow the cedar shake over brick facade is justified? Are there any other design features of the building Planning Commission feels should be revised? J r File #2326 February 12,1998 Page 4 6. 8. Is the slight reorientation of the trash enclosure acceptable? neighbortiood orientation in this B-5 Ihe hi^ ! - “““sary but visually negative (i.e.the high retaining wall, the trash enclosure, etc.) ? 2iZ1.1lf .n'.T’’'" “«* Planning Commission's previous co^en that two entrances appear necessary, does Planning Commission have any further comments regarding access to the site? ^ Noting that one monument sign is deleted and the other monument sign and pylon sign wouU meet the 10' front setback, does Planning Commission have any cone^mratow Signage?Ok additional lighting plans in the recent submittals. Does Planning mmission feel additional site lighting depictions are necessary? ^ "n extensive grading of the site, no existing trees will be pil^ninl r ^ landscape plan provide sufficient replacement trees to meet Planning Commission s goals for this site? e>C4-f"7 /=v(V 9. Is the applicant's rationale for the hardcover variance acceptable? s ' LtpUWet‘ " P^<>«trian trail adjacent to the parking lot (rather than through it) n. Does Planning Commission have any further general comments regarding the proposal? Staff Recommendation ommission inApplrcarit has done a good job of addressing the concerns reviewed by Planning C January, rn staffs opinion. This is a difficult site. * submittals in comparison with the January 16* staff comment^ the January 23rd Wally Case comments, and the January 12th comment^ the follll^^rr^te'es: * "““"“lations regarding 1. Site plan and layout 2. Building design and facade materials variance CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2326 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 2, 1998 TO: Orono Development, LLC 5000 Glenwood Avenue #225 Mpls,, MN 55442 ATTN: Tom Dillon COPIES TO:Adam Smith Co. 700 Cedar St. #121 Alexandria, MN 56308 ATTN: Ted Christianson TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance/Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 1/20/98 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to work with staff in addressing issues of concern noted in staff memo. It was helpful to meet with you on the 27th to review the list of issues to address. I will be out of town February 4-11, but will be back on the 12th to finalize staff reports for the Februeuy 17 meeting. Please have all revised submittals to me by 8:00 a.m. on the 12th. Any submittals for City Engineer review should be forwarded directly to Tom Kellogg at Bonestroo as well as copied to me. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 17,1998, meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. It is my intent to take this item directly to the February 23 Council meeting. 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. X;\APPS\\VPWIN60>WPIXK'S\CAROLE\PCACnON\2326 2 February 1998 A amcon Design • Construction • Construction Management City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Post Office Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Attn: Michael Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator RE: Proposed Orono Retail Building Dear Michael: Zl IlT variance review comments dated 16 January 1998 the comments of Wallace Case (dated 23 January) and Tom Kellogg (dated 1 '> January); we intend to address them in the following manner: Response to Site Plan Review Conunents: 1. No response required. 2. approved by Planning Commission 20 January 1998. B. No response required. C. ^e revised site plan will continue to show the front yard parking setback at 5’ because of the unusual and e.xtreme topography of this site. However the site plan will be revised to show larger tree planting islands in lieu of three parking spaces along Shad\-\vood Road. D. Comment withdrawn by planner. E. No response required. F. Landscape Plan will be revised to show coordinated planting at pond area more landscape screening along Olive Avenue, two additional boulevard trees at Shadywood Road, ^d planting in the County R.O.W. along Shadywood Road between the subject site and Culver ’s to compensate for the reduced planting area available due to the proposed 5’ parking setback. G. 1. Building elevations will be revised as requested by the Planning Commission and remaining building elevations will be included. 2. Trash enclosure will be designed and detailed in a manner compatible with the mam building. Landscape screening at trash enclosure will be increased. H. Drainage Plan w ill be revised per comments; storm sewer and ponding calculations will be provided with revised drawings. I. Grading at parking lots will be revised so that steepest slopes are closer to 4% ^y slopes in the landscape areas that e.xceed 3:1 will be planted in a manner that mimmizes maintenance. Revisions to parking lot grades will likely cause the retaining wall to grow to approximately 12’ high at its highest point, 200 W. Hwy. 13* Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Phone: 612-890-1217* FAX: 612-890-0064 Offices in Minneapolis • Milwaukee tapering down to 0 ’ at the ends. A fence will be provided at the top for safety. Pedestrian trail will be located adjacent to rather than through the parking lot. J. Building elevations will be redesigned to reduce the visual impact of roof. 4. A. Trash enclosure was rotated to face doors away from residential districts. B. The revised site plan will continue to show two driveways from Shadywood Road into the site. It is the opinion of the applicant that one driveway would create site congestion between bank drive-through customers and people using the parking lot for the other businesses on the site. Also, it is the intent of the applicant and the owner of Culver’s next door to provide a connection between these adjacent parking lots. A second drivew.«iy would allow those who wish to visit Culver’s to avoid driving through the entire parking lot of this site to get there. The distance from the nearer of the two driveways to the iiitersection of County Road 15 and Shadywood Road exceeds the minimum distance required by Hennepin County. Furthermore, the county approved these same two driveway locations for this site in a letter dated 18 November 1996. C. One monument sign was deleted; the other monument sign and the pylon sign were relocated 10 ’ from the front property line. Designs for all signage will be included with the sign permit application which will be submitted at a future date. D. Not used. E. Additional notes and site lighting cut sheets will be included with the revised drawings. F. Response to front yard parking issue is included in Items #3C and 3F above. G. Deliveries will occur for the most part at the rear of the building. The 20 ’ wide drive shown will be adequate for one parking lane and one driving lane in the same direction. H. No response required. I. Due to the extensive regrading that must accompany development of this site, no existing trees will be preserved. Landscape Plan will be revised per Item #3F above. Response to Variance Request Comments: 1 . The applicant ’s rationale for requesting the hardcover variance is threefold: a. All stormwater runoff from this site will be captured by an on-site pond and therefore not affect the water quality of the lakes that the hardcover ordinance is meant to protect. b. The unusual topography of this site is such that the most level and developable portions happen to be within the hardcover zones. Even with the hardcover variance, this site will contain a lower percentage of hardcover than the most commercial sites in Navarre. 2. It is the opinion of the applicant that this site cannot be reasonably developed without the variance reducing the front yard parking setback from 20 ’ to 5’. The current site plan shows a 5’ parking setback and minimal widths for the parking lot, sidewalk, building, and service drive, and will require a retaining wall at the pond which is 1 0 ’- 12 ’ at its highest point. Any additional front yard parking setback will translate II directly into a prohibitive amount of fill being imported onto the site and an even higher retaining wall facing Olive Avenue. The applicant has revised the Landscape Plan to provide more trees along Shadywood Road and planting in the County R.O.W. where this site, Culver’s, and Shadywood Road come together. 3. Comment withdrawn by planner. Response to Landscape Review Comments: 1. Applicant’s justification for hardcover and parking setback variances appear above. 2. Recommendation for zoning amendment was approved by Planning Commission. 3. Access and circulation issues are addressed in Item #4B above. 4. Building elevations have been redesigned; side and rear elevations will be submitted. 5. Trash enclosure will be rotated to direct doors away from Olive Avenue and will be designed similar to the main building. The trash enclosure will be well-screened from Olive Avenue; attaching the trash enclosure to the main building as suggested will not make it significantly less noticeable to neighboring properties and will diminish the attractiveness of the adjacent leasable space within the building. 6. No response required. 7. See Item #41 above. 8. Pedestrian trail will be located adjacent to rather than through the parking lot. 9. Additional planting will be shown to screen the retaining wall from Olive Avenue. A boulder retaining wall would not be appropriate due the vehicular traffic loads near the top. Applicant will study terracing the wall however it appears that terracing would take up more width and therefore more total height and would also lead to a prohibitive cost increase. 10. Grading issues are addressed in Item #31 above. 11. Landscaping issues are addressed in Item #3F above. 12. Lighting issues are addressed in Item #4E above. 13. Signage issues are addressed in Item #4C above. Response to Engineering Review Comments: Engineering issues (including grading and drainage) will be addressed in a separate letter and on revised drawings which will be forwarded to you and directly to the engineer who performed the original review. We hope that all concerns of planning staff are satisfied by the revisions outlined in this letter and on the revised drawings. Please feel free to call with any questions Sincerely, AMCON CORP. 9 - Michael Supina ^ Project Architect cc: Dale Sonnichsen - Amcon Corp. Tom Dillon - Orono Development, L.L.C. Tom Kellogg - Bonestroo, Roscne, Anderlik, & Assoc. TJ 3 O U 0 COm□ jjm > 3 m 1 Oz o□m p Q o *0 mz r»r D ■D 31 O *D O (/)m 0 JO 5 3) m1 Oz liiillll! ISil i!t II IttttlHICil ■fni iii i llili "D 3) O ■D Owm O cn□m mrm Oz D JOo •D O (/)m Q Om mrm Oz I I 3^ (i © ■D 3J O ■D O (/)m O ~n JO O Z H m I Oz 11 11 I Mm 1 Ir9 -V i l(\^ o 33 > Zo “05 z Hm D CJlo o zo 33 •V' i?SSB 121 Jill 1 1 * 1 * 1 ' 8 !l i I 1 ' > ' r t f 1 i ‘ ' 1 ]^ •(D 90 (^ m S3Si <s ?! 1 5* 5 niiu f ^^ 1 • 1 * c i i \\ -I. ■ 4'. i * It) M n ■ j If I i B I* *v\ nHr If-IfkI> Hennepin County A An Equal OpporI luiily Employer _____ H Qf.CW vxSi February 2,1998 of O'"' -G‘^0 Mike Gaffiron City of Orono 27?0 Kellev Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Redevelopment at 2380 Shadywood (CSAH 19) Mike: As stated in the July 14, 1997, letter and subsequent entrance permit number 4128, Hennepin County approves the shared driveway onto County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19 approximately 130 feet north of Shoreline (CSAH 15). The concept of another driveway approximately 260 feet further north on CSAH 19 is also acceptable. If and when city approvals are granted, please remind the developers to obtain a formal permit from Hennepin County for the construction of the new driveway and the removal of all unused aprons on both CSAHs 15 and 19. Please feel free to call with any further questions or discussion. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ:jrh cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono John O’Sullivan DeptflJneiil of PubBc Works 320 Warfiirqton Avenue South Hopkins, \(iivieioU 35343-S496 (612)930-2300 FAX:(612)930-2513 TOD:(6l2)930-2696 .1^ M. 01/23/98 15:08 ©612 337 5601 DSU. INC.@002 006 I Ml ILGRI 'N SI lARDl .OW AND UBAN INCOftrOKATgO CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55401 612-339-3300 PHONE 612-337-5601 FAX DATE: TO: 23 January 1998 Mike Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55523 RECEIVED JAN 2 3 1998 CITY OF OROi\'0 FROM:Wallace L. Case, ASLA Landscape Architect/Planner RE:Orono Development, L.L.C. File No. 139-2327 As you requested, I have reviewed the site plans for the proposed commercial redevelopment of the Baptist church property located between County Road 18 and Olive Avenue, northwest of the Sullivan/Culver development and County Road 15, In the Navarre District of Orono. The proposal is for the removal of the existing church and the development of a small.strip center (11,000 sf). The proposal Indicates that this center would include a coffee shop, bagel shop, other neighborhood retail, and a bank with drive-up tellers. I offer the followino«observatlons and comments. My comments are based on a site planning, environmental and aesthetic perspective. Issues: 1. Veriances The developer is requesting two variances to accommodate the development of the project. The developer is requesting a variance to allow 47.7 % hardcover in Zone 1 and 77.3 % hardcover in Zone 2. The permitted hardcover Is 35 % in both zones. It is up to the developer to demonstrate that meeting the requirement represents an undue hardship, they have not created nor exacerbated that hardship, there is no reasonable recourse other than by variance, and that they are requesting the OUOBS\1 60«.6\LLCCOM\1 21d8UC.MEM 1 006 01/2«'98 15:08 0612 337 5601 DSU. INC.0003 006 :l ■ ii minimum variance necessary. They need to be aware that variances are a solution of last resort. This site W'ith its NURP pond, steep topography, and justifiably stringent Zone 1 and Zone 2 hardcover standards, is a very challenging site on which to build this type of commercial development. However, there are a number of interrelated site issues to fully address prior to any consideration of a hardcover variance. A drainage analysis needs to be conducted to determine if the environmental and hydrological objectives that serve as the basis for the hardcover requirement can be fully met through the use of the NURP pond and on site drainage system. The development team also needs to look at ways of Increasing the site plan efficiency, and reducing building area, parking areas, and surfacing to the minimum necessary. They also need to look at increasing green space wherever possible. The second variance request is for the reduction of the parking setback along County Road 19, from 20 feet to 5 feet. This request involves several issues. As most of the affected parking area is located in Zone 1 and Zone 2, the requested reduction of setback green space also increases the percentage of hardcover. A five feet wide setback does not provide sufficient room to plant and grow trees to buffer the parking area. It also may not provide room for adequate unobscured clear 20nes and driver reaction time at the intersections. This proposed development is located at one of the major intersections serving this part of the Lake Minnetonka area. In addition, the proposal does not provide any cushion to accommodate the kinds of changes that can and do occur over time at major Intersections (IE. widening, adding lanes, walks or trails). 2i Zoning Amendment . • The daveioper is also requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow the specific proposed uses within the B-5 District. Depending on tha jinri operation, the proposed coffee shop, bagel shop and pjy?a shnp may be approoriata and desirable for the area. Whether they are suitable to the site depends on the extent that they function as restaurants. As you are aware restaurant usas with significant seating can generate several times the parking need of retail uses. It would be difficult to meet the parking and traffic needs for more that a single sit down type restaurant use on this site. The other retail uses are not identified and are assumed to be uses that are permitted under the current ordinance. The market will determine what uses can be successful at this location. Over time the City may be asked to review and amend the ordinance by adding new uses that meet the intent of the comprehensive plan and ordinance. It is important to understand that this proposed center is located at one of a few major intersections In the area and that It is likely that there will be requests for various uses in the years to come. 3. Access and Cin^ulatlon The proposed access to this site includes a two-way entrance that Is too close to the County Road 15/County Road 19 Intersection. The safety and function of this -2- 3-006 01/23-'98 15:08 ®612 337 5601 DSU. INC.0OO4-OO6 I entrance location (for either a two-way or right-ln-only access) needs to be reviewed by a traffic engineer. If the southern access Is eliminated, the internal circulation to accommodate the bank drive-up tellers and Culver connection would be through the front parking bay. This may result in some parking and access conflicts. Architectural Treatment The developer needs to provide elevations of all building facades for City review. The architectural treatment of any building on this site needs to reflect the following. The site is located at one of only three north/south crossing points in the Lake Minnetonka area. The County Road 19/County Road 15 intersection is the major t-rnSH roads between the lower and unoar Lalca Minnetonka areas. The architectural treatment of the site needs reflect the importance of this intersection and to help set the tone for the area. in addition/ the architectural treatment of the site needs to reflect the transition between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. The architecture, and landscaping must protect and enhance the identity and character of the surrounding setting. The building needs to incorporate and express suitable architectural style, character, scale, design detailing, materials, colors, and signing. The architectural style and detailing needs to be of a higher quality. The scale and massing of the proposed building needs to be more sympathetic to the surroundings. The proposed building includes a large asphalt shingle roof that is a major visual part of the building. This roof may need to be broken into more planes, reduced somewhat In overall mass and height. The cupola is a nice idea. The roof should also be constructed of a visually higher quality material (IE. cedar shakes). Cedar shingles are not listed as approved materials in the City code. However, the use of 'i. high quality cedar shakes for roofs and siding is ih character with the lake area. The other proposed materials are generally suitable. All facades also need to Incorporate, more and better detailing and fenestration. The porticos and entrances are fairly large and flat (in the same plane as the fascia). The curved algn panels are overly repetitive and would be difficult to read. 5. Trash Enclosure The trash enclosure should be attached to building In an architecturally appropriate manner at the northern end of the building. 6. Outdoor Seating Area Outdoor spaces and seating areas need to incorporate appropriate design features, scale, detailing, locations, landscaping, and lighting. -3- U'006 f . 01/-20/9S 15:09 0612 337 5601 DSU. INC.@005'006 ' l\ 7. Existing Tr#As senus, *peci.s md bass elavationof all existing trees over 6 caliper inches In size. 8. Trail wow^aHr commercial area surrounding the Navarre SncontroN^^^ ® u® northeast is generally desirable to lessen uncontrolled pedestrian access through the commercial uses. However, the trail reaslnC northern parking lot is not acceptable for safety ^hmurh to^ni location would also promote vehicles cutting '^^''eloper should determine what would be needed to construct a trail connection along the Culver boundary. 9. Retaining Wa|| construction of a retaining wall that is approximately 10 feet high and that is exposed to views from the northeastern residential areas. This hlalllv!^V^ !?♦ possible, constructed of natural stone or boulders and suitrhL the adjoining residential district. This wall will require a fo th^ o top to meet building code. This wall is is adjacent only exit from the drive-up tellers and is below a steep slope. Some visually appropriate barrier may be needed to ensure vehicular safety. ^ 10. Grading The front parking includes an area with grades In excess of five percent. The site plan and grading need to be revised to lessen the grade to a maximum of 4 percent. Tnd if f 1^3 the northwestern side of the building exceeds 7 percent be^redriion!ri the drop off at approximately 4 percent. This area needs to be redesigned to lessen the slope, and to reduce the cross pitch to 2 percent. 11. ^ Landscaping The development of this property must provide significant landscaping along both residential frontages In order to adequately buffer those areas. The plan needs to provide adcmional deciduous, evergreen trees and shrubs to accomplish this frl. ordinance calls for 50 percent opacity along commercial/residential sicio or ro8r common bounddne$» This project will also result in the loss of some significant existing trees. The th« fadditional deciduous trees along county Road 15 and the Culver boundary to enhance the overall image of the project and area. -4- )06 01/25/$$ 15:09 ©612 337 5601 DSU. INC..0006'006 . hoI!h'l.nh^r!r.h®"‘*Jf’ '“'''»«• Lishtmg style and intensity should adjoining uses fromXr''™ “* P™»« the Signage and Entry Mnnumftntg Signage end entry treatment plans need to be submitted for review. The site obns Lnd°lnl®3 monuments at both entrances, a pylon sign at the southern entrance and Individual signs at each building entrance. This project will nebd a wcSi th® ^ suitable and unified approach to signage to enhance the area, identify the businesses and best serve the public. 3V00! ^“®stions or If I can be of further assistance, please call me at 339- DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. Wallace L Case, ASIA Landscape Architect/Planner •ou . e-<- - ■ i. if I Bonestroo Rosene ■ Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects February 13, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Orono Development, L.L.C. File No. 139-2327 Dear Mike, Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderfik ^nd Assocuites. Inc is an Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. P£ • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • hAarvin L SorvdM PE • Richard E Turner. PE. • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht, PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE .ind Susan M Eberhn, C PA , Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota, PE • Robert C Russek. A l A • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T Rautmann PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson, PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl We have reviewed the revised grading and utility plans and the storm sewer and pond calculations for the proposed commercial development located on the east side of Shadywood Road (CSAH 19), north of Navarre Lane and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) in Navarre. The development includes a full service bank with drive-up auto tellers and a single story retail office complex. The following engineering issues need to be addressed as part of the plan review process. • The ponding and drainage calculations submitted appear to be acceptable for the proposed site. The drainage area map provided shows 0.16 acres of the Orono Retail site draining easterly to the Culver’s Restaurant site. No storm sewer calculations were submitted for these flows however it appears that there is adequate capacity in the Culver system to accommodate this ninoff. • Retaining wall details and design should be submitted for our review. • Pipe grade and length for the 12 inch RCP located downstream from MH-2 should be revised on the plan sheets to reflect those used in the storm sewer calculations (30 feet @ 5.0%). Please contact me at 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg'^ cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 r TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator.’' January 16,1998 Q K SUBJECT; #2326 Orono Development L.L.C., 2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances - Public Hearing i'l Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Requesting commercial site plan approval for a multi-tenant, one story 1 l,(K;b s.f. retail/service center building. The variances identified include 500-1,000' zone hardcover, and parking setback from street. The site is 1.86 acres in area including the portions of Navarre Lane which the City has agreed to vacate concurrent with development of this site. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Applicant ’s Letters of Request E - Adjacent Property Owner Acknowledgment Forms F - Existing Conditions Survey G - Site Plan Survey ^ H - Detailed Site Plan (Al) I - Proposed Front Elevation (A2) ^ J - Landscape Plan (LI) ^ K-Grading Plan (Cl) ^ L - Utility Plan (C2) M - Site Plan Coordinated with Culver ’s Site N - B-5 District Standards O - Street Vacation Documentation r- Ci-H Site Plan Review 1. Conformity' w ith purpose of B-5 District. The B-5 District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant proposes an 11,000 s.f retail/service center building including a 3,150 s.f. bank with drive foe. i' . Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 2 up window; a 5,280 s.f. one story retail space; and a 2,816 s.f. commercial (office) space. The nature and the anticipated type uses appear to be generally in keeping with the neighborhood service orientation of the B*5 District, although the restaurant uses are not specifically an allowed use in B-5 and are the subject of application #2327. The building itself will cover approximately 14% of the site. Although detailed hardcover calculations have not been provided, the northerly 1/3 and the southerly 1/6 of the site are shown by applicant to be in the 500-1,000' hardcover zone, and the proposed hardcover does not confrom to the 35% standard for that zone. The entire site appears to be appro-ximately 60-70% hard surface, encompassing less hardcover than many other existing businesses in the Navarre area, but clearly demonstrating a hardcover intensity that is a significant change for this site and this area of Navarre, and not necessarily in keeping with the City's vision for the B-5 zone. The building has potential spaces for as few as 4 to as many as 6 or 8 individual tenants depending upon part'tioning. No floor plans have been provided, but the plan suggests the retail sp? mv he somewhat flexible. From the standpoint of scale, the building itself is approxuu.itclv 60' in depth and 200' in width, or slightly less than twice the size of the Culvers' restaurant building. 2. Conformity with permitted/conditional uses in B-5 District. The B-5 District allows offices and banks as a permitted use. A number of retail commodity type uses are permitted within the B-5 District, with a limited number of specific service type uses. Other service type uses are permitted only by conditional use permit (please see the list of allowed uses in B-5). Applicant's predecessors (John O'Sullivan, et al.) were successful in having this site rezoned to B-5 approximately one year ago, finding that the B-5 District provided the general use categories which they were proposing at that time. Note that the current applicant is proposing to amend the B-5 District classification to allow restaurant uses, which our current B-5 District does not allow (see Application File #2327). 3. Conformity with performance standards of B-S District. A. B. L?t arga, The minimum lot size for the B-5 District is 20,000 s.f Including the to- be-vacated portion of Navarre Lane, the property is approximately 81,000 s.f in area, or 4 times the minimum required lot area. Lot width. Tlie minimum lot width for the B-5 District is 100'. The site is approximately 320' in width at the rear of the 20' required front yard, and therefore meets the lot width standard. r Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 3 C. D. E. F. Front yard. The minimum front yard requirement for the B-5 District is 20'. While the proposed building will be set back approximately 78' from the front lot line, the proposed front parking area is only 5' from the front lot line. Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B), which will be applied to this project, disallows parking spaces in a required yard or landscape area. Therefore, a variance for parking encroachment into the front yard is requested by the applicant. The applicant has discussed in his submittals the limitations and hardships which lead to the request for variance to allow parking to encroach 15' into the 20' front yard, and this will be further addressed later in this memo. Rear yard. The B-5 rear yard requirement is 30', with a side yard adjacent to R District of 15'. No structures are proposed in any side or rear yard, except that a backup apron at the northerly end of the parking lot will be approximately 14' from the Olive Avenue right-of-way. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) allows parking in a rear yard to within 3' except when that rear or side lint is in common with an R District (which in this case, it is). Because this is a 'through' lot, for zoning purposes it has two front yards, one abutting Shadywood Road and one abutting Olive Avenue. It would appear to staff that a 20' yard should be maintained along Olive Avenue. The backup apron encroaches to within 14'. Therefore a 6' variance is required for that .small portion of parking lot. Applicant proposes two entrance monuments and a pylon sign within the front yard along Shadywood Road, which will be discussed under the signage heading below. Setbacks. The B-5 District requires buildings be no nearer than 35' to the front lot line, 35' from the rear lot line, 15' from the side lot line and 35' from any lot line abutting a residential district. The proposed building meets all setback requirements, as does the proposed trash enclosure location and the drive through canopy. Fencing . No fencing is proposed for the site. The B-5 District standards require that where the B-5 abuts an R District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than 6' in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. The proposed landscape plan indicates an arborvitae hedge along the north side lot line abutting the LR-1C residential district. The City's consultant landscape architect, Wally Case from DSU, Inc. has reviewed the landscape plan and while his written comments will not be available until after the Planning Commission meeting, he has expressed concern that the landscape plan is inadequate, and the City should consider a landscape plan that provides not only a buffer from the surrounding residential neighborhood, but enhances the neighborhood. r [ i4 Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 4 G. No screening is proposed along the Olive Avenue frontage for this site. Planning Commission should consider whether such screening may or may not be appropriate in the context of the neighborhood, the ponding area, views of the rear of the building, etc. Building design and construction. 1. Exterior finishes. The B-5 District standards require that exterior wall finishes on any building be either face brick, natural stone, or specially designed pre-cast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture or factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of those noted above or glass. The B-5 standards allow other materials as may be approved by Council. The proposed building has essentially a one story facade that has a brick veneer base with a natural color cedar shake siding above, on the front. The shakes are not listed as an allowed facing material and would require special approval. Applicant must provide elevation views of all sides of the building, since it is critical to confirm a consistent appearance, given a building that will be so visible from all directions. Architectural style. Applicant suggests the shake siding may help to provide a reasonable transition to the residential neighborhood, but in staffs opinion such a transition is more properly accomplished via site planning, landscaping, and architectural style. In staffs opinion the building lacks character, and the expanse of uninterrupted roof needs to be revisited, as well as the nature of the facade. This site is an important and extremely visible location at the "hub of Lake Minnetonka", and in context of future development and redevelopment of Navarre, should serve to set the tone. Staff would question whether the adjacent overdeveloped Culver's site has already established a tone, perhaps not as positive one as might have been hoped for. Planning Commission should make a recommendation as to whether the exterior wall finish materials are acceptable, but should also discuss the nature of this building and whether it fits the City's vision for this site. 2.Out buildings. The only outbuilding proposed is the trash enclosure, the proposed design of which is not extremely detailed. It appears to be three sided block enclosure screened with arborvitae, and doors opening to the northerly parking lot. The B-5 District requires that such a structure be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the building and designed in a manner conforming with original architectural design general t ~''ir'-iiii f Tuinmi' L\R , r* fff tirr i~- ■‘■in i-rtnai ma-i ■■■■■■ Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 5 A H. I. appearance of the building. Additional details should be provided before construction so that staff can confirm these requirements are met. Is there a reason why the trash enclosure is so far removed from the building? Can it be incorporated into the building so it doesnt stand out like a sore thumb facing the residential neighborhood? Drainage. The B-S Zoning District standards require that drainage plans be submitted for review by the City Engineer and that proper facilities for drainage be provided. Applicant has provided a grading plan which indicates an expansion of the retention pond existing on this site as a result of the Culvers development. Culvers has an easement over applicant's property for the existing pond. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan and notes that the proposed storm sewer lines should be revised, that storm sewer and ponding calculations need to be provided for engineer review, that the storm water pond be provided a 10:1 bench at the normal water level to promote the establishment of aquatic vegetation, and that the drainage plans need to be submitted to the MCWD for review and approval. The entire site is proposed to drain to this storm pond via grading and a series of catch basins and storm sewer lines. Grading. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading of the site and has made a number of comments including: Design grades at some locations in the site are fairly steep which could create problems. Access and parking lot grades should be revised to not exceed 4%. Slope along the north and west sides of the site appears to be as steep as 1.5:1 where maintenance of slopes steeper than 3:1 can be difficult. Erosion control materials will need to be used. The proposed retaining wall at the rear of the building and the storm water pond is over 10' in height in some locations and will require engineered retaining wall design and details for engineer's review. A fence will be required above that retaining wall for safety purpioses. The topographic condition at this site suggests there will be significant regrading of the site in order to make it suitable for the proposed construction. Staff is concerned that the sloped parking areas and certain driving lanes could be problematic, especially under winter conditions. This should be given additional scrutiny by the applicant to determine whether grades can be modified to be more user friendly. The 10' high retaining wall at the rear of the building may be very' stark as viewed from Olive Avenue. I see lots of these in Plymouth, and they are not visually f Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 6 plea^t. Perhaps some screening is appropriate... Also, the stormwater pond as it sits is not exactly in a finished state and it needs a detailed landscape plan to make it aesthetically pleasing or at least not visually intrusive. Pgdgstrian Trail. The slope along the north side of the property will be drastically changed to accomodate parking adjacent to the neighboring residential property. Although this was proposed as the sidewalk connection location between Olive and Shadywood when O'Sullivan had a plan in front of us last \ ear, the current developer has not adequately provided for such a connection. The route defined on his plan brings pedestrians through the parking lot, and this needs significant aditional thought. One of the tradeoffs for vacation of Navarre Lane was provision by the developer of a connecting sidewalk link to allow residents of the extensive neighborhoods to the east to access Navarre easily. Siltf Orad lne Ogngral ly, Staff acknowledges that this is an extremely difficult site to develop given the topography, shape, and existing storm pond location. These factors suggest the site needs a plan that is extremely sensitive to those factors. Bmlding hglghh The proposed building is one story in nature and approximately 29' in height from upper grade level to the peak, meeting the 30' maximum height requirement. However, the height is visually accentuated by the broad expanse of roof, and this should be modified if possible to provide a more attractive appearance. 4. Conformity with general performance standards. A. B. Exterior Storaeg. Section 10.60, Subd. 13 requires that all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or ftilly screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties. No outside storage is proposed for this project other than the trash enclosure, which staff suggests might be relocated to be less visually obtrusive. IcafTlP gqntrpl; $jtc pjrculgtiqp. Zoning code Section 10.60, Subd. 16 requires that traffic generated by any use be channelized and controlled in a manner that will avoid congestion on public streets, safety hazards, or excessive traffic through residential streets. Section 6.04, Subd. 10 (A) requires that only one business driveway be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32' at the property line. Applicant proposes Iw^ access points onto Shadywood Road each being 32' in width. 1 Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 7 C. Section 6.05, Subd. 10 (D) disallows any portion of a driveway approach from being within 100’ of a comer within a business district. The southerly approach for this site is approximately 120’ from the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. However, the City Engineer has indicated in his comments that the south access is close to the 15/19 signalized intersection and that he would recommend that only one access at a location further north of the intersection be provided. Mr. Case concurs with this analysis. However, if the City wishes to approve the two access concep for site, then the engineer suggests that the south access be restricted to only nght turn in/nght turn out movements. Planning Commission may recall that the City ronditjonallv ^PPrQ\:£d an access at the proposed south access location to serve the Culvers site, which access h^ been temporarily constructed. Limiting the south access to right in/right out would result in the Culvers site being slightly less accessible from Shadywood Road south bound traffic, which would have to either use County Road 19 entrance or use a more northerly entrance on the bank/retail site. Applicant should provide a rationale for the need for two access locations for this development. The City has generally acknowledged that a connection between this site and the Culvers site is not inappropriate given the intensity of use of the Culvers site and the apparent difficulty encountered there by not having a Shadywood Road access. A risk, of course, is that by moving to one entrance between the tw o that ^e proposed, more traffic heading the Culvers site will have to travel more of the parking areas adjacent to the bank. The general circula-.icn pattern for this site, absent the Culvers connection, is counterclockwise with an expectation that most traffic using the bank drive through will come in from the south entrance, go around the building and come out the north entrance. Conse.;jently, most drive through bank traffic would avoid drivmg through the main parking areas in front of the building. Traffic using the north^ly parking area ill generally have only minimal conflict with dnve through traffic This i«- not r r .V ay circulation pattern, however, and it would seem there will be some confl-. b« ;-;en traffic using the drive-thru and that exiting Culvers. Staff recommends that the site access situation be reviewed by Hennepin County to determine the impacts on County Road 19. County approval will be required for the proposed access locations. Staff further recommends that consideration be given to ihe site layout regarding circulation; perhaps applicant should consult a trattic engineer. Signage. The zo-.iig code allows site signage in an amount equivalent to 1 s.f. per I !!■ I iAI~ I 1 iMIl Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 8 E. F. front foot of frontage. Since the site has approximately 380' of frontage, 380 s.f. of signage would be allowed. The proposed facade signage would appear to use up approximately half of this allowance. Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the visual appeal of the curved facade sigange? No detail has been provided for the two entrance monuments and the pylon sign. Detail must be provided in order that those signs can be approved. Staff questions whether the entrance signage is overkill, given the very visible facade signage proposed. Section 10.61, Subd. 1 provides general standards for signage. Subd. 3 provides standards for signage in the B Districts, noting that no individual sign shall exceed 50 s.f. in area. All signs are to be located no closer than 10' from any property line. The two entrance monuments and the pylon sign are proposed within 2' of the front lot line, and the City Engineer notes that those locations as proposed may impact visibility for traffic exiting the site. Staff wou ld recommend that the entrance monuments be relocated to meet the required 10' setback, and detail of those signs provided prior to their approval, if they are determined to be appropriate. Lighting. A minimal detail lighting plan for the site is shown on the site plan, sheet A-1. Section 10.60, Subd. 8 requires that lighting be shielded to prevent the sources of light from being detectable at the lot line. Also, lighting shall be directed away from residential districts and public streets. A more detailed lighting plan should be provided by applicant. Parking standards. Section 10.61, Subds. 4-10 establish parking regulations. Applicant's site plan indicate a requirement of 1 space for 200 s.f. of net floor area for the office and bank uses, and 1 space for each 150 s.f. of net floor area of retail area, which meets code standards. However, the code also requires one stall for each 80 s.f. of public space for restaurants, hence the use of the building will dicate parking needs to a great extent. The net floor area reported by applicant is approximately 9,700 s.f. which would be reasonable for an 11,000 s.f. building. This results in a net parking requirement of 56 spaces, and applicant is proposing to provide 62 spaces including 3 handicapped. Therefore, the proposed number of parking stalls appears to meet code requirements if restaurant uses are not accounted for. No joint parking is defined in this plan. However, staff is aware that the owners of the Culvers property had intended to use parking on this site for overflow. Applicant should provide the City with additional detail as to any arrangements made with Culvers regarding use of parking areas. Such Joint parking is regulated in Section 10.61, Subd. 6, and if intended, applicant should show that the proposed joint parking I «~T-Tir-» t » ■■ rriariBim w ■T'v«-in~irBrain^i 11 if W ■ > ■ ■ Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 9 spaces are within 30' of the uses they will serve, that there is no substantial conflict on the principal operating hours of the two or more uses sharing the joint parking, and if such joint parking is ultimately allowed, that a property legal instrument defining the City approval and conditions for such joint parking is created. Parking stalls are shown on the site plan at the City's standard 9'x20' standard, and a 25' driving lane is proposed between rows of parking spaces. Again, the issue of a variance for having parking encroach on the front yard area is primarily a function of the topography of the site and the proposed uses. In order to maintain two rows of conforming parking spaces and an adequate driving aisle, approximately a 65' width is required. In staffs opinion, maintaining the 20' parking setback to Shadywood is critical for a number of reasons, including: providing at least a 10' green strip for tree and landscape planting providing for future expansion of Shadywood Road (not planned, but who can predict what the future holds...) - maintaining the natural character that Orono envisions in its comprehensive planning, especially in relation to the B-5 district Maintaining the 20' front yard as a green space could be accomplished in a number of wavs, all of which have a major impact on the site plan: 1.Eliminate the row of parking spaces with the front yard. The site would then be severely short for parking. 2.Reduce the depth of the building by approximately 15' or 25%. This could have significant impacts on the design of the building, for instance making it more linear in nature, i.e. longer in order to provide the same amount of floor area. 3. Revise storm water ponding area to allow the improvements to the site to encroach another 15' to the east. 4. Reduce the w idth of the rear drive, if such width is not strictly necessary to accomodate more than one lane of vehicles. Applicant and Planning Commission should discuss the viability of any of these or other possible options to increase the parking setback from the front lot line, in order to maintain some landscaped green space within the front yard area. Ml I in 1 TY. V - r Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 10 ! G. H. I. Loading berths. No loading berm on the site plan, and presumably are no intended. Staff would note that retail uses, especially restaurant type uses, may involve daily deliveries, and such uses that are franchises might involve fairly large delivery vehicles. Applicant should define how deliveries will occur to the site, and for instance, if they use the rear entrance, applicant should demonstrate that there is sufficient width in that rear alley way to accommodate drive through traffic as well as delivery traffic. **Drive-in standards ”. Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 19 discusses standards for "drive-in establishments". It is unclear whether the intent of this section is to regulate drive-in restaurants, or general drive through service uses. The requirements include construction of a screening fence along "the lot line", presumably finding that a drive-in use is not something one wants to look at. In the context of the proposed bank drive through, staff would assume that the canopy and drive through facilities will be commensurate in character with the building, and will not require any unusual fencing or screening. Landscape plan. The City's landscape consultant, Wally Case of DSU, Inc., has been requested to review the general layout of this site, including landscape plan. His written comments will be available late in the week of January 20. It should be noted that the site contains approximately 10-15 mature hardwoods at the north end of the site, all of which will apparently be removed as part of this development. Applicant should define whether there are any mature trees on the site that will be preserved. It would appear that the scattered nature of those trees will make preservation difficult. Planning Commission should review the landscape plan and ultimately the comments by Mr. Case, and conclude whether any revisions are appropriate. While the landscape plan is fairly detailed. Case has suggested that much more landscaping is needed to not only replace the trees being lost but to help in providing a transition to the residential surroundings. Hardwood boulevard trees are proposed approximately every 50'; more are likely needed, and unless significant changes are made to the boulevard, the trees will be growing up from a sidewalk. The existing sidew'alk along Shadywood Road extends from the intersection ' and 19 northward to the north boundary of this property. The total proposed ,.i from Shadyw ood Road curb to parking lot curb is only 12', and if half that is taken up by sidewalk, applicant must detail how boulevard landscaping will be established in the remainder. Staff recommends that a much more thorough landscape plan be presented. Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 11 Review of Variance Requests 1.Hardcover. The northerly 1/3 of southerly 1/6 of the site are located within the 500-1,000 hardcover zone which allows 35% hardcover. The central portion of the property is not in a defined hardcover zone. In the northerly 1/3, hardcover is proposed at approximately 48%. On the southerly 1/6, hardcover is propo. ed at approximately 77%. These two areas combined yield approximately 55% hardcover where only 35% is allowed. The central portion of the property not located in hardcover zone would appear to be in the 70% hardcover range. It is interesting to note that neither of the two hardcover zones identified discharge to the water body which defines them, i.e. the northerly zone is defined by Cr> .^lal Bay and the southerly zone by Carmens Bay, but both zones actually drain to Lafayette Bay. Ad iitionali. all that drainage will first discharge to a retention pond, then flow through two distinct wetland basins before it reaches Lafayette Bay. Hardcover Issues for Consideration a.Absent further detail or hardship statement, will Planning Commission consider granting the magnitude of hardcover variances requested? Is there any hardship that justifies the variance? Is this the intensity of use envisioned in the B-5 district? b.Does the fact that all storm water will be treated in the storm water pond and flow through two wetlands prior to reaching the lake, suggest that the excessive hardcover has a limited impact? 2. Front fstreetl parking setback: The B-5 District requires a 20' front yard. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) defines that for B Districts parking is not allowed in a required yard. Although that code section discusses the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 Districts but not the B-5 District, staff would argue that this is an error and that this standard was also intended to apply to the b-5 District. Applicant proposes parking along the front line within the 5' of that lot line where a 20' i jtback would be required. Applicant's request for this variance is to provide for all of the uses proposed for the site, i.e. accommodating the proposed building size and shape while providing functional parking lot and providing space for the storm water pond which serves both this site and the Culvers site adjacent. Parking Location Variance Issues for Consideration: a. Will Plai .ling Commission recommend approval for a 15' variance to allow parking 1J rtTiTliTii mitm Mint MimtlKVil r«m«sT¥ii %hWMi}UUVJ r« m I ■ I r«nirtvim«t]^ICl^ Mill! •nnri roirt rtT#t rivifti fi«»ri[«nirt]Illicit LOSil^RllVa] MIlItHlftiri VIJ rtiivnixt] •IiTiillllli r i.y' 'r\ I \ - 0, r:*. •i Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 13 Options for Action 1.Recommend approval with specific conditions and/or submittals to be completed by applicant before Council review. Make specific recommendations on the variance requests. 2.Table for additional information (specify), o ’- direct applicant to bring back revisions/details requested. 3. Recommend denial. 4.Other. X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLEVvllKEU326-2.MEM kfM«rl liait •( m IMf —I ■ ■ r ■7 ra ‘..•-irt’ * ^ • i* ' \•• . V Application ff f/vvrof C=j : *Date Received /2_ - Z2--?T Amount Paid Cyirn Cov^<^l s ?t-c pza ^j*^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICA^ON Initial Application Fee S220.00 . (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) S m3 Cl. PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ghaf^yunnf^ Poat^. Navacre/ Mn. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)See Attached Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d 1997 by current owneCf see attached faonth/yeaj.) I ](i(i)((do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of proj>erty: ___presidential X__pother (specify ) Commercial Use____ Zoning District: B-5 _______________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Development/LLC Phone (home) 377-7090 Phone (work) 377-7090 Address:5000 Glenwood Ave.City:Minneapolis/ Mn. Zip: 55422 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name See Attached Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: See Attached__________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width ^ Setback: ^ Front Side X Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage 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: See Attached________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) cn \ 4 .5 £*: ( V tj '• f REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followinf information must be submitted bv the mpplication dea.dline date 411 order for VQur applieatio^ to be considered compltlt: t \, ___ Completed AppUcation/ponn 2. __ Certified Property 0'*^ers List of oM^ners Vfirhin 150’, labels and pl'4;f must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. ___ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/i" x 11" for reproduction. 4. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade axe proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/j" x 11" for reproductioD. 5. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). 6. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of appUcant(s) if not current ownet(s). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this ^iplication. 8. __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that 30ui£ ygrianc* applicatiftn is not complete if the above information has not bccn.includtiL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoiung Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses ipeurtgd levicw of this application, and certifies that the information supplied isbest of his/her knowledge. Date —App.icani’s Signature _________ Q^iorC) I LI-CL. OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes rcasonw^ entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Coodeil members for purpose^f invcstigati<^ andj^rification of this request. Owner's Signature 7 £i^2/ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pluming Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of cacti month. Applicants roust be present at all scheduled review meetings of the PUnnutg Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, plewc make arrangcmcnis to have an authorized agent ar.end in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 r #€S.!; 'V:-w s*rr-r.*^» V '<^.jy \A t i Date Received /Z-2Z-97 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENFRAL LAND USE APPLICATION i PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2380 Shadvwood Road. Navarre Jjn_______ Type of Application to be Filed Conditional Use/ Site Plan Rev-Lejtf Property Identification Number (P.l D ) See Attached---------------------- ----iL & “U Phone (home) 377"- 7090 Nome Ocono Development/ LLC__________ Phone (work)__377-7090 AHdmlcrsooQ r,ienuond City Minneapolis-------^‘P-&S422. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name see Attached_______ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address City ^iP- Dale Property AtXjuired Adam Smith Company 1992. I }(lIiC) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) 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 Housc/Gucsl Apartments ~ $200.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg $300.00 Commcrcial/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 - sec Fee Schedule $150 00 Renewal fee (no change from original application) Ancr-thc-Fact Fee Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS r ^ O o o / X $250 00 Commcrcinl Sue Plan Review con.suUoni fccs)^ $300 00 Vacation $200 00 Fasement Vacation $100 00 Fasement Vocation Wiih Subdivision ~X $350 00 Rcronmg (PUD tx*fcr to fee schedule) $350 00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100 00 Apfv'.ils Other • sec Fee Scliedulc PRESENT USE OK PUOPF.RTV Preaent Zoning Distnci n-j t !«.,• of' Pfv^(X‘'t' Rcsidcnliiil X (Mli-i (<pfc.lvl Vacant Ctuifclt I iilhIMI II I I II Fifn I i| I I r M O '-“S required submittals 1 Completed Application Form. ------------- _ _________________ 2. 3. - 'pTp=^“otI>“« Lis. of owners within 350', lahols «d pU. wp (you - murt ^..in to list, label. «d map from Hennepin County DeparSmen. of Finance. A-603. Government Center, 348-3271). 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. o clXt. oy = • "f" deseriplion to applieation if not included on required .^ey. - survey (elating «td proposed enntours) if land aUeratton. tnvolve ' to "am« (t“L marital statu.) of all parsons with an interesUn - ptoperty. TOs would ioelude name(.) of applicantfs) tf not current ownet(s). roMtruction plan, if applicable (sec siafT for requirements). , - ArrSndum to to applieaUon. please attach a separate hst of «ty other persons you wish notified of this application. S will require to scale drawings of all document, plans, eic. Ir. oe submitted.) The APPlio«.t and Property Owner must sign .hi, application. Plctsc remember to. your ISltoto" compU if llttt »»»ve infom»tion no. been tnc.wled. certification by Clerical Department to. Land Us. Appli^io- Is eomplere. Initials of Clerical Staff.,^----------—- ^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE f^rmniion reouired or requested by the ironing The applicant hereby agrees ^ ^ ^ot covered by original fee payment) Administrator, agrees to pay addtlional ^ application, and certifies that the and/or unusual «P'«« , ofinformation supplied is Irue^d eoirepMq ttsejes oi Applicant's signature ./tjs 'P/^m rn 1 I nn « Date •rom Dillon# Orono Development# DLC OWNER'S SIGNATURE application and furtlier aulhmireJ Tho owner hereby actamw. ges d S . ^ ^ contmlssion member., “■rc"" ......-r Owner'.s signature Dote I II r>7. \ V£Jc:^y/ —^ - — f------------------- Ted Chclatianaon. Adam Smith Company on Mcci'"S Applic.nl me.l h.Ce .« mb"'!"*'' i”’-"" VT M.nU« eV .TlL'n^^ Appli‘«« own b' P"*""/; PUnnlnt Commi>.i°n ."d Coencl If .0 «Ppl'C»o> ^ ''"“b'' ^ .11 «h.du1.d rc.l..Y ,e h..c .» .olherirra .«rol eumd b- r"' J r ■ 9 9 O ^ clJ li w 0i(i U' \J 2380 SHADYWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS NAMES: Adam Smith Company 700 Cedar Street, #121 Alexandria, Mn. 56308 Attn: Ted Christianson Phone # (320)763-3886 North Central Conservative Baptist Association Address Unknown i4i£i«A^' ri^4if1iJ» a^k-ti .«ii IMA.WII. a ^ t.r^i U-Aa^lti*>'VA'>«ki-T<Wir « .\«rJWr« Af an<iiy IB.I ^ .-nvntCl'k-^ kMaa aOr.k-UA/in r • K. 1 ’ ’A i Ti. '- • >* * -^ »r . / - '*•■' -N y 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD yj .* > LEGAL DESCRIPTIOx>J AND PID#: Lots 19,20,21, and 22, Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka; and that part of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 to the Northeasterly line of the public highway running across said Lot 5 and known as Minnetonka Lake Park and Maple Plain Road (now County Road No. 19); thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said road to the Easterly line of Lot 5; thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Hennepin County Abstract and Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 7764609 .1 PID#:17-117-23-44-0077 17-117-23-44-0078 17-117-23-44-0007 17-117-23-44-0006 • J ] '51(69)/^ r “I'W ^ (18) Its «■ ‘tfiX \ =’jH>J\(j^; V ^> \* ' I rx *C_-» 50-1 w- 7t." j(l4l)(65M64; 4? 7 (62) yc-j 50 M % / 1 Ifr -< 1 9 5 A 50 cee' i‘il 2.5 U21 50 J Jbu» NSO . » 50 '^-1 4^ •^j(83) ...,yl'........... 50 i S3 7' M ‘I _ cn : ' 1 24 H i5Q f9fs'. • !0 O T «»•23-88 ^ 55>iS9t)5 _______ H65-'-...................-315.32 -------------- —• , 3 a L I34i .-, • 3-5.3? 'K^iVyi '? ,.j.'j>Vj'*/st«- 5C/D ’'X \ 54 V /^\-v . /' 2/^ -iC// v/£K (9 /*'‘A (8) ,."X'^' ' /'ttssss*^^ 1 iii!? /*; ,..,-4P®®\ M/l/ (,o,) W\' T/ ^ V iCO; » ' \ \ / 'v?> tA e‘ y» » i.-v '••*' \ / ‘'•.C' '0^ - :• ^ . \ /i.5.07'^^:-'* “irsrswcjst^!£I23 'n.jiX : " “ . “■\*o* »“ r?lr(37_;4yw-E J91.C7 . .■ I'i *i 4.S ,' / '■■ir N? ’Ojfiw #V O* X ^•j> X NW'i‘ ■ c. '- XTi iXi y’^j’-K I<>JI.f>T * %y/c;,,> s (55) ^ c* 29!^y6^j£|LL----- (45' 245 P‘ ^ '<?\ tf^vV •®'- '‘ •'-.../y&N \ X'' N30N9Ve* c'7y fj____ « > C\ *c. '■' (32) 0 RUN DATE 12/03/97 BATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OJSNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 12 PROP ADDR ONNER Name TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 43 0002 02296 SHAOYHOOO RO SCOTT N GARDNER SCOTT H GARDNER 2296 SHADYNOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0023 03414 LIVINGSTON AVE ROSEMARY P DURMASTER ROSEMARY P BURMASTER 3414 LIVINGSTON AVE NAY2ATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0062 03433 LIVINGSTON AVE JEFFREY A KLEMAN JEFFREY ALLEN KLEMAN 244 BROAD^IAY AVE N HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 43 0078 03422 LYRIC AVE DANIEL E SNANSON DANIEL E SNANSON 3422 LYRIC AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0081 03408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0099 03400 SHORELINE DR DALE S JOHNSON NAVARRE HARONARE C/0 DALE JOHNSON 3400 SHORELINE DR PO BOX 40 Ni^VARRE MN 55392 38 17-117-23 43 0079 03408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0082 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO TONN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0154 03405 LIVINGSTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SHERYL A PATTEN 3405 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0080 03408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND Cir/ OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0083 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 44 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO TONN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 44 0006 02380 SHADYHOOD RD GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE ADAM SMITH COMPANY 700 CEDAR ST 1121 PO BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA MN 56308 38 17-117-23 44 0007 02364 SHADYNOOD RD GRACE BAPTIST CHURCHA4AVARRE ADAM SMITH COMPANY 700 CEDAR ST 1121 PC BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA MN 56308 38 17-117-23 44 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP AODR ONNER NATE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 44 0009 02377 SHADYNOOD RO MARCEL S DITTRICH MARCEL DITTRICH 2377 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0015 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX b6 CRYSTAL BAY m 55323 38 17-117-23 44 0025 02205 BAYVIEN PL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR ET AL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR AND BARBARA J SIPPRELL-BIRCH 2205 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE 12/03/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 505 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 17-117-25 44 0026 02215 BAYVZEN PL RAJ HAZARD ROBERT RAYMOND HAZARD 2215 BAYVIEN PL HAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-25 44 0027 02225 BAYVIEN PL TERESA ANNE KOCH TERESA KOCH 2225 BAYVIEN PUCE HAYZATA MN 55591 PROP AODR OWER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 17-117-23 44 0029 02255 BAYVIEN PL 6 M LENIN ACM OLSON-KOSKA GREG LENIN/CAROL OLSON-KOSKA 2255 BAYVIEN PL HAYZATA MN 55591 38 17-117-25 44 0030 02265 BAYVIEN PL DAVIO N DEAN A OIANE M DEAN DAVIL' N A DIANE M DEAN 2265 BAYVIEN PUCE HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 17-117-25 44 0032 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55591 38 17 .17-23 44 0033 02305 BAYVIEN PL R M STELLING ETAL GENE H BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55591 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR : 38 17-117-23 44 0060 03324 NAVARRE U BRETT HALLONQUIST BRETT K HALLONQUIST 5524 NAVARRE LA NAYATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0063 02344 OLIVE AVE JAMES S HEITZ JAMES S HEITZ 2344 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 17--117-23 44 0065 02328 OLIVE AVE J T JACOBSON t L 0 J T JACOBSON A L 0 2328 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA IM 55391 JACOBSON JACOBSON 38 17-117-23 44 0066 02318 OLIVE AVE PATRICK N SULLIVAN PATRICK N SULLIVAN 2318 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 44 0068 02306 OLIVE AVE N S MATUSKA A K M MATUSKA N S MATUSKA A K M MATUSKA 2306 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0069 02300 OLIVE AVE MARGARET A WOOD MARGARET A NOOO 2300 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 13 38 17-117-23 44 0028 02245 BAYVIEN PL GINA I SIMCRS GINA I SUMMERS 2245 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0031 •02275 BAYVIEN PL JAMES R ANDERSON JAMES R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEN PUCE NAYZATA MN 55391 Cf) 38 17-117-23 44 0059 03320 NAVARRE U PAUL J PASCUZZI PAUL J PASCUZZI 3320 NAVARRE U HAYZATA MN 55391 i! •4J f 38 17-117-23 44 0064 02338 OLIVE AVE B A JAKUBIAK A L M JAKUBIAK BRIAN A JAKUBIAK 2338 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0067 02314 OLIVE AVE LOUISE B OAY LOUISE B DAY 2314 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0073 02314 SHAOYWOOO RO S R C K MORKRIO STEVEN R A KAREN MORKRID 2314 SHADYHOOO RD NAYZATA W 55391 ■ > '; ^ I ...J V-'" 't. RUN DATE X2/03/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST BATCH 505 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 17-117-25 A4 007^ 0252^ SHADYHOOO RO RICHARD JOSEPH HAEFNER RICHARD JOSEI it HAEFNER 252^ SHADYHOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55591 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 17-117-25 A4 0077 05526 NAVARRE LA GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE ADAH SMITH COMPANY 700 CEDAR ST 8121 PO BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA HN 56508 PROP AOOR ONNER .NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 58 17-117-25 64 0080 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TONN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 17-117-25 44 0094 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED UFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEONNERS UFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEONNERS P 0 BOX 41 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55561 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 17-117-25 44 0101 05560 SHORELINE DR L 6 C KOEHNEN LEROY KOEHNEN 5560 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA HN 55591 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME T^rXTAYER NAHE/ADilR 38 17-117-25 44 0107 02504 SHADYNOOD RD CRAIG ALLEN BORCHARDT CRA;:; ALLEN BORCHARDT 2504 SHADYNOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 14 58 17-117-25 44 0075 02556 SHADYHOOO RD J t B ERICSON JOHN C A BARBARA E ERICSON 1620 SHADYNOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0076 02556 SHADYNOOD RD JOHN C A BARBARA E ERICSON JOHN A BARBARA ERICSON 1620 SHADYNOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0078 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE ADAH SMITH COTO’ANY 700 CEDAR ST 1121 PO BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA MN 56508 58 17-117-25 44 0079 02541 SHADYNOOD RD LOUISE A GANGELHOFF LOUISE A GANGELHOFF 2541 SHADYNOOD RD HAYZATA HN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0084 02550 OLIVE AVE GARY L HILL GARY L HILL 2550 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0085 05540 SHORELINE DR V0YA6EUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 BOX 65 NAVARRE MN 55592 58 17-117-25 44 0099 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55525 58 17-117-25 44 0100 05582 SHORELINE DR GLASS II PARTNERS DONALD HCCARVILLE 5582 HARNER LA HOUND MN 55564 58 17-117-25 44 C 102 02565 SHADYHOOO RO S H SCHMIDT A S J SCHMIDT STEPHEN H SCHMIDT 2585 SHADYNOOD RO BOX 15 HAYZATA MN 55591 56 17-117-25 44 0106 02506 SHADYHOOO RD PHYLLIS HENDERSON PHYLLIS HENDERSON 2506 SHADYNOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 36 20-117-25 11 0002 02420 SHADYNOOD RO VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD 15 A 19 NAVARRE MN 55592 56 20-117-25 11 0024 05555 SHORELINE DR MGT COMPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 MPLS MN 55440 Umax n n 1 t in ■ fm i RUN DATE 12/05/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A0I PAGE 15 BATCH 505 PROP AODR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR TOTAL BATCH 505 00054 J '/J I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEUrtPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. Z') I2’V-91DATE '-i V T •• . - f? .V if C V:‘I • r I o CJ City of Orono - General Land Use Application 2380 Shadywood Road, Navarre, Minnesota Appl’cant; Orono Development, LLC Owner: Adam Smith Company and North Central Conservative Baptist Association P-] Description of Variance Application: The enclosed comprises the application for a variance request for the proposed commercial development at 2380 Shadywood Road in Navarre, Minnesota. The proposed development site is zoned B-5 and the site currently contains the vacant baptist church located near the intersection on County Roads #19 and #15. The adjacent commercial property is occupied by a commercial use, O'Sullivan's convenience store and Culver's restaurant. The other nearby uses include a Super Valu grocery store, an Amoco service station and single family residential homes. The variances requested include the following: 1) Allowed uses in B-5 2) Hardcover ordinance 3) Front yard setback 1) The B-5 zoning district in the City of Orono has specific permitted uses. Although the proposed bank use is allowed in the B-5, there are several uses which are specifically not described in the ordinance which could be considered as tenants for this proposed development. These include coffee, bagel and pizza retail stores. The current zoning allows several similar retail uses under a conditional use in the B-5, such as, "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store,". This variance application requests the approval of these proposed uses under a conditional use permit. 2) The City of Orono has an ordinance which provides for allowed percentage of coverage of hardcover within a specified distance from lakeshore. The property at 2380 Shadywood Road falls within two separate shoreline districts, zone one to the northeast and zone two to the southwest. In both these areas the proposed development does not meet the specified maximum thirty five percent hardcover for properties within 500 to 1,000 feet of lakeshore. The inability to meet this ordinance is based on unique property characteristics. The proposed development site contains an existing storm water ponding area on the back of the site which was built to accommodate the O'Sullivan's/Culver's property. The existence of this ponding area severely restricts the design flexibility needed to meet the hardcover requirements. The advantage the ponding does provide, is that it allows the proposed development the ability to manage its storm water within the ponding area, protecting the wetland and area lakes from direct property run-off. The proposed developed site also contains severe site grades. These site grades will require that an area of the site be filled and a retaining wall built to provide a level building site. These grades and required retaining wall further limit the flexibility of design to meet hardcover requirements. The combination of thev unique site conditions limit the flexibility needed to r # ‘M meet the hardcover requirements. The variance request appears to be consistent with existing conditions of the surrounding properties. 3) The City of Orono requires a twenty foot setback for parking areas in a front yard. The front yard of the proposed development is along Shadywood Road and is proposed to have a five foot setback. The five foot setback would include a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic along Shadywood Road in front of the development. The front yard setback on this proposed development is physically limited because of the existing ponding area on the east side (rear) of the site. The location of this pond and the required depths of the proposed building, including drive and parking areas severely restrict the ability to provide a twenty foot setback as required by the City ordinance. Due to the location of the existing ponding area, a front yard setback of twenty feet would impact the ability of the proposed development to manage the storm water from this site in a potentially decreased ponding area. • i n summary, our review of the proposed variance requests should result in a very favorable development for the 2380 Shadywood Road location. The requests for allowed uses under conditional use permit, the hardcover requirement variance and front yard setback variance do not appear to be inconsistent with neighboring and existing properties within the B-S districts. The proposed variances are an attempt to comply with the existing conditions, ordinances and meet the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plans are a reflection of the special site conditions which are an effort to strike a balance between proposed land use plans, the law and the City's Comprehensive Plan. file:omodesc2 - • • 9 City of Orono - General Land Use Application 2380 Shadywood Road, Navarre, Minnesota mq ,<QO “fr i-.-.,..?£ a I Applicant: Orono Development, LLC Owner: Adam Smith Company and North Central Conservative Baptist Association Description of General Land Use Application: comprises the application for a commercial site plan review for 2380 Shadywood Road. The proposed development site is zon^d B-5. The site currently contains the vacant baptist church located near the intersection of County Roads #19 and #15. The adjacent commercial property is occupied by a commercial use, O’Sullivan ’s convenience store and Culvers restaurant. Some of the other nearby uses include a Super Valu grocery store an Amoco service station and single family residential homes. improvements at 2380 Shadywood Road would remove the vacant church bu! ding and provide a site for a one story 11,000 square fool retail/service center building The building would be constructed as slab on grade with a pitched roof and a combination brick and cedar sided exterior. The proposed exterior materials are anticipated to provide a reasonable transition between the neighboring single family and commercial uses. The development of the building would include surface on-site parking, site lighting and appropriate landscaping for a development m the City of Orono. The anticipated tenants for the development include a bank. The bank would require a drive up facility to provide for customer banking transactions which is an allowed use in B-5 The proposed design and location of the drive up facility is located away from the adjacent single tamily residential homes and would be operated on a compatible basis with the surrounding neighborhood. The neighboring Culver’s restaurant, also located in a B-5 district, also has a drive up service window. The submitted plans detail that the proposed development will be ponding any storm water m the on site pond area that was developed with the O’Sullivan ’s/Culver’s development. In addition, the site plan provides for a paved trailAvalkway across the property on the north east side of the proposed building. This paved trail/vvalkway is intended to provide pedestrian access from the Olive Avenue neighborhood up to Shadywood Road. application to the City of Orono also includes an application for a variance under the B-5 zoning district. The variance request includes several items, including a variance for allowed uses in the B-5 district, a variance for front yard setback and a variance for this property with regard to the hardcover ordinance. A separate variance application is enclosed for these three requests. It IS expected the demolition of the existing church would occur in March, construction and site work w'ould begin in April and completion scheduled for September 1998. 'b- m #29,9.^ Based on the initial review of the plans with City staff and the submitted plans for the development, we believe the request for approval of the commercial site plan review is reasonable and look forward to the upcoming public hearing with the Orono Planning Commission. I tl i i ORONO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 225 Minneapolis, MN 55422-5146 612-377-7090 RECEIVED JAN 1 6 1998 CITY OF QROf JO January 15, 1998 Mr. Mike Gafron Senior Plarming Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. 55356 Re; 2385 Shadywood Road Orono Development, LLC Dear Mike: Please be aware that we sent seven notices out to the surrounding property owners of 2380 Shadywood Road. The mailings included site and elevation plans as well as a general description of the proposed development. Two of the seven mailings were returned because the land owners were no longer at the addresses supplied by Hennepin County. We called each property owner and heard several comments. The comments included, Navarre needs a restaurant to have breakfast at, will the stormwater pond be improved upon along Olive Avenue and no questions regarding the plans for the proposed development. Of the five who received the mailing, only one has not returned our calls. Please contact me with any questions regarding the above. We look forward to the public hearing on January 20,1998 with the Planning Commission. Thank you. ; Thomas Dillon Project Manager r r* f ■ t ORONO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C 5000 Glcnwood Avenue, Suite 225 Minneapolis, MN 55422-5146 612-377-7090 December 31, 1997 SH Schmidt & SJ Schmidt Stephen H. Schmidt 2385 Shady wood Road Box #15 Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Re: 2380 Shadywood Road Navarre, Mn. Dear Stephen Schmidt: Orono Development, LLC, is a development company who has recently submitted a site and building plan to the City of Orono for a proposed building at the above captioned address in Navarre. The City of Orono requires that in connection with that site and building plan application, that we contact the surrounding property owners and make them aware of our plans for the site. Therefore, enclosed is a site plan and building elevation of the proposed building at the 2380 address. The City of Orono requests that you sign the enclosed Acknowledgment form and return a copy of the form to their offices in the enclosed envelope. We plan to corUact y-m by telephone during the week of January 5,1998 to answer any questions that you may have regarding the enclosed information. You may also contact me at 377-7090 with any inquiries. Thank you your assistance. i < Thomas Dillon Proj'*ct Manager Enclosure ► tbL- I . .J r - ii I (wc) Adjacent Property Owneri* Acknowledgement Form (P \/A iJ of 33HO Sko^{FL.\tOi^ [print namc(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvernent or proposed use of the property located 2380 Shadywood Roat^tsp referred to as Land Use Application No #2326 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (axe) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval Date Date RECEIVED JAN 0 9 1990 CITY OP OROi^o If you have an> infonnation that nu) assist the Cuy in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your conunenLs to the Outlduig Zoning OO kc at least lO da>i ptioi to the scheduled meeting date a irw rii *-r-rr rn<-I ^ ^1 1 AdjaccDt Propert)T Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) ^ of ICo'^^ S/f [print namc(s))[print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located 2380 Shadywood Roat^j^p referred to as Land Use Application No ^2326 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Coi^il approval. y -^-9K Property Owner Date y -S' Date ' If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building Si Zoning OHice at least 10 days nrir>r fVi/* <r h i n t r “7*-’ r li ■ I (wc) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form ______________ of [print name(s))(prim address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 238 0 Shadywood Roac^isp referred to as Land Use Application No #2326 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to coofirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval Date Property Owner Date RSCEiVSD JAN 1 6 1998 CITY OF Oao.N'O If yea have any infonnation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit yoiu comments to the Building .t 7omng t)n'uc at le.vst lO days . • I f i i I ! . I f i J tc* 5 % > 4 o I 3 © JJo Do C/)m O -n J3 0 Z H m f-m1 oz n. j #;liuii: mmiiii r~i Hr L' m iii! rrr Ml IZZl 10H iii' II \ rr? I r '■» f 111iLilli -"'i ' T’Milii! 1 ! ^ i!li ! ’ 1 , r ♦s 1 ■1 ! 1 F j 1 r* t 1 1 !! !l !! I! H •1 - Ii >! 3 > If KJ\ : - j , - ■n 31si0 1 -4 / i D U I Zo “05 z Hma > Olo l"o 2 “0 !; •/* .V #ri H j') ' / 0 M Ol s]lpj f i '1 ; 0/4 T T 'r 1 !l vS I 7 » 3 5 ^I $ • o ■ inn‘ M I ? 9^0 1 hftl>0 i| J! 31 1''M ij 1wI i iril ImI Dil PFOPOSED DEVaOPMEWr ORONO RETAIL BUILDING ORONO. MINNESOTA n •Sii!§ 3m!* >*l‘di‘5% - {! V <1l5 U \ 7^ I 1 I I I 9 S 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to a^ line, 15 fee\to any side lot line, 35 feet to any si4e lot line adiacent to st\eet; except when abutting or across t^ street from an "R" District no building shall be less than 35^^eet from such lot line. F. \ Fencing. Wherever a y^-4” Office and Professional Busings District abuts an "R" D^trict along the side or rear lot line, a\fence or compact everq^en hedge not less than 50% opaque nor lessXthan six feet in h^ght (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacen^o street) shall be erected along the abutting lin^ except withipr the required front yard. G. Buildnig Desi 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagr and Construction. See Section G. H. Drainage.XNo land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that r^u\ts in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits oiyldjac^Qt properties. Site plans shall be submibxed by the applicant in such detail as required by the Gounod and those plans shall be reviewed by the Citv Engineer befor^ submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approy^. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a^atural water course, ponding area, storm drain o other publicyfacilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff wheti^r onto adjacent property or otherwise njust be i compliance^ith the Surface Water Management Plan and shall d consistarf? with other applicable regulations or provisi^s and subject to the approval of other agencies havi g juris^ction over the area affected by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in ■ction 10.75. SBC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. suba. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood controls. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location o "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as ^ City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) r 'f n« Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Bncinoe- land shall be used except for one of t^= following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Be C. D. E. F. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. estate office. company, insurance company, real H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. S. Record shop. T. Music store. U. Tobacco shop. V. Galleries. W. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. structure or land silVi" 'V. Business District, no except by%ondmonaf use per^itf uses desserts, soft drink^sto«."‘^'^' Cfea™. popcorn, nuts, frozen Drycleaning store. 3. Tailor shop. 4. Pressing and shoe shine shop. 5. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. '3'=' IlLmrU dlld IMhIph agnipm^^l. 7. Veterinary clinic. 8. Kennels. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) 1 1 ! 1 I 1 I 1 1 ] 1 i f f 1 S 10.44 B- Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I” Districfc and tfi in hh*» ^ama nunorchin a« hhoanother "B" or "I” District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-S” Limited Neighborhood Business District, ' the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A.rt. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the promises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. square feet. feet. feet. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to ”R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R” District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) > § 10.44 „ . . J* Fencing. Wherever a "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District abuts an ”R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, to sny building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: L *. shall be:1. All exterior wall finishes on any building (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, ^ (d) Specially designed precase concrete units If the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or. . Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. " . . « ^ Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted.Tl 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with whe original architectural design and general appearance. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. . Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods. erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage Bn plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 350 (4-1-84)m I j CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 8 0 A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO THE FUTURE VACATION OF AN UNUSED PORTION OF NAVARRE LANE IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 117 NORTH, RANGE 23 \VEST IN THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2197 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 1996, John O’Sullivan (hereinafter the "applicant") in conjunction with North Central Conser\'ative Baptist Association filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka"; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 21 extended to a point 33.0 feet northwesterly from the northwesterly line of Outlet C, "Lafayette Ridge", as measured perpendicularly from said northwesterly line; thence southwesterly parallel to the northwesterly line of said Outlet C to the most northerly comer of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1433; thence southwesterly to a point on the northwesterly line of said Tract A, 253.03 feet southwesterly of the most northerly comer of said Tract A; thence North 31 degrees 52 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 43.82 feet more or less to a point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5, Block 3, "Tovvnsite of Langdon Park"; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, Block 3 to the most easterly comer of said Lot 5, Block 3; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of Lot 22, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the most southerly point of said Lot 22; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly lines of Lots 22 and 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the point of beginning; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the Orono Planning Commission on November 18, 1996, regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and Page 1 of 3 ii CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8880 i ' WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the requested vacation; and the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed and with suitable conditions, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1. The vacation will not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road except for utilities, drainage and access purposes hereinafter described. 3. The imimproved dedicated right-of-way as it currently exists serves no public purposes which cannot be satisfied via the use of easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of John O’Sullivan and North Central Conservative Baptist Association is conditionally approved and that the City hereby agrees to take formal action to vacate said portion of Navarre Lane subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. The City will formally vacate Navarre Lane at the time development of the adjacent 2380 Shady wood Road site is commenced by the applicant. This agreement to complete the vacation shall be more formalized in the form of a Developer's Agreement. In conjunction with applicant's development of the property located at 2380 Shadywood Road, applicant agrees to construct a sidewalk/bike path near the northwest boundary of the property, linking Olive Avenue and Shadywood Road, the design of such sidewalk/bike path subject to review by the City Engineer and approval by the City Council. Applicant shall grant utilities, access and drainage easements over the portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated. Page 2 of 3 r 1'!' CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ---g.g 3 0------ D.Applicant shall grant to the City a 10' easement for fliture trail purposes along the northeasterly boundary of the 2380 Shady wood Road property adjacent to Olive Avenue. 6.Applicant shall grant to the City a 10 ’ wide trail easement centered on the centerline of the sidewalk^ike path to be located near the northwesterly boundary of the 2380 Shadyw’ood Road property. 7.Although the City is being granted trail easements over the pedestrian and bike pathway, that path within applicant's property boundaries shall be maintained by the property owner, not by the City. It is the City’s intent that all upkeep, maintenance and snow removal activity will be the responsibility of the property owner, not of the City. 8.Applicant shall legally combine the vacated portions of right-of-way with the adjacent 2380 Shady wood Road property. 9.Applicant shall be responsible for executing the appropriate drainage, utility, access and pedestrian/bike trail easements as noted above. Such easements shall be filed at the time the vacation resolution is filed by the City Attorney's Office. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held January 13, 1997. Gabriel^bbour, MayorN^ Page 3 of 3 Boneuroo. AnceruK ^nrf A.iocMc, Inc „ ^ AfI.rmM.vc Aa.on CquAl Oppc,tunny Employe, Robm W '■pV ^ A“ eoVdon PE .Robert W Rosene. PE ana Susan M Eberim. C PA . Senior Consultants R.Jhj^d w Fn'ir'’‘’pr”°n^'‘’'' ^ Coraon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE . M^e. Tp , ■ oc ° A Han,on P£ . s.dre pL"h“ ‘ Anderjon. PE . Marie R. Rolf,. PE .Sidney P Willianuon. PE. I S . Robert F Kot,m.th Office! St Paul. Roche,ter. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects January 12, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Orono Development, L.L.C. File No. 139-2327 Dear Mike, P™''”'.'' ""'“■--I developmem located on .he eas, side of 1 north of Navarre Lane and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) in Navarre The development includes a full service bank with drive-up auto tellers and a single story retail office complex There are several engineering issues that will need to be addressed as part of the pl2i review process. ^ Shadywood Road. The south access is very close to the gnahzed intersection. This access will create problems with traffic on the county roads and we would recommend that the site be served with only one access at a location further north o^f the intersection As a ininimum we would suggest that the south access be restricted to only right-turn in 'right-turn out movements^ Left turn movements should only be made at the north accek Hennepin Sty mime engineere should review the site plan to determine the traffic impacts on CSAH 19. Tho r revievv should S right-of-way, and whether or not additional Sr rr «s needed in this vicinity. The proposed signing along CSAH 19 may create sight restrictions lor traffic leaving the site. Details should be provided for pylon signs and entrance monuments. Grading; It ap(^ that the design grades at the northerly access and in several areas within the parking 10 rdernni '‘hat access and poking cornml^ , rr ‘ ^ ‘h^ 3:1 . Fiber blanket or comparable erosion feet HI "''“^'"'‘I'hould be used until vegetation is established. The proposed retaining wall is over 10 feet tall in some taions. Retaining wall design and details should be provided for review. Fencincr will likely be required above the wall for safety purposes. ruiun^ win Drainage: The NU^ pond expansion should provide a 10:1 bench at the N\VL around the entire pond outlenlna? ‘""‘"‘hli^hment of aquatic vegetation. The 12 inch storm sewer at 13.8 percent gmder rs r^rs-it.; ts-st Utilities, '^e existing sanity sewer and water main to ser\e this property are located with'*' the right- of-way for Navarre Lane. Plans and specifications should be prepared for the service line connecti^s with as-built plans provided to the City upon completion ’ 2. 3. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 - 612-636-4600 - Fax; 6I2-636-I3II 5.Easements: Utility easements will need to be provided for the existing sanitary sewer, gas main and any other existing utilities located in the abandoned portion of Navarre Lane. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along the perimeter lot lines and 10 feet wide along the County road right- of-way. Drainage easements should be provided across existing and expanded ponding areas. 7. Trail: The proposed sidewalk/bike trail is shown across the parking lot. This location may not be appropriate. We would recommend a trail alignment that follows the westerly and southerly perimeter of the site. 8. Financial Guarantee: We have estimated the total cost for site improvements at $169,100. The cost estimate is attached for your review. A financial guarantee for 150 percent of this amount or $253,650 should be provided to the City. Please contact me at 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg ’ cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 1 . I \ » ; r I I L CITY OF ORONO ORONO DEVELOPMENT, L.LC. COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAT FILE NO. 2327 ITEM Mobilization Site grading Pond excavation Stabilization fabric Aggregate base, Cl. 5,100% crushed Type 31 bit. base course Type 41 bit. wear course B618 concrete curb and gutter 12“ RCP storm sewer 15“ RCP storm sewer 12“ F.E.S. Std. storm sewer manhole Std. catch basin manhole Std. 2' X 3' catch basin Rip rap Silt fence Retaining wall Seeding with 4" topsoil Sod with 4“ topsoil ________ Estimated Construction Cost +50% Security Deposit Total Security Deposit Required Orono Development. L.L.C. LS SY TN TN TN LF LF LF EA EA EA EA CY LF SF AC SY EST. QUANTITY 1 1 1 4050 3100 500 450 1850 240 180 - -----Y r ; Vj 1 1 500 1440 0.3 2000 UNIT PRICE $10,000.00 $20,000.00 10,000.00 1.00 10.00 32.00 35.00 6.00 25.00 30.00 500.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 50.00 3.00 15.00 3,000.00 3.00 EST. COST $10,000 $20,000 10,000 4,050 31.000 16.000 15,750 11,100 6,000 5,400 500 5.000 2.000 2,000 300 1,500 21,600 900 6,000 $169,100 84,550 $253,650 r REQUEST FOR COIJJCIL ACTION FEB 2^ Date: February 20,1998 ^998 CITY err, Item No, Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron l^i Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2327 - Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment; B-5 District Conditional Uses Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow, as a conditional use, three specific additional uses including: 1. Coffee retail sales 2. Bagel retail sales 3. Pizza retail sales. Each of the proposed uses could be categorized as a restaurant. The B-5 District currently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use the following specific use: candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store.” List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/2/98 B - Memo and Exhibits of 1/12/98 C - Planning Commission Minutes 1/20/98 Summary of Request In conjunction with the proposed bank/office/retail building proposed at 2380 Shadywood, applicant proposed to include certain restaurant uses such as a bagel, coffee or pizza shop. It was noted that these uses are not specifically allowed in the B-5 District. Staff concluded they are so dissimilar from any of the B-5 permitted or conditional uses that an amendment to the B-5 list of allowed uses is the only method under which they could be considered, hence this application. Please review the memo and exhibits of January 12. The pro's and con s of adding bagel, coffee, and pizza retail sales are discussed, as well as the City's goats and objectives for the B-5 District. I J r Wiyil - B-5 Amendment February 20, 1998 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this request at the January 20 meeting, and on a vote of 4-1 recommended that the B-5 list of conditional uses be amended to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales, but not pizza retail sales (see January 20 minutes). It was concluded that pizza sales would be a high traffic generator, in conflict with the intent of the B-5 district, and potentially could have odor problems, late hours of operation, and other potentially negative impacts as compared to most other uses contemplated for the B-5 district. Commissioner Hawn was the minority opinion, indicating that the rezoning of the applicants site a year ago did not contemplate restaurant uses, and that such uses are not generally appropriate for the B-5 district. Planning Commission also recommended that staff research and draft appropriate conditions for these two uses in order to limit them in scope, magnitude and character to a neighborhood use rather than as something that would draw from a wide region, in keeping with the neighborhood services intent of the B-5 district. Such conditions might include: That the restaurant use must be a non-primaiy tenant in a building used primarily for a permitted or conditional use that is not a restaurant (this could be a method to avoid freestanding fast food operations) Umitation on square footage, and/or percentage of total building, devoted to each individual restaurant use Limitations on the capacity of fans allowed for exhaust venting (i.e. do not allow operations which require exhaust venting above a certain cubic feet per minute) Strict adherence to signage limitations Such conditions and limitations have not yet been developed; however, if Council conceptually agrees with the Planning Commision recommendation, staff will draft ordinance language for the March 9 council meeting. Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommendation inherently suggests that the B-5 (and perhaps all our zoning districts) need to be updated to reflect current use categories. The coffee and bagel retail sales uses are appropriate in the context of a locally-oriented service district abutting a residential neighborhood, as long as controls are in place to avoid those uses or activities which could be a -Mil ■Tlf rwi If 1 I Sit* !■ nr ■ M—i--------II ■ I 11 II 111 ~T~iT T ~ii ■" I—ir~~nr ii----------i iTiimr nnrn I J #2327 - B-5 Amendment February 20,1998 Page 3 nuisance to the neighborhood. Staff agrees that pizza retail sales may have certain aspects that are not as appropriate when in close proximity to a neighborhood. The applicant agreed to amend the application to include only coffee and bagels. Council Action Requested Review the proposed amendment to allow coffee and bagel retail sales as a conditional use in the B-S zone, and if it is agreed that this is appropriate, direct staff to draft a zoning code amendment with appropriate conditions and limitations. . ..UJS L.V •■■..•I i< - m ^ l . - ^ m^ — t».. , ^ - .w - - —w ^ ---------- w ^ ^ ---------------— A CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2327 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 2,1998 TO:Orono Development, LLC 5000 Glenwood Avenue #225 Mpis., MN 55442 ATTN: Tom Dillon COPIES TO:Adam Smith Co. 700 Cedar St. #121 Alexandria, MN 56308 ATTN: Ted Christianson TYPE OF APPLICATION:Zoning Amendment DATE OF MEETING: 1/20/98 VOTE:4 FOR 1 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1.Planning Commission recommends that the B-5 list of conditional uses be amended to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales, but not pizza retail sales. 2.Staff to draft appropriate conditional use standards for the coffee and bagel uses and submit directly to Council for review. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, February 23, 1998, 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. Note that once the B-5 zone is amended, you will have to formally apply for the CUP if you actually propose a coffee or bagel tenant. If you have questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTIONU327-2 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 12, 1998 SUBJECT: #2327 Orono Development LLP cho/i j r> j Amendment to B-5 District Allowed Uses-PubltHer^ ’ Zoning District: B-5 all ” , as a conS',1 ” L Coffee retail sales 2. Bagel retail sales 3. Pizza retail sales. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map of Applicant's Proposed Development C - Navarre Area Map Depicting All Properties Zoned B-5 u - Letter of Request E - Zoning Code Section 10.44: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District F - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Regarding Commercial Amas B-5 District Purpose a^e ®ic?primm!ly conmodities or perform .1..k .1..»,K„ r Zoning File #2327 January 12, 1998 Page 2 The permitted uses in the B-5 District include both service and retail businesses, the majority of which are typically low traffic volume and typically not 24 hour uses. (See Exhibit E) The current list of conditional uses in B-5 was last amended in October 1996 with the deletion of "home and garden equipment rental", which was concurrently made a permitted use in the B-1 District. The B-5 conditional uses include some which may involve higher traffic volumes, or somewhat more intensive use than the permitted uses. For instance, a "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store" such as the Dairy Queen, has a more intense use of the parking lot and drive thru, and has perhaps more lighting than most of the other allowed retail uses. B-5 also lists "kennels" as a conditional use, which has the potential for disrupting a neighborhood due to noise levels and possibly odors. The "home and garden equipment rental" use was moved out of the B-5 District on the basis that such use could be noisy or create noxious odors, involving the operation of engines, as well as tending toward fenced storage areas which could be visually disruptive. The B-5 District was primarily created in 1975 to accommodate existing businesses adjacent to existing single family residential areas. The intent was to limit the intensity of uses in the B-5 District to those which would not only be good neighbors, but provide a valuable service to the surrounding neighborhood. Consequently, the number of properties zoned B-5 is extremely limited, comprising approximately 5.9 acres in total, all of which is in Navarre (see Exhibit C). Nature of Proposed Uses The proposed uses appear to be primarily restaurant type uses. The zoning code defines two types of restaurants: 1."Restaurants (Class 1)" - Food is served to the customer and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a serving line and taken to a table for consumption. 2."Restaurants (Class 11)" - Fast food convenience, drive-in and liquor service restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises, or to be taken to a table, counter, automobile or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served; or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. It is unclear whether the uses proposed by applicant fall strictly into a Class I or Class II category. This is partly due to the nature of the definitions, and to some degree a function of the nature of restaurants in today's world. Staff envisions a bagel shop or coffee shop to be of a Class II nature. Wlfcwr '■ iT~ ■■ 1^1 ia~ I—^ - in Zoning File #2327 January 12,1998 Page 3 where the customer would order items at a counter which are provided to him either packaged to leave the premises, or on a tray to be taken to a table within the store for consumption. A pizza retail operation could be very similar, or it could range from a sit-down restaurant where items are ordered via d waitress from a separated kitchen; or could be merely a takeout/delivery order base station with no food eaten on the premises. It is significant to note that the only other food service type operation in the B-5 District is the Navarre Dairy Queen. It operates as a conditional use under the "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store" category. Note that the Dairy Queen continues to closely conform to the letter of this unique use, in that while it does have a drive thru window, it does not have any indoor seating, is only open seasonally, and has not become a "brazier" store where foods are fried; hot dogs/brats and barbecue are all heated on the site but no grilling occurs. The nature of this use has not, therefore, expanded to the classical restaurant type use, although it might fall under the definition of a Class II restaurant by virtue of the drive-up window. Are the Proposed Uses Appropriate in the B-5 Dutrict? Planning Commission should consider the following questions in determining whether certain limited restaurant uses might be approved within the B-5 District: 1.Are restaurants an appropriate use in the B-5 District given the intent of that district and its proximity to residential uses? 2.h./t. will the proposed restaurant type uses impact the neighborhood? Traffic? Lighting? Odors or noises? Hours of operation? On-site parking? 3.Can the identified impacts be mitigated or avoided by limitations on the nature or type of restaurant uses allowed? 4. If the proposed uses are allowed, do sufficient controls exist to exclude other restaurant type uses which would be objectionable in the B-5 District? Analysis The B-5 District was created in 1975 to provide limited business activity compatible with the adjacent and surrounding residential uses. The B-5 was also intended to provide for businesses that serve "residents in the surrounding neighborhood" as opposed to a place for City-wide or regional oriented uses. Those uses would be reserved for the B-1 or B-3 Districts. The nature of existing uses in the B-5 to a great extent matches the B-5 goals, i.e. a Dairy Queen, an auto parts store, an animal hospital, low key retail, professional office, furniture store, and (albeit non-conforming) auto repair operation, all tend to serve the surrounding neighborhood. Likewise, the nature of the r Zoning File #2327 January 12,1998 Page 4 proposed limited restaurant type uses would serve the same general neighborhood area, without being a major destination bringing in significant traffic. In that respect, the proposed uses might seem to be in keeping with the intent of the B-5 District. However, certain restaurant type uses would create potential problems in the context of the B-5 District. These problems might include: Exhaust venting of smoke/odors from baking, frying, or grilling operation. The glare of lighting, traffic volumes, litter, and other nagative impacts often associated with individual free standing fast food operations. The impact on parking need for sit down restaurants such as the Culvers in the B-1 District adjacent to applicant's development site. Hours of operation potentially extending past normal business hours. If the proposed restaurant type uses are allowed in some limited fashion. Planning Commission should direct staff to develop conditional use standards that would limit those operations to a scope and level appropriate for the B-5 District. Such limitations might include, for example: - That the restaurant use must be a non-primary tenant in a building used primarily for a permitted or conditional use that is not a restaurant (this could be a method to avoid freestanding fast food operations) - Limitation on square footage, and/or percentage of total building, devoted to each individual restaurant use - Limitations on the capacity of fans allowed for exhaust venting (i.e. do not allow operations which require exhaust venting above a certain cubic feet per minute) - Strict adherence to signage limitations Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should discuss whether an amendment to the B-5 district to allow limited restaurant type uses may be appropriate. If so, direct staff to draft standards for the level of use you feel may be appropriate, for review at your next meeting. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the proposed amendment w ith no specific conditions. 2. Table, direct staff to develop standards for some defined level of restaurant use. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. r Ir i •r 0^0 f;'4 ^^=^ppllcat.on # 2326 /^ZI A’ pgjg Received /2--2z~9*7 Amount Paid *\ CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2360 Shadywood Road/ Navarr e Type of Application to be Filed Conditional Use, Site Plan Review Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) See Attached_________________ra CL applicant Nome Orono Development/ LLC Phone (home) 377-7090 Phone (work) 377-»7090 fOcu Address 5000 cienunoH &i/o ^ t225 City Minneapnl is-------^*P-.5SA22. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name See Attached Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address City __Zip_ Date Property Acquired Adam Smith Company i^Q7 (month/yoar) |l(d40 (tlo 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 Housc/Gucst Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commcrcial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling ■ 10 1 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakcshore PRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aflcr-thc-Fact Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ^ o o o / X $250 00 Commcrciol Site Plan Review (+ consultant fces)^32-(^ _____ $30000 Vacation $200 00 Easement Vacation $100 00 Easement Vocation With Subdivision ”1(~ $350 00 Rezoning (PUD refer to fee schedule) $350 00 Comprchciuivc Plan Aniendmcnt $100 00 Appeals 9 m mm Other • see Fee Schedule PRESENT USF. OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District g-5 . . Pro-Jcnt IKr of Prop<Ttv Residential ! i X (Vhei (<pcMlv) Vacant Clnicch J r c 'Ll* - ■•'•’'I..If .-i O’ s.'i \ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. required submittals J ____Completed Application Form. -----Usl of ov«c« within 350 ’, latels and plat Mp (you — list, laws map from Hcnnapin County Depamncnt of Finance. A-603. Govcmment Center. 3CW^). ___Cettificate oT Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) —L"T££:'»i» .r persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE required TO “ “R^MALL^^r FOR " submitted.) 1 • tw:« •srsr.iicjiiion Please remember lliat ycur Certification by Clerical Depanmen. that Und Use Appliwion is complete. Initials of Clerical SlafF.^^--------■ - —----—^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE reoulicd or requested by the Zoning The applicant hereby agrees to provide all not^covered by^originul fee payment) Aoolicanl's signature -—ZZZf r lc ^^ Tom Dillon/ Orono Development/ DLC OWNER’S SIGNATURE application and furtltcr aulh«ti‘-oJd Vho owner hereby Ty afy's'aff consultanK, agents, commission mcohe'S. irctnci,rm;"^r%V4?1 ''7 “’' OvvTicr ’s sicnature Dote I "V A In...— • /<■ A t^\ ''\(23)\^X X261^',\ V^ : (104) fx zz\ 3W 5C 50 l4\ r.v.v.v 79) (eo) <r. <.« (P6^ r & ....V! ?0 50 (83) ••♦••• 50 ■2.5 ,(90) \........ 25i « cn *•'" w>-\% 1 ■A%%fs^5r/s/ ^ >, \ N /' \ /.5,0T% ■T9~5“"------------/'^rC-SO^^A1«C \C i'tUTO.^^ !" -<t.v \- V-— ' -T* ’ ii'»1E_ NJ.07 ____^ , ' =4- '■•JC N? K0?!05 hf8'*- > ^'2 \ O^JT.HT A 'ftVir«;?. > (55) '5 >-^- ,v‘cf J2*S-ii^ > 271. ^ j r5.*i2 So7*35*»5-fc WA?!?.iE 3 1 (46^ 132) \'—*7 V N30N3'^€*^ ''' -‘5»<f ’. ^-r^itvAjr t_ £ ^ v'2t 1"‘ijL '-' a\ W--il».>- 2 I _ :K*'_*. , >—. ■s^’ t ^ Ifv r\ IX via -^|:s •* -sfij-r^ Tt*' ^ » 1 ■ Z)li WtVAItll rfs^ ??Ti 9 s*c 'V-ja •xV^ 5 •'*** ' vL-,s.; • ?v1•XB ?sr- 1 t.■X- • [Xt <C^—i s-v:,11 \ yii f, *v^ fe /Ti •ys,^\ City ofOrono-General Land Use Application * * 2380 Shadywood Road, Navarre, Minnesota Applicant: Orono Development, LLC Owner: Adam Smith Company and North Central Conservative Baptist Association h Description of Variance Application: The enclosed comprises the application for a variance request for the proposed commercial development at 2380 Shadywood Road in Navarre, Minnesota. The proposed development site is zoned B-5 and the site currently contains the vacant baptist church located near the intersection on County Roads #19 and #15. The adjacent commercial property is occupied by a commercial use, O'Sullivan's convenience store and Culver’s restaurant. The other nearby uses include a Super Valu grocery store, an Amoco service station and single family residential homes. The variances requested include the following: 1) Allowed uses in B-5 2) Hardcover ordinance 3) Front yard setback 1) The B-5 zoning district in the City of Orono has specific permitted uses. Although the proposed bank use is allowed in the B-5, there are several uses which ^e specifically not described in the ordinance which could be considered as tenants for this proposed development. These include coffee, bagel and pizza retail stores. The current zoning allows several similar retail uses under a conditional use in the B-5, such as, "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store,". This variance application requests the approval of these proposed uses under a conditional use permit. 2) The City of Orono has an ordinance which provides for allowed percentage of coverage of hardcover within a specified distance from lakeshore. The property at 2380 Shadywood Road falls within two separate shoreline districts, zone one to the northeast and zone two to the southwest. In both these areas the proposed development does not meet the specified maximum thirty five percent hardcover for properties within 500 to 1,000 feet of lakeshore. The inability to meet this ordinance is based on unique property characteristics. The proposed development site contains an existing storm water ponding area on the back of the site which was built to accommodate the O’Sullivan’s/Culver's property. The existence of this ponding area severely restricts the design flexibility needed to meet the hardcover requirements. The advantage the ponding does provide, is that it allows the proposed development the ability to manage its storm water within the ponding area, protecting the wetland and area lakes from direct property run-off. The proposed developed site also contains severe site grades. These site grades will require that an area of the site be filled and a retaining wall built to provide a level building site. These grades and required retaining wall further limit the flexibility of design to meet hardcover requirements. The combination of these unique site conditions limit the flexibility needed to .-V. r-. ' ' . .V »v V’' " V•*" -N meet the hardcover requirements. The variance request appears to be consistent with existing conditions of the surrounding properties. 3) The City of Orono requires a twenty foot setback for parking areas in a front yard. The front yard of the proposed development is along Shadywood Road and is proposed to have a five foot setback. The five foot setback would include a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic along Shadywood Road in front of the development. The front yard setback on this proposed development is physically limited because of the existing ponding area on the east side (rear) of the site. The location of this pond and the required depths of the proposed building, including drive and parking areas severely restrict the ability to provide a twenty foot setback as required by the City ordinance. Due to the location of the existing ponding area, a front yard setback of twenty feet would impact the ability of the proposed development to manage the storm water from this site in a potentially decreased ponding area. In summary, our review of the proposed variance requests should result in a very favorable development for the 2380 Shadywood Road location. The requests for allowed uses under conditional use permit, the hardcover requirement variance and front yard setback variance do not appear to be inconsistent with neighboring and existing properties within the B-5 districts. The proposed variances are an attempt to comply with the existing conditions, ordinances and meet the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plans are a reflection of the special site conditions which are an effort to strike a balance between proposed land use plans, the law and the City's Comprehensive Plan. file:omodesc2 ,HI .1 i.aai < I 11 a P ni ■ i S 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer th^ 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet b6 any rear lot line, 15 fd«t to any side lot line, 35 feet to a;>y side lot line ^eet; except when abutting or acro;rb the street from lot 1' building shall be less thay^)5 feet from such Nfencing. Wherever/a Office and Professional BusinessSoistrict abuts an "|r District along the side line, a fence or compact ev;«green hedge not less than th^^ six feet iry^eight (no less than three teet nor higher than fourNfeet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines ext^pt within the required front yard. G. Building d. 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparag n and Construction. See Section >h G • H. Drainage^ No ihnd shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that yesults iiKwater runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits oyadjacent pn^erties. Site and drainage plans shall be submi^ed by the ap^icant in such detail as required by the Couryil and those plansyshall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to theN?lanning Commission and Council for appro^l. Such runoff may be\:equired to be properly channeled into a/hatural water course, pondifw area, storm drain or other public^^^cilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whetiyr onto adjacent property or o^erwise must be in compliance yWith the Surface Water Management>Plan and shall be consistery with other applicable regulationV or City Code proyisiojfs and subject to the approval of other fancies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. _ - A . !• Height. No structure or building slhsLll exceed stories or thirty feet in height except as pr^ided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-S" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intend^-d to provide a district for businesses ®^PPly commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surroundi* ; ighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators ani do not necessitate an inordinate amount district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the the uses 3re limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that that use distcic*’. since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) s 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any ''B-5“ Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council:. A. B. C. D. E. F. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. estate office. G. Banks; loan company, insurance company, real H. I. J. K. L. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. S. T. U. V. W. Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. 3. Tailor shop. 4. Pressing and shoe shine shop. 5. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. . __^—Homo and garden oquipmont renfea-JU- betergb io/2V/^U 7. Veterinary clinic. z^. 8. Kennels. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) p>' p § 10.44 B. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5” Limited Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses; A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 B. Lot Width, The minimum lot width shall be 100 C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 square feet. feet. feet. D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet, E. Setback Requirements, No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) r S 10.44 F, Fencing. Wherever a "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: shall be: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precase concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or. (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade “fecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or othc. ..se roust be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 350 (4-1-84) J M s 10.44 I. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in Source: Ordinance No. 188 Effective Date: 11-22-76 (Sections 10.45 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 351 (4-l-84> t ► LAND USE 1 JUNE, 1980 LAND USE GOALS AND PQLTCTFS Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed by Orono residents over the last 25 years. LAND USE GOALS 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2. TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3. TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR A VARIETY OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 4. 5. 6. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. TO COORDINATE LAND USES AND DEVELOPED DENSITY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. S GENERAL LAND IJSF PQI TCTFS 1.THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Service Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Maraaement Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown OP Map No. 6. 2.ORONO S LAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan. Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting their misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. CMP 4-12 »» I rrrn r irri- ini - ir iti - - 11 i ir r-re - nm- rri-em y nfri-rg>ir>fiTi-fc.h-Ir 1 i-r»y •mi I AND USE JUNE, 1980 6. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL S NOT O^RLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease ments for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same fictors act to draw development which can be destructive if not pr ®.rly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland arts, will be preserved insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas cf soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will bo encouraged. CMP 4-13 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 * !• 7. DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, wi.ere floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 8. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public or private. 9. ORONO'S LAND USE PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND OWNERS MUST HAVE EQUAL lAND USE OPPORTUNITIES. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and require ments of the Community Management Plan. 12. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development: should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. CMP 4-14 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 I M CBLE 13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. 14. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, Improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical Improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the f..N;se of unusual land uses or building configura tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. 15. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. 16. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 >T If the Individual development’s density increase or impact is relatively small, or the layout is not conducive to public land dedication, then in liev', of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of i such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. 17. NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT’S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be of such size, >aracter and location that it can be safely usee for the intended purpose without danger to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography. Inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. i\ URBAN LAND USE POLICIES THE MAJORITY OF ORONO'S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 % U 1 J n a 1 a ■i 3 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono’s commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. 3. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. 4. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects y • designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. 5. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighbori''.g industrial development. CMP 4-17 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. 9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono»s Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing Increased development in those areas. 10. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. CMP 4-18 j I I a 3 I J J a itj 11 n 1 3 1 1 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while Increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USE POLICIES 1.ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono’s rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. CMP 4-19 • wi TlT fi—-t-T-r - ' —¥1 • •— LAND USE JUNE, 1980 URBAN COMMERCIAL LAND USE * z Urban commercial development is limited to two areas which are provided with all the necessary urban services and facilities. The major commercial center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner- occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. fn additional limited commercial area is designated on Highway 12 adjacent to similar land uses in the City of Long Lake. This area has utilities available from the City of Long Lake and will provide neighborhood services complimentary to those available in that City. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL LAND USE Lake access and lake user service businesses are appropriate for a lakeside community and require a lakeshore location. Special performance standards are necessary to assure protection of the lake environment and protection of neighboring properties. The primary purpose is to permit those functions that are directly necessary to support normal lake-use activities such as boat launching, boat service, boat repairs and fishing supplies. Lakeshore commercial areas are not intended for typical retail activities, including boat sales, which could be accomplished away from the lake. Accessory functions such as parking, winter storage and caretaker facilities will be appropriate in the lak'ishrre commercial areas. • One lakeshore commercial area is indicated on the Land Use Plan along Maxwell Bay where resorts and marinas have historically existed. Sanitary sewer is available for boat sa itation purposes. Expansion of the existing facilities is limited however by surrounding residential neighborhoods, lack of public transportation, and environmental constraints including a crowded bay. Therefore, only the one contiguous area is considered appropriate for dedication to this use. Additional lakeshore commercial facilities do exist along County Road 15 north of Tanager Lake Bridge. This area has fewer transportation and environmental problems than Maxwell Bay, but it is not designated in this Plan for commercial use because municipal sewer and other urban services are not available. This area would be considered for future lakeshore commercial designation should sanitary sewer become available as projected in the eSPP Facilities Plan. CMP 4-26 >Q5c/)^incDwmc/m rn^pj \I r ® N \ ® >S J 'J-i / iu (I V'^'/ /r» n) Hr / r"" '-\ Ti ’4 !■-•----•' ■ »i«**le( • • !^ jiilL.f.) j\ ^ A ! ,.'T-. ■•^ • \!; ••Im;.I 0 7 .9 /■ I \ ; \ 11,: g Vrf?V mm ^mm 0 f ^ if w • \ N 1/ .1*. i VtJf______»' ti^ps;r£rti*au 0a f aUftAAAAAAfl cS# ‘s if- • I I m y ’•‘•1 ; - “-=■■ •. ■'<■4 fjp^- VA » Jl fi T}PhW\4 I V > t%^ m fjl ~ X.SX7 .r_r»»'^—Vi 1 !■ I I I Vi V0C>-f£.> |Mn;i». s> '*'^"-j •"i\ ’"Hi. •“ /< • <u \jy Mr:: J) ■1 ./ :t '% \. Q B ■ Q IH Q B V; r '/ \r \T -- • •v (* i • •. 7 >< '!'.// O, ' v^-*' '. ''■ ': MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Gafifron said he would recommend that limitations be placed on the use as a separate line. The limitations would need to be developed. He has been given some suggestions from Shardlow, which is currently not reflected in the proposed language. Lindquist and Smith said they would like to review the language when drafted. Schroeder felt satisfied with staff handling the matter. Lindquist agreed to let staff develop the details and send it forward to the Council for review. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hawn. Council will review the application at their February 24 meeting. Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances (#19) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Variances for hardcover and front yard parking setback and a commercial site plan review to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. retail/service center building' 12:03-1:00 a.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffion reported that the application is a commercial site plan review and variance approval for the multi-retail building noted in agenda item #18. Variances include 500- 1000' zone hardcover and parking setback from street. The property is 1.86 acre site. Gaffion noted the property as it exists today and with proposed improvements for a bank buildmg and retail sales. A portion of Navarre Lane was vacated last year. The site contains stormwater management ponding serving the Culver site. Gaffion reviewed the application with regards to conformity with performance standards of the B-5 District as laid out in the information packet. He noted that the building layout is similar to what has previously been shown. Gaffion reported that the hardcover is less than what is seen elsewhere in Navarre. There will be building space for 6-8 tenants. Inside floor plans are not yet available. The permitted and conditional uses are in conformance as are lot area and lot width. The front yard setback requirement is 20' nunimum and proposed at 5*. The landscape architect lias commented that more space should be provided for plantings. A 20' rear setback is required for the through lot but proposed at 14'. Entrance monuments are also being proposed. V / /MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 / (#18- #2327 Orono Development - Continued) John O'Sullivan said his original intent for inclusion in the B-5 District had food in mind The only food in the area is at the Dairy Queen. He did not want to see fast food, which may be included in the B-1. O'Sullivan said he has spoken with people in the neighborhood, who feel the coffee and bagel sales is consistent with the neighborhood He sees tins use as the candy shop of the 1950's. Smith asked if the coffee-bagel sales purpose was to primarily serve the neighborhood or to serve area employees. Dillon said the purpose was for the neighbors and customers of the bank. The Commissioners questioned how much traffic would be generated by these uses. It was agreed that the traffic would be more than what is generated by the bank. Dillon felt the use would be subtle with the majority being take-out customers. Dillon reported that the tenants themselves determine what traffic needs they must have to generate enough business. Hawn said the B-5 District speaks of the undesirability of high traffic generators and feels the use is not compatible with this zoning district. Gaffron noted that the Dairy Queen is a seasonal business. O'Sullivan added that this particular Dairy Queen is a high volume store for a non-Brazier Dairy Queen. John Erickson suggested taking the property to the north of O'Sullivan and zoning it all commercial. Sepena asked is the uses were substantially different from that o*^a Dairy Queen. Hawn ^d she felt the Dairy Queen was present due to its historical insertion in the district. Hawri said she is against the restaurant uses. Gaffiron noted that the property was changed to B-5 from residential one year ago. Dillon said he felt the coffee-bagel use is similar to the candy, ice cream, etc. use. He will ask the applicant to amend the application to eliminate the pizza sales. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the amendment of the B-5 for allowed conditional uses to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales. Schroeder felt the neighbors would appreciate these businesses. McMilUn as^ed if the uses would be tied into the candy, ice cream, etc. category. Lindquist said the uses would be added to the list of conditional uses. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 / (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Tom Dillon, Orono Development, and Mike Sepena, the General Contractor, were present. Dillon reported that the 11,000 s.f. neighborhood service facility is intended for neighborhood use. He feels the coffee and bagel sales would be similar to that of a tobacco sales business and should be a conditional use as noted by candy, ice cream, etc. shops. Dillon noted the use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to enhance the site and community. He said he has spoken with business owners who agreed with their goals for the property. Dillon felt the coffee and bagel shop could share space. The pizza sale • would be take-out only. The hours of operation would be consistent with the neighborhood. He does not feel traffic would increase. Dillon said he agrees with recommendations made by staff for an amendment to allow the use as a conditional use, which he feels is appropriate to the neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were no public comments. Schroeder asked if the applicant was proposing all three uses. Dillon said they needed to know what uses would be allowed in order to approach perspective occupants. Gafh*on explained for McMillan the differences between Class I and Class II Restaurants referencing page 2 of the memo. Gaffron noted that the definitions may not apply today. Dillon said he did not feel the use fit either one of these definitions. Lindquist asked if the primary tenant has been secured. Dillon said a national bank would be occupying 3100 s.f. of the 11,000 s.f. total. Schroeder was informed that the consideration for the proposed uses was not based on economics but based on retail use allotment. Lindquist said he would agree with the coffee and bagel sales but could not support pizza sales. Schroeder was informed that there would be a separate entrance. Hawn noted that when the property was rezoned, the intent was to make it available for conunercial and retail use, such as real estate oflBce, lawyers, accountants, etc., uses that do not generate foot traffic as allowed in the B-1 District. It was not her intention to see retail food sales on this site. Dillon said the B-5 resulted in a very limited use for the site. Hawn said that was deliberately done. r 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 on Tuesday, January 20,1998 at the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, on the matter of application #2327, a request by Orono Development, LLC, owner of2380 Shadywood Road, for an amendment of the allowed uses within the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to include restaurant-type uses such as coffee, bagel and pizza retail stores. The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting. Written comments are solicited. City of Orono By: Planning Commissionuy: rianrung L.onumssiorw Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of January 10,1997. t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#17 - #2333 Home Occupations - Continued) Curtis Krantz, 2120 Fox Street, voiced his approval of Staffs preference regarding eliminating licensing, strengthening the zoning regulations, and handling violations on a complaint basis. He was informed that farming is an agricultural use, not regulated as a home occupation. Krantz supported the draft but questioned the ability of City employees to enter homes and limiting the number of customers. He feels the City is overstepping their bounds by limiting the number of customers, which he feels is a restraint of trade. He asked how it would be policed. Lindquist informed him that the City would respond to complaints. Smith said the boundaries are set to use only when a complaint is received. Krantz was informed that the regulations apply to residences and a more intense business use should be located in a commercial area in order to maintain the character of residential neighborhoods. Schroeder noted the increase in traffic would not benefit a neighborhood. Lindquist said the City is attempting to place reasonable limitations on home occupation and to give people an idea on what is acceptable. He informed Krantz that the Commission is happy to hear any suggestions for changes and incorporate rules that benefit the community as a whole. Smith noted that the provisions are for response to complaints on what is reasonable and not necessarily a mandate. Krantz agreed with handling problems on a complaint basis. He does not feel the City has the right to limit the business. Krantz asked if firearm dealers would be able to continue operation in the City. Lindquist asked Krantz to submit his name for notification of any public hearings regarding the issue. Lindquist said the matter will be discussed in the near future. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2333. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#18) #2327 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADY\VOOD ROAD - An amendment to Section 10.44 of the Zoning Code to allow coffee shops, bagel and pizza restaurants in the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District - 11:38 p.m.- 12:03 a.ni. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaftron reported that the request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow as a conditional use, three specific additional uses; 1) coftee retail sales, 2) bagel retail sales, and 3) pizza retail sales. This request is in conjunction with an application for development of the church property by Orono Development. Gaftron agreed with Mr. Krantz of the need to update the list. .0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20. 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Tom Dillon, Orono Development, and Mike Sepena, the General Contractor, were present. Dillon reported that the 11,000 s.f. neighborhood service facility is intended for neighborhood use. He feels the coffee and bagel sales would be similar to that of a tobacco sales business and should be a conditional use as noted by candy, ice cream, etc. shops. Dillon noted the use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to enhance the site and community. He said he has spoken with business owners who agreed with their goals for the property. Dillon felt the coffee and bagel shop could share space. The pizza sales would be take-out only. The hours of operation would be consistent with tne neighborhood. He does not feel traffic would increase. Dillon said he agrees with recommendations made by staff for an amendment to allow the use as a conditional use, which he feels is appropriate to the neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were no public comments. Schroeder asked if the applicant was proposing all three uses. Dillon said they needed to know what uses would be allowed in order to approach perspective occupants. Gaffion explained for McMillan the differences between Class I and Class II Restaurants referencing page 2 of the memo. Gaffron noted that the definitions may not apply today. Dillon said he did not feel the use fit either one of these definitions. Lindquist asked if the primary tenant has been secured. Dillon said a national bank would be occupying 3100 s.f of the 11,000 s.f total. Schroeder was informed that the consideration for the proposed uses was not based on economics but based on retail use allotment. Lindquist said he would agree with the coffee and bagel sales but could not support pizza sales. Schroeder was informed that there would be a separate entrance. Hawn noted that when the property was rezoned, the intent was to make it available for commercial and retail use, such as real estate office, lawyers, accountants, etc., uses that do not generate foot traffic as allowed in the B-1 District. It was not her intention to see retail food sales on this site. Dillon said the B-5 resulted in a very limited use for the site. Hawn said that was deliberately done. 7 • I • ^ / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Gafiron noted that the B>5 District currently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store." The Dairy Queen in the Navarre area does not fiinction as a restaurant and does not include the "Brazier" portion as some Dairy Queens do. Of the 10,000 acres in the City, there is 5.9 acres in the B-5 District. The Navarre area has 3 acres zoned B-5, the church property, the strip mall on Blaine Avenue East to the office building, including Mr. Katainan's furniture store area and auto repair area. Gaffion reviewed the intent of the B-5 District, which was written in about 1975. Traffic problems are a consideration. Permanent uses are shown in Exhibit E. The conditional uses list was amended in October, 1996, to delete home and garden equipment rental. Gafifron reviewed the nature of the proposed uses. He reviewed the two types of restaurants as defined in the zoning code. The proposed uses are in conjunction with a bank, office and retail businesses. The proposed uses do not fit into these categories. Bagel or coffee sales could be part of Restaurant Class II. The pizza sales could be generate a fair amount of traffic. Gaffron reviewed questions for the Commission to consider regarding whether the proposed uses are appropriate in the B-5 District as noted on page 3, questions 1-4. He noted that the B-5 District was chosen due to meet the bank's use and not the restaurant use. In the analysis, Gaffron indicated that the B-5 uses should be neighborhood oriented and must provide service to the surrounding neighborhood. He reported that certain restaurant types may create potential problems for the district and reviewed such possibilities. Gaffron indicated that if the proposed uses are allowed, stafr' should be directed to develop conditional use standards that would linut the operations to a scope and level appropriate to the district. Examples of such limitations were given and are noted in the packet. / / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 / (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) John O'Sullivan said his ori^nal intent for inclusion in the B-5 District had food in mind. The only food in the area is at the Dairy Queen. He did not want to see fast food, which may be included in the B-1. O'Sullivan said he has spoken with people in the neighborhood, who feel the coffee and bagel sales is consistent with the neighborhood. He sees this use as the candy shop of the 1950's. Smith asked if the coffee-bagel sales purpose was to primarily serve the neighborhood or to serve area employees. Dillon said the purpose was for the neighbors and customers of the bank. The Comnnssioners questioned how much traffic would be generated by these uses. It was agreed that the traffic would be more than what is generated by the bank. DUlon felt the use would be subtle with the majority being take-out customers. Dillon reported that the tenants themselves determine what traffic needs they must have to generate enough business. Hawn said the B-5 District speaks of the undesirabUity of high traffic generators and feels the use is not compatible with this zoning district. Gaffron noted that the Dairy Queen is a seasonal business. O'Sullivan added that this particular Dairy Queen is a high volume store for a non-Brazier Dairy Queen. John Erickson suggested taking the property to the north of O'Sullivan and zoning it all commercial. Sepena asked is the uses were substantially different from that of a Dairy Queen. Hawn said she felt the Dairy Queen was present due to its historical insertion in the district. Hawn sdd she is against the restaurant uses. Gaffiron noted that the property was changed to B-5 from residential one year ago. Dillon said he felt the coffee-bagel use is similar to the candy, ice cream, etc. use. He will ask the applicant to amend the application to eliminate the pizza sales. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the amendment of the B -5 for allowed conditional uses to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales. Schroeder felt the neighbors would appreciate these businesses. McMillan asked if the uses would be tied into the candy, ice cream, etc. category. Lindquist said the uses would be added to the list of conditional uses. MINUTES OF THE OBONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 i \\ (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) ffaffrnn said he would recommend that limitations be placed on the use as a separate line. The limitations would need to be developed. He has been given some suggestions from Shardlow, which is currently noi reflected in the proposed language. Lindquist and Smith said they would like to review the language when drafted. Schroeder felt satisfied with staff handling the matter. Lindquist agreed to let staff develop the details and send it forward to the Council for review. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Ilawn. Council will review the application at their February 24 meeting. Cominercial Site Plan Review and Variances (#19) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Variances for hardcover and front yard parking setback and a commercial site plan review to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. retail/service center building - 12:03-1:00 a.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a commercial site plan review and variance approval for the multi-retail building noted in agenda item #18. Variances include 500- 1000' zone hardcover and parking setback from street. The property is 1.86 acre site. Gaffron noted the property as it exists today and with proposed improvements for a bank building md retail sales. A portion of Navarre Lane was vacated last year. The site contains stormwater mar»Fgement ponding serving the Culver site. Gaffron reviewed the application with regards to conformity with performance standards of the B-5 District as laid out in the information packet. He noted that the building layout is similar to what has previously been shown. Gaffron reported that the hardcover is less than what is seen elsewhere in Navarre. There will be building space for 6-8 tenants. Inside floor plans are not yet available. The permitted and conditional uses are in conformance as are lot area and lot width. The front yard setback requirement is 20' minimum and proposed at 5'. The landscape architect has commented that more space should be provided for plantings. A 20' rear setback i? required for the through lot but proposed at 14'. Entrance monuments are also being proposed. -nil Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Admini^k'for Reviewed: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2334 Lecy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Chevy Chase Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District:R-IA One Family Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:23,731 square feet (.54 acre) A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 5(B), FILE NO. #2334 WHEREAS, Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 127 Chevy Chase Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 14, Block 1 Hill O' Way Manor (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 5(B) to permit the construction a new residence on a lot of record that does not meet lot area requirements. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2334. The property is located in the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 23,731 s.f. or .54 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings; 1. A residence had previously existed on the property. 2. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 3. No other variances are necessary in constructing the proposed residence. Page 1 of 4 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 5(B) to allow the construction of a new residence on the zoning lot consisting of 23,731 s.f. or .54 acres where 1 acre is required. 5. 1. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 23, 1998). 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. 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. ' n Page 2 of 4 '‘d-i* T .-s STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of for said county, personally appeared ________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. TO; FROM: DATE; SIBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant January 16,1998 #2334 Lecy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Chevy Chase Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: R1 - A Lot Area:23,731 One Family Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.54 acres) Application:The applicant is proposing the construction of a new house on a lot where the previous residence had been demolished. Constructing a new residence on a substandard lot requires a lot area variance. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.20, Subd. 5(B): R-1A Lot Requirements Lecy Construction Co. on behalf ofJeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 12^ Chevy Chase Drive Variance 2/17/98 Page I 1 ■C ¥^- r •• ## w ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards \ Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard R-IA 1 acre 140'35'10'30 subject property .54 acre 142.3*39.17'18.07'60.4' The zoning lot meets all requirements with the exception of lot area. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 23,731 s.f.3,193 s.f 13.45% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as the subject property is not located in a shoreland overlay district. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. They should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria fo r Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The lot is considered unbuildable without the granting of a lot area variance. The proposed residence meets all other zoning requirements. Ltcy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffrey and Elt:ahe*h Jacobsen l2 ’^Che\y Chase Drive Variance 2/nm r 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The subject property was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The owner demolished the residence without knowing that rebuilding requires a variance. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 6. The variance for lot area will not change the character of the area. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not p>ermit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Most lots in the immediate area do not meet tSie 1 acre minimum lot area requirement. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in v'hich said land is located. 7. 8. The applicant had removed the existing residence to build a new one. The lot is currently vacant. Constructing a new residence on the vacant lot requires a lot area variance. Most zoning lots in the Chevy Chase neighborhood are fully developed. Lot area variances would be needed for tear down/rebuild situations. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A new residence can not be constructed on the property without a lot area variance. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. While the subject property does not meet the lot area requirement, the proposed residence can adhere to all other zoning requirements. 1^2334 Licy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Che\y Chase Drhe Variance 2/17/98 Page 3 r Issues 1. 2. 3. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The property is connected to municipal sewer. A residence has previously existed on the property. 4. No other variances are necessary in constructing the new residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval a lot area variance of 19,829 s.f. (.46 acre) to allow the construction of a new residence on the zoning lot consisting of 23,731 s.f. (.54 acre) where 1 acre is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map i'ermit Record Survey Elevation Drawings U2354 Lecy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffreys and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Chevy Chase Drive yariance 2/17/98 Page A ...^ r Application # /3.rSrS^ Date Received^JA^ Amount Paid h CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 J f (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 / / After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) K‘«-.-r /P/• ri PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress 10*1 CJr>g.vy CJ^oisg. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) lift—A\ OQiq________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________^(mo nth/year) I (do) 4?o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)_________ Zoning District: R—lA C 1 ac\^g fvVmtVvujv>r> (o4 APPLICANT Name Goyv&jTrtvcr Addressiio34o Phone (home) r -H-4 Phone(woli O Q4A - i/‘iL.ty\c^ T)r City: Pna_ivi.e Zip: SS:R^4 Phone (home ’l 510 - l»4l/^ ________,____________ar>__________ Phone (work ) - 90^ (^U ■4K-11 I^J Address: lVlon^ior» Lv^ City: MiKll^€.4onlco Zip: Mm. SS3QS ^p”L ^ V^S DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST_____ Estimated Constmction Cost $ QQ/S Describe request in detail; l/(fl.ruuf>e.g 4p LcliIA t^vY>Llylvo ry\g cn V^A^re iof^tcherg yv^uico.^ ixtos. > Klgio Code (attach additional sheets if necessary) c*xUs -Q*r \ lc*hs. VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ..Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: A CVvcL-nc^e t n •~Php Oi4y *21g>v^vv\ct Coeje^ Ol'PWv^ j^irop>gy4^ tjn<a<> pame-C\Ct8^ dwS bcLit*f ov\ ■ YYiaWe. i4- ivy^ P<gi£»^tlaie 4o Oowplu Clod^ vv.'Fs ■» ’ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) I «»■ ... afc.k... mill 11 1 i-ih I ft itM 111 II imait I iurtiiiiTiiti an ai MAtama . .. ..e... l. t.. . _ J MM DATE 01/13/90 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATKM SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 503 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NM1E/ADDR PROP AODR OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR A' 38 36-118-23 41 0017 00123 CHEVY CHASE DR JANIE N BLANKENSHIP JANIE H BLANKENSHIP 123 CHEVY CHASE DR S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0018 00125 CHEVY CHASE DR R S OLSON A M H OLSON R S OLSON A M H OLSON 125 CHEVY CHASE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0020 00129 CHEVY CHASE DR D N SAHLSTROM/J E SAHLSTROH DAVID M A JEAN E SAHLSTROM 129 CHEVY CHASE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0021 00131 CHEVY CHASE OR P D MOYNEUR A L N MOYNEUR PATRICK D MOYNEUR 131 CHEVY CHASE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0039 00124 CHEVY CHASE OR 6 L ANDROLl A S L ANOROLl GERALD L A SANDRA L ANOROLl 124 CHEVY CHASE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0040 00126 CHEVY CHASE DR RUTH L BRONNANELL RUTH L BRONNANELL 126 CHEVY CHASE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 42 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB PO BOX 151 NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00010 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 6 38 36-118-23 41 0019 00127 CHEVY CHASE DR JEFFREY 6 JACOBSEN JEFFREY A ELIZABETH JACOBSEN 127 CHEVY CHASE DR S NAYZATA M4 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0038 00122 CHEVY CHASE DR JOANNE C CARLSON JOANNE C CARLSON 122 CHEVY CHASE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0041 00128 CHEVY CHASE OR 6 C A E S SMITH 6 CONNELL SMITH 128 CHEVY CHASE DR NAYZATA HN 55391 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 T»IE BEST OF NY KNOI^LEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE * /—’ h BY ^ '^1 V CiMtm Ul# i\ A3 i Maxwell Q Ba^ ti '< I + 972.40 \ •f 970.44 + 971.65 iiy"*S 84*44 ’08" E 168.69T + 971.21 09.7« 971.87 VmT WN + 974.17 i:o2 .64 f- r4.58 r 14 •f 972.86 6010 ^ ^ ^ EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED I ^7.0 13 C0URSE+|977.2I >.10- MH I ^.0 WALKOUT •7 I-----iI TooT \ It! 5^7 77.15 39.17 1.01 — * 977.30 \ig DRIVEWAY 5^ \ Kl \15^.91^+ 975.48 rMi« r X • • 976.< V 1 INCH = 30 FEET LOT AREA 23b731 0Q.ft 054 EVST CONTOUi^ 71 — PROPO^b C(P(TauR GRMilHQ Lmm + 976.47 N 88*49'07"« E 4- 978.00 •1-977.86 BcrvcVMna.'K" Top iron pipft—^7S.51 £/£^. 978.81 LEGEND • > Iron monumont found r» imn mrtniim.nf onrl morWcd Custom HomoFOn A /yfflffff; It1 cf 1 v/.i 4-r^l|i L*b' ^|«|T4 0 •MrrOft mmuw^vH HOkWtuCU »110460 moieo 4 , 4^ '5>ia?i^ ^t'- • ■ riR ♦ ' K-' >• — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION WUMCJL DATE: 2/23/98 ^^6 2 3 1993 1/ ITEM NO.: // Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Brassier Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2337 Scott Young 3359 Crystal Bay Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LP.-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:6,562.75 square feet (. 15 acre) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a second story to a portion of the existing residence that encroaches into side and lakeshore setbacks. Variances are required for side and lakeshore setbacks. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve a side setback variance of 3' to allow the addition to be constructed over a portion of the residence that is located 7' from the side lot line where 10' is required. 2. Approve a lakeshore setback variance of 1' to allow the addition to be constructed over a portion of the residence 74' from the lakeshore where 75' is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. fir.^ Wlf »\ ^'hJu, I* ii^-*^ ~*rt r * jij»i'i I iM •. -a i.r. a~ -.-a? •»r<ag-c7v- A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B), FILE NO. #2337 WHEREAS, Scott Young (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3359 Crystal Bay Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 12, Wallaces Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of a second story addition over a portion of the existing residence that encroaches into the required side and lakeshore setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2337. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential 2toning District requiring 1/2 acre in area. The property consists of 6,562.75 s.f. or .15 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1.The addition would be constructed over a portion A the existing residence that does not meet side or lakeshore setback requirements. Page 1 of 4 • AiM 11. >. L■ r* • I • " # ' >. -j-V ! ^ 2.The proposed second story addition would not further encroach on the required side and lakeshore setback requirements. 3. The height requirement would be met. 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a side setback variance of 3' and a lakeshore setback variance of 1' to allow the addition to be constructed over a portion of the existing residence that is located 7 from the side lot line and 74 ’ from the OHWL where 10' and 75’ is required, respectively. 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 23, 1998). 2.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. Page 2 of 4 :%iii I fc >im f I mil II rti nn laidi d I h i« n ■>. *'i ii'ii ■in« Jiixta ■■ fw iii»iflf< iim i u'n ■ Tin 4 .■yy rffr-' i»« rr» * 3.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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of February, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 M I II I ifii II 11 I I III I I........................... I <■ I II11 III in III II HIM IP I |i 11III i| I i| l< II I w I I I I III I II I I I I II ii ii#ll III I III I .............. II * . ^i...m, -*&-rtTr-: v.=:.«;^s?-r?-~:^ •*r»' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ____ for said county, personally appeared 199 _before me a Notary Public within and 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. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ____ for said county, personally appeared 199 _before me a Notary Public within and known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 rrtriTrr .... r I f iL.. .fe„ ‘T^'-ziV . S^ ■,r~»: , TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Plrjining Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administra ‘or FROM:Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE;January 27,1998 SUBJECT:#2337 Scott Young 3359 Crystal Bay Road Variances —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:6,562.75 square feet (.15 acres) Application:The applicant is proposing the construction of a second story addition of the existing residence that encroaches into required side and lakeshore setbacks. Variances are required for side and lakeshore setbacks. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B); LR-IC Lot Requirements U23S7Scott Young 3359 Crystal Bay Road Yariances 2/17/98 Page I itMu —uUnamtkUffUkJAiM r •VTM. ♦ij.jTi iSrfrwtev .4 .'-vr: .v:.. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-IC Requirements .5 acre 100'7?10'30' subject property .15 acre 50' at OHWL and 75' setback 61' (74' for second story addition) 6.4' (7' for second story addition) 6.8 ’ lakeshore y^d/are p'CsrsTtLTappiiS^^^^ be bm"?«qut7v^al,“ *' ““ Structural rnver;^^^ Total Lot Size 6,562.75 s.f. Total Structural Coverage 1,289.23 s.f. Percentage 19.6% H°«®ver, it is less than the ; i^2337 Scott Young 3359 Cry stal Bay Road Variancts 2/17/98 Bagel ' -.f ' '• r It I >5! I: Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'4,034.75 s.f.1,856.7 s.f. (46%) none 1,856.7% (46%) none 75'-250'2,528 s.f.1,234 s.f (48.81%) 632 s.f (25%) 1,234 s.f (48.81%) none The property does not meet hardcover requirements in the 0’ to 75’ and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback is due to Crystal Bay Road. A hardcover variance is not required for this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1 . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Any second floor additions over existing structure encroaching on required setbacks requires variances for those setbacks. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The residence is on a lot of record not meeting area or width requirements. It cannot be expanded on the lot. The proposed addition would not further increase the footprint of the existing structure. 3.The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lakeshore and side setback will not change the character of the area. 0233 7 Scon Young 3339 Crystal Bay Road Variances 2/17/98 Page 3 T’C /-w -wn CTHITi riTi I niMiTdi Id] ^111 • ■MCdW [•[•nimivtij •IMliIt •IV/iTi WirdRfWlT»T#^lOIRTiTi 11]Old nidHtVirir^Vsi [o^mwikfdrtiirot^uuiwj SK r ^.miHiirtikirdTdR r^i •Idl^riTdRlf^l M •OTOS RTiTd RTTd I riAwrii idjdjir^.ifrii OCTHUdlSRI idiord]ididiirtp.i [•[•niwiicii dll #dl M il« K (I) fd nITil dI4d iimiM Yi in«YHiTMftl riYiT^ mnm IdllliV:! ^.K«d IdJiimCi^MlirTTYTSTd^ • V»*HPi*Nu A r>x *:r. * ’:^:^d»^T\£r_:f tl 4. Variances were granted for side and lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0’ to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks in 1986 to allow the construction of the deck and enclosed porch on the lake side of the residence. 5. The proposed addition will not obstruct adjacent property owners' views of the lake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of variances to allow the construction of a second story addition over a portion of the existing residence not meeting side and lakeshore setback requirements. • Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance of 3' to allow the addition to be built over a portion of the residence 7 from the side lot line where 10' is required and 6.4' is existing for the residence from its nearest point to the side lot line. • Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance to allow the portion of the residence to be built over to be located 74' from the OHWL where 75' is required and 61' is existing from the nearest portion of the residence. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Property Owners List D Location Map E Topographic Map F Permit Record G Survey H Elevation Drawings I Hardcover Worksheet Scon Young 3359 Crystal Bay Road Variances 2/17/98 Page 5 - —---- Application 0 __s3^S^ 7 Date Received //^ /9J^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _ Renewal Variance Fee S 120.00 ; M (T"% (no chMge from original application) ..v' . . . ' • :> v?i* ;Variance for non-conforming structures $220. After-the-Fact Fees (Double appUcation fee) PROPERTY information Site Address^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) i •"? M 7 H \ n O D <T~ ------------------ Attach legal descnption to application if not included on required survey I (do) also own the adjacem parcels of land. ^---------------------^(month/year) J!!?* X ygsidential ___pother (specify)_________Zoning District: Phone (horned ^71- lOfR^APPLICANT NTOe. ______________ Phone (woric) - ‘3.‘f/IC Address:_3^S-^ P^j X’O City: 2in ?|-^73 0~ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area ___Lot Width ^ Setback:V Front Other (specify)_____ X Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS wmpU^crwi* (attach additional sheets if necessary) .■1-4 t T5 O Q ^»^ »■# .“V cj) J VAC !>-4-e NOTE 1 : REARRANGEMENT OF LOTS ^2 , 43 , 57 , 56, 59, 69, 70 & 71 WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH. / , ^ \ 4 \(! O' n 7 .T.7 A '’PoUO)X <fi> 6^ 8 <^ui)\6y r-(VAC BK 116 MIS F 551) cA. ' 75. l\\- X '0 \011 \( 23)\ .5. n V^ .................. ( 16)%# 0(9 f“* ^ \(18)X 17) .OD .31 19 iil{(22 17 \; jT 5f. ,! \\ 13 (20)\( ■o)\P-*- \' .......... •v» V .» fO .\ ie>'6 *»■ im) <y\ /y y •vV ^;.#r /W' \ \9' 20 <^/ 'j;' (82)/^''4, ^ / /(4I> Pared Information Parc^ni711723410029 Houm Hunter03390 StfMt N mtm. CRYSTAL BAY RO •>''k -' 22/ <, 5-^ -f' ”yv.^3 c E(69V ;/(26)/%• 25 < . ,•• V-, • ■ ,• *• •* •% y*'; * •; (27/26 .y •v‘-y (28 / 27 .y V V , ..■'»• •• • •.: V.... .5. .; S“ \ «t^.wi_nU.«rU.U3L> U«'.e-<Lvi HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17 117 23 41 0022 3345 CRYSTAL BAY RO B C (i L A BAKXE BRADLEY C BAKKB 7024 WEXFORD RD EDINA MN 55439 CONDMN K 38 17 117 23 41 0023 3349 CRYSTAL BAY RD W L (t L D PASCHKE WARREN L b LUCILLE D PASCHKE 14441 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 41 0024 3355 CRYSTAL BAY RO ELLEN DEHAVEN PETERSON ELLEN DEHAVEN PETERSON 960 SHADY LA B 11/13 WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN i 38 17 117 23 41 0025 3359 CRYSTAL BAY RO S J A M S YOUNG SCOTT J A MONICA S YOUNG 3359 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0016 3365 CRYSTAL BAY RO J R LOFRANO ETAL J R LO FRANO 3365 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0017 3369 CRYSTAL BAY RO PAUL C HAGEN PAUL C HAGEN 3369 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0018 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RO JAY B REISER ETAL JAY B REISER 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0019 3385 CRYSTAL BAY RO 0 TRYGGESETH b E TRYGGESETH D TRYGGESETH b E TRYGGESETH 3385 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0082 291.0 BAYVIEW PL DAL'I MATSON ETAL DALE MATSON ETAL 2200 BAYVIEW PLACE WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0109 3286 NAVARRE LA GRACE MARIE DAHL GRACE MARIE DAHL 3286 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 aj,. • *1 b V-** <«.• I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE IL 5 ^ V Vi1$s §LEGEND r«ffo i0«6 mmm «UlAiU MlfUAV tiAli fAViO fAMiat —CtAVll PAMIBI CUAIIMAIL — < 1 I-•AliMAO rAfN tIOCVHI i 1 HIOCC DOCI ^.......CIA flit \___/»AU • illMC 11«Mi • ClAtiai c - .:^lAAC/FM tlHAM ^—•..—MAlaUf iliC •t«ll C=Cb tAfc ctfta cj:>tvAir CTTVT)am oufiiM PERMIT RECORD Permit No. 7^? Date Type of Permit 9 - ; ^- -Ir—_ _ _— _ / ^ ^ JfAjbIrQjUiM 1/^ :3l701 , *. *73 l\'~'^H -?o nJtdltA. /nyAi\ *:*::. •* . ’ kzhS^ CJ^SjAxiry^ • , _ ' « — _ * ,____________ :i:‘: ‘ * • * :*?.v •;.::-.::;|;J*• *i:::*V >• V • • *..: .^ .• •* • * • • ■•: %•■'..••*•. ;* ..s*. _______ . • • • • * • ' •- ____ . » • • •.* L r .^fi .11 ' .'ft.- ^ ‘ / 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 12. WALLACE' S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH 0 : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon on assumed datum. rn This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, ... . • • • . • • # •I • . • • ....................................... SCALE: 1/4"= r-O' a\iJiA LINE OF INT. 6/12 PITCH VAULT- SADDLE AS REO’D ■TRAP UNIT DIMENSION TO MATCH THAT OF CVV145-2 IN WIDTH AND SHORT LEG UNIT DIM. TO — BE V-6" HIGH (OTHER LEGS ARE SET BY 6/12 INT. PITCH) 12 5ION^ T 1’-4" OVHG LLLa JlkAlilijAllLA rrliTr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ll 1 1 1 1 n/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 L-r 1 1 1 1 1 4—4------------------■4-----------------------4 1 1 1 » 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 nf^nTinv^nmnir n r-4* OVHG o o FRONT ELEVATION O n ro 0)“ aj Q Vjc k"O) C C UJ O < CL I d OC X Lj J Oz 9 i 111 i Hlliimiwmi IWIlMf iraigftffHiM' || ' h 11 ■" ■ I | I n im ■« .........■ I ■■ I ■ I H t >■ Iiiiin m I mr»ini^Ti¥~ iMi run 'nTrirM ■ ibimi i 'tn—n ■ i ■■ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEL l V/hua C,^'^ Aoo. vaTH SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Widlh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X . D. Sidewalk X X E. -P®t»/Deck CKEPN POZC.H X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X C9f*ctx^rC. 5T.E^$/Aho O. Other ON f W^$T x5/OC cfP TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -i- B X 100 = PROPOSKH HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ■__________ X Lci\gih Width X X X B. Garage t C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 = 250-500’500-1000'1 S.F.cf24- S.F. s S.F. Sa S.F. • S.F. S.F. s S.F. s m S.F. s S.F. 14 S.F. a •6 S.F. • S.F. s S.F. 8 S.F. 5= ^2 S3 S.F. U34 S.F. A •ZSZft ±S.F. B =48.8 i'*% • S4 • S.F. ••S.F^^ S.F.:N-as s S.F. 8 Q • • .. S.F. ^ 1 S S.F. , S=S.F. 1 ^ ■ S.F. - - tr S.F. 1 T. T S.F. 1 \'{ S.F.S& •• S.F. =•S.F. zz S.F. S.F. «S.F. A m S.F. B ss % I, ■ ■ P I ■ A-.-A . ■ MB. - I ~ . r . I. I request for council action ^°WC,U/£c„,,3 2 3 i995 Department Approval: Administrator C.^ Date: February 20,1998 Item No.: Name: Michael P. Gafiron u Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Varia^r^^Resokition^^^'^^ Drive (Outlet A, Bayside Landing) - Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre, sewered Application: Request for land alteration conditional use permit and variance for excavating List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/20/98 C - Harren confirmation of approval (Joint owner) D - Memo and Exhibits of 2/12/98 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of February 12. Please recall that applicant was advised by Council m January to make a formal application for this minor amount of grading at the shoreline. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 17 and on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval based on no anticipated visual or environmental impacts, and subject to the joint owners, they agree to the project (such confirmation has been provided Exhibit C). Plannmg Commission concluded that the magnitude of this project is so minor as to not be m conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policy against alteration of the natural character 01 our shorelines. Planning Commission also agreed that a low threshold of perhaps 10 cubic yards (equivalent to ^ r i:.#2342 - Mark Casey February 20,1998 Page 2 approximately 1 dump truck load) of fill, excavation or earth movement in the 0-75' zone could in many cases be handled on a staff level without the need for a formal variance or CUP application, subject to appropriate controls. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with Planning Commission that this application is minor in magnitude, and staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. If Council so chooses, an amendment of the zoning code to allow staff to process minor lakeshore alteration applications will be initiated. Such an amendment will likely include specific limitations on the type and magnitude of work to be staff-administered, and will likely include a provision to allow staff to require the full variance/CUP, or at least Council review, of small projects staff deems to be outside the scope of such authority. Council Action Requested s j 1 ' A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISIONS 9 AND 10 AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16J FILE NO. 2342 WHEREAS, Mark Casey (hereinafter the "applicant") is co-owner of the property located at 255 Landmark Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Outlot A, Bayside Landing, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application for a conditional use permit per Sections 10.55, Subdivisions 9 and 10 and 10.56 Subdivision 16J, and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the excavation of approximately 2.2 cubic yards of material and placement of a sand beach within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no such land alterations are normally permitted. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2342. 2. The pioperty is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit as proposed based on the following unique findings and hardships: a.The proposed excavation of 2.2 cubic yards of material from an area 20 feet long and extending 7.5 feet back from the 929.4 OHWL contour, and Page 1 of 5 m- M b. replacement with sand to create a beach area, is minor in magnitude and will have no negative environmental or visual impacts. The proposed land alteration is of such a minor scale sc as to not be in conflict with the Orono Comprehensive Plan policies against alteration of the natural shorelines of lakes. c. d. The applicant has obtained the required permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and DNR for the placement of a sand blanket and rip rapping of the shoreline occurring in conjunction with this project. The property is owned jointly by the applicant and the Harrens, who have provided written confirmation that they approve of the project. 4. 5. The 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 a^ect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire' hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty, is necessary' to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the excavation of 2.2 cubic yards of material and placement of a sand beach within the 0-75 ’ zone as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. ; I Page 2 of 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Sections 10.55, Subdivisions 9 and 10 and 10.56 Subdivision 16J, and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the excavation of approximately 2.2 cubic yards of material and placement of a sand beach within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no such land alterations are normally permitted. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Excavation spoils shall be removed from the site. 2. Applicant shall obtain a land alteration permit prior to commencing the excavation for the beach area. 3.Applicant and his contractor shall adhere to any erosion control measures deemed necessary by the City inspector. 4. No weed control fabric or plastic may be placed below the sand, because such liner materials would be considered as hardcover. 5. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (February 23, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 r Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of February, 1998, ATTEST: Uiida S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s)'». r i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of April 1996 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, i Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ss. ^ 199 ___, before me a Notary Public acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and de . Notary Public i- ■■ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of ^ 199 ___, before me a Notary Public *ho«d««foreg^ —.1:^ acknowledged that he (they) executed tlie same as his (their) free act an Notary Public Page 5 of 5 »4 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2342 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 20,1998 TO: Mark Casey 255 Landmark Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: Lee & Julie Harren 175 Landmark Drive Long Lake, MN 5356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:X Variance X_Conditional Use Permit ___Subdivision Other DATE OF MEETING: February 17,1998 VOTE: 5 FOR C AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: _X_Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council : Monday, February 23,1998; 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. • ^ — ---------- ■ ^ ----------- — --------------------------— i - —•--------------- - r , . j, e t.. I I f I • 1 ! : • • * i’ i I * - 1.. ? 11 a k A- < r ' i TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12,1998 SUBJECT: #2342 Mark Casey, 255 Landmark Drive - Variance/CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for land alteration conditional use permit and variance for excavating approximately 2.2 cubic yards at the shoreline to create a beach area. The proposed grading is an area 20' wide and 7.5' shoreward of the 929.4 contour. Pertinent Code Sections 1. 2. 10.22, Subd. 2: No excavating, filling, hardcover, etc. allowed within 75' of the shoreline. 10.55, Subd. 8: No filling, grading, dredging, excavation, etc. allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area nor on any land within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake shoreline. 3.10.55, Subd. 9 & 10 (re: Flood way and Flood Fringe District permitted and conditional uses). 4.10.56, Subd. 16(J) (standards for topographical alteration/grading and filling within the Shorelands). List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Site Plan (excerpt from former preliminary plat) E - Grading Proposal F - City Topographic Map G - MCWD Permits H - Pertinent Code Sections I - Comp Plan Excerpts Discussion Applicant requests a conditional use permit and variance for excavating approximately 2.2 cubic yards of material in an area 20'x7'/2 within Outlot A of Bayside Landing. Outlot A is owned in b , . , ill - rrm&Am'’ -¥i .*ii ii-ifift-r rI ^ t.* "1 ■ c*i -1. r«u I<*j. • *j'»•mM f I MAiA «1#';AOix. mrs: .*MrL ffiTB.. Zoning File #2342 February 12,1998 Page 2 common by the applicant and the Harren’s of 175 Landmark Drive. These are the only two properties that have access rights over Outlot A. Applicant’s intent is to create a 20’ wide beach area that extends shoreward from the rip rapping which will flank it on either side (see Exhibits D & E). While the City has generally encouraged property owners to rip rap their shorelines to protect them from erosion, excavation to create beach areas has not been encouraged. This generally is based on the Comprehensive Plan principles that suggest the existing nature of shorelines should be preser\'ed rather than modified. The City receives very few applications similar to this one, since most property owners with a natural beach have merely left gaps in the rip rap for pedestrian access or have merely accessed their beach via a dock/stairway system. The idea of creating a sand beach area above the OHWL is technically an alteration to the natural shoreline, although in this case a fairly minor one that will likely not have a significant visual impact nor other significant shoreline impacts. DNR regulations allow rip rap to occur via MCWD permit, and DNR regulations also allow placement of sand blanket lakeward of the OHWL. Applicant has obtained the necessary permits from the Watershed District for rip rapping and for sand blanket placement. Section 10.55, Orono’s flood plain ordinance, makes certain land alterations within the floodway or flood fringe a conditional use, including "all dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto". Other code sections specifically prohibit land alteration within 75’ of the lake, so that the current application also needs a variance. This inherently requires that a hardship be shown. Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. Will approval of this request result in any significant visual impact to the shoreline? Will approval of this request result in any other environmental impacts that can be identified? Can the applicant identify any specific hardships which support granting of the request (note that because this was properly presented as a conditional use permit request, applicant has not provided a specific hardship statement). Staff Recommendation Given the fairly minor scope of this request (2.2 cubic yards takes up approximately the same volume as 3 full size file cabinets), and given the minimal impacts associated with the proposal, staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining d|( land alteration permit; subject to the Harrens also providing a letter indicating their approval of this proposal; and subject to no weed control ♦V'l *-1. i^t. xjor ■ 6 Zoning File #2342 February 12, 1998 Page 3 fabric being placed under the portion of the sand bed shoreward of the 929.4 contour (while the City has considered that such fabric is not considered hardcover when it is part of a shoreline erosion protection system such as rip rap, in its proposed application it would be considered as hardcover). Options for Action 1. Rec immend approval per staff recommendation. 2. Reco nmend denial, stating reasons. 3.Table for further information. 4.Other. Addendum City Council has directed staff to investigate whether applications of a minor nature «;nch as this one could be handled on a staff level. This would likely require an amendment to the zoning code that would establish a low threshold (say up to 10 cubic yards) for minor land alterations within 75' of the lake. Does Planning Commission have any initial thoughts on this? ch r 'Niiiiii CITY OF ORONO w 612A730510 t ^ *• CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION 01/29/98 08:40 0 :06/11 NO:853 % ^ Application 0 Date ReceWed Amount Paid A PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address t\d<. Type of Application to be Filed______________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) or -//r ^ — APPLICANT Name /7)a'^^ l. Address ^ $ inUAjijnA^/L Jj//•i vC Phone fliomel V76-‘Co7-^<:; ______Phone (work) 9<a! - 7o o City .................. Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home). Phone (work). City Zip. Date Proper^ Acquired _____Ha^uarj ^ 111V____________ I (do) Qo^^J) also own the adjacent parcels of land. 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 Housc/Gucst Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credil/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 X Grading, scawal! rcta' iing walls within 75'of lahcshorc _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _______ After-the-Faci Fee « Double CrTcnt Application Fee (month/year) ' 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 Kezoning (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 s/' Residential Other (specify) JflN 29 '96 08:59 6124730510 PAGE.06 r CITY OF ORONO ^ 6124730510 01/29/98 08:40 g :07/11 NO:853 ^^QUIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form. s/ Describe request in detail. ^3.3 ____Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). - JS A->/KijrmaiivC, >juvciTiincni ^cnicT« y Certincate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades).biimigu III V 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 ovmcT(s). 8. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 9. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___ __ __________Date___________ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his^er knowledge. Applicant's signature X OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all Kheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. JAN 29 *98 09:00 6124730510 PAGE.07 ^ M r ■ r*M d A Legal Names of People with an Interest in Property ID # 05-117-23 23 0035 Mark L. Casey - Married Karena S. Casey Lee C. Herren - Married Julie M. Herren O Q 4?t]r O' I 1= i: RUN DATE 01/30/96 BATCH 502 PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 21 0005 03780 BAYSXDE RD C L A R J NICKLUND CRAIG L A RENEE J NICKLUND 3780 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 22 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D S PERKINS A P M PERKINS DANIEL S A PATRICE M PERKINS 55 LANDMARK D.l ORONO MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0007 03855 BAYSIDE RD PEGGY PETERSON PEGGY PETERSON 3855 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE :iN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0035 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARK L A KARENA S CASEY MARK L A KARENA S CASEY 255 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0038 03850 BAYSIDE RD P M MADSON A K F MADSON PAUL M A KAREN F MADSON 320 GEORGIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 38 05-117-23 24 0111 03775 BAYSIDE RD 6 R A CE RONLETTE GERALD L RONLETTE 3775 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 21 0020 03750 BAYSIDE RD J0^^ A MARY JANE BURGER CHRISTINE A GARY VALERIUS 3750 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 22 0014 00185 LANDMARK DR R F A K A KYLE RICHARD F A KATHLEEN A KYLE 1140 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0008 03865 BAYSIDE RD DAK DIANIS DAVID DIANIS 579 N E PLANTATION RD f410N STUART FL 34996 38 05-117 *23 23 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO LANDMARK DR HOMEONNERS ASSOC LANDMARK OR HOMEONNERS ASSOC C/0 LEE C HARREN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0039 0033? HESTLAKE ST B M BICHANICH A M B JANSSEN B M BICHANICH A M B JANSSEN 332 HESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 24 0112 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HEr«4EPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 5 38 05-117-23 22 0011 00175 LANDMARK DR L C HAPPEN A J M HARREN LEE C A JULIE M HARREN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0006 03845 BAYSIDE RD J B THXESSE ASA THIESSE JOHN B A SHEPRI A THIESSE 3845 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0010 03865 BAYSIDE RD DAK DIANIS DAVID DIANIS 579 NE PLANTATION RD 8410N STUART FL 34996 SB- k> 38 05-117-23 23 0037 00255 LANDMARK DR HARK L A KARENA S CASEY HARK L A KARENA S CASEY 255 LANDMARK OR LONG LAKE MN 65356 38 05-117-2L 26 0105 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 -‘'U fl •i.v 38 05-117-23 26 0115 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O SOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 i (\ RUN DATE 01/30/98 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OKNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35401 PAGE 6 PROP ADOR QNNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 05-117-23 24 0116 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 05-117-23 24 0120 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGr4ED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 LOND LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 24 0121 03770 BAYSIDE RD WINFIELD R STEPHENS III WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 ■'4 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 502 00021 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 KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATEi ■yin r ' --1 ■1 ► -I . i ■J H M — «00~yO inw y t r Mm"»• •/ ^ •* ill'' commuwications .media division ORieiNAL DOCUMBNT IS OS POOR OUAUTV DOCUMENT COMMUNICATIONS ^ •• ww iSW •••W WAS Biv j.‘. r• ■;w • v-'i^OOCK WORK }>MA WALLS 'I*AS AAPNNG h'^RILC DRIVING « • R MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING ^ BILL (MICK) NICCUM /Vt 500 Wesl Lake Street - A EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 5533 t t <—r O/tr '7 .1 'K "ft t'T“ W^/ 4 I i • AeW 'TT i 5^ryfe ri’piRP *•••■•• •• •• —{Q«AftiL.Ares.I A* O WM IMW M« ;_____323A-. ' ■ ■'ii‘—— --------------------------------------------------- WPB «S ^ • W • • « «RPA PS SW» A« % « IM !_l I [ -fiat3/<?nrf^ h0t&^.T.§Am JifiX •! . .jihmiAflSkLfR JJ^cr.lllAl if.S A* *v ■ * W!!AAI •iWBSi Slksfek. /IfaiL s dUktS „ , .-w^U._uXi-tkLlJtitjp!e, 15<" aIto V ;iBf3 L-MhSA it!LLM^t,r tfp tfscrfo fewRitAl lt.it I •* ■ V —LAsyiW.__i__:____^______ ^XdA ^€LtlO\n I 1 t ! ; i 1 1 > t 1 e 1 I i , ■ L; .!.. 1 i 'i !•:!!’(J ; ______________ — I I —h ■ 1 i _.. '.-----------J •- — ■' - ■ sAwitjiL<iLJk^'4!X4u£;^jH •• - ■-' . !siJi.c4i.ttAjtl s-i .L scLvIc*jjrki i^lJ. • s • , ^ • % r • V «iiii ifellWWiiNliiWilial ♦ i I Iwlkl ORIGINAL DOCUMRNT .« i^UIUW FEB-0T--19PS IIINHEH hHh .IPEEl I.I hTEFSHEE't.l247l0t.S2 P.Ol 0rr-.c INNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT ray Freshwater Foundation - Suite 37 500 Shady wood Road, Excelsior, MN 55331 , Fh: 471-0590 Fax: 471-0682 HORELINE EROSION PROTECTION - FAST TRACK PERMIT r. i . (Property Owner) residing at J^aaJo —0A. x (Street Address) . PH: -L7 PS-. requesl approval to install (SWte. fiprap shoreline erosion protection on property described as j* ^ A ^ / y (County)m. ____________, located in (Street Address) ^^"7 ol3 . The rip rap installation kKmtcii on lax statement)pej>^------- tCity) I *** ,Wtll consist - (Lak^) (Hoy) , the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Shoreline Protection Guideline for riprap placement required for issuance of a Fast Track General Permit. 1 have contracted with along the shoreline of 77<64^ (I.ihcal feet) (Lake) . -S ftcA^ ? . in ftill accordance with (Boy) (Address)^p('(I’hone) (Bond Numlwr) _. to perform the work who is familiar with the technical requirements and has llilfilled the bonding requirements of the watershed district (see reverse). I have read and understand the requirements of the MCWD relating to Shoreline Erosion Protection. . vatei ^she ^^ j^r-fniCT XM-TSii^nmurc of |Si^mur^of property ovmer) / (Da(C;DEC 31 1397 Sub:cril?H dayof E ! \ Nwfy Public Approved By; JUDITH E. NI(XUM PUBUOMINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Comm Jan. 31, 2000 - v-f£: Ja'trTes Hafner^^i'stricl Technician (Date) DislrihutifttV I’roiwrty Owucf CoiUraclof Municirahty DNR DiMrict rilc.Titginccs 1.7- m- FEB-0T-19S3 12:53 IliritlEHHHH CPEEl; U h TEPSHED 6124710E32 P.02 02 ifilh SANDBLANKET PERMIT & SAND SOURCE EXHIBIT FORM MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT ________________________________________________________PERMIT /3 rix)pcrf>‘ Owner re.siding at {^(LDaJO ^4/. Adilirss -lo7^. City, State, Zip or non County Township, Section, Ranker (fri^m pn.>pe!ly tax statement) own and occupy the abovre single family residence and wish to install a sandblankct on i/VIrM. — SroL^Aa S____. Lflke & Bay tEfT^have contracted with at UJt St~- 0ST, • i/iA .contractor fJ£JSs^/^CEi addre«0^, • j/vj , contractor address lo install clean sand from the following .s city, ^f«tc, zip phone LJm. /y!/j.,^ZU^ supplier source: A'Z^UA./L. mAj, I will install the sandblanket myself from the following source. nr phone address phone supplier If tltis project requires municipal approval or review, please attach documentation of the municipal approval with ihi.s application. My shoreline is J S! feet and the dimensions of the propo.scd sandblankct are: (Length) >: /f) (Width) x ^ (Depth). Sandblanket dimensions cannot exceed a length of 50’ (or 50% of shoreline), a width of I O’ and a depth of 6 ”. I understand that if this application is not completely filled out, or if I fail to submit the required exhibits the application is incomplete and \vt !1 be returned. It will not be reviewed by MCWD staff until complete signing this application, I agree and understand liuU the Di.slrict may enter the property at rea.sonabic hours lo conduct an inspection to determine whether the term.s of the permit arc being met. I furthei understand that if I violate the terms and conditions of a permit that is issued based upon this application the District shall conduct a field inspection of the project per MCWD Rule f, provided with thi.s application • I understand the District will charge fees to cover the actual costs of field inspections, including ir ve.stigatioi of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work, including the serN'ices of legal counsel and engineers and any .sub.sequent monitoring of the work. The District’s actual costs are deemed to begin accruing whet the District issues notice ol the v'iolation to the permittee. I have read and understand the MCWD Technica Guidelines for sandblankcts. //c:i /ji/sivAy Datef .SignaluK' of property owner Sub.scribcd and sworn to before me this of /2^0 i y 9*wate Sh^^^ofsTRiCT NICCUM Elary Public /wn ed and Ac^'pted by James Hafner, District Technician - . i nFC 3 l 1997t.or/J^iV fUBLIC-MINNESOTA I I KENNEPIN county j I M/ Comm r.*p;ies Jan. 31, 2000 ! 1 “ ^r\ 1 “ f \ /f T"c-------------—b o 1 1 V i: Date Mini I • Mill "J~ TOTAL P.02 n L § 10.21 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2~l/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall e: ' Lot Area Lot Width 1/2 acre 100 feet Front Yard 30 feet Side Yard 10 feet Side Yard Adjacent to Street 15 feet Rear Yard 30 feet SBC. 10.22. REGULATIONS FOR "LR-lA", "LR-lA-l*, "LR-IB*, ■LR-IC* AND 'LR-lC-l" ONE FAMILY LAKESHORB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any "LR-IA", "LR-lA-1", "LR-IB", "LR-IC", or "LR-lC-1” One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply: Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots: A. Shall be 75 feet for all structures except that on lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare, a lock box not in excess of 20 square feet in area and 48 inches in height is allov.'ed on the lakeshore portion of the lot and requires a building permit from the City. B. No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots (refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications) except that this does not apply to structure allowed in subsection A above. _ _ _ _ _ Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. ORONO CC 283 (4-1-84) i :• : S 10.55 Chan^e»V ^ addition to all other provisions of this rhan^Yr conflicts occur between other provisions of this Drovi\ion^Lfi*^°''^^^°?® Section, the most restrictiveprovision shall prevail. Roa^^a^or,?^l?^^* J*« ^f^^^f^ory Flood Protection Elevation. The lo2er %han^ Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood olus flood "pliTin^^^ flood elevation caused by encroachments on‘the ■ n j regulatory flood protection elevation within addina°?1i'^^^ Fringe Districts shall be established byadding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within lisur^n^a Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood -f®g^lftory flood protection elevations between cross-sections shall be interpolated. T M{ *. I T!’® regulatory flood protection elevation forLake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. ^ regulatory flood protection elevation within Flood Plain District shall be calculated by a qualified engineer in .accordanno hArAinAFfAr^cl* Restricted; Prohibition. Except ashereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, obstruct 1^0hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be oi^anv^la'^ndV'l^i^h^® Wetlands Conservation Area; nornf hhA '^^^^hin 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet lfnd^!buhtinn''^A^io^'^^‘'®'' elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on iinon affecting said area if such activitv A^orA^^AH incompatible with the policiesexpressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. cnose havA a ^^o°<^way District (FW). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. extent''^®L? %h Permitted within the Floodway District to the extent v.hat they are not prohibited by any other City Code as°mat^°hA Provided all permits or authorizLions are received as may be required by other City Code provisions or regulation of jurifdiction, incluling 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) § 10.55 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 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 materia., from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto. ^ 3.- All permanent boat docks or other similar structures. multiple boat docks including residential or commercial structures, whether seasonal or permanent. 5. - Water control structures such as dams, culverts, and weirs. 6. Bridges and abutments. 7. Utility lines. _ j 8. Other similar uses not specifically listed when aoproved 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) ° uses have a low flood damage potential and do not flows. These uses shall be permitted within the ^^°°^/“her District to the extent that they are not prohibited City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provision or (4-1-84)ORONO CC 366 i ^ re 1 • ■ ^ iO-55 inlluding° wUhout^limitatioT^Vht^ having jurisdiction, the Minnehaha CrUk^Wate?shed Natural Minnetonka Conservation Diltr ict Tn ^^ke drainage facility or svstem"' drainage ditch, or ^any other quality or Quantitv r\f shall adversely affect thp natural envSent ' qu/lit/®of th| Chapter):A. Permitted Uses. (when in conformance with this District. ’•• permitted in the Floodway outdoor plant nurseries/hoctioultur^“\Vuc^^^ general farming,f iiwi.txcuicure, truck farming and forestrv tennis courts, driving rlngl^‘archer“v courses,preserves. ^ anges, archery ranges, parks and nature this Chapter): '=°"‘^i“°nal Uses. (when in conformance with Ploodway District. conditional uses as listed in the open decks and patios provided^thd structures such as required by Subdivision 8. ture meets the setbacks equipment in the "B-i" Zon'in^Usl^Dis^°^?’^® marina meers the requirements of the "B-2" ZoninrSU'’outrfc^.®^^ storage listed when approved**’by the*’®Council specifically uses Shall be const^ucted\n «cordVnceTi\h“\‘he S?ate°Bl/ud°i"ng Condi tional^Use’s.^^* ^*^®"<^ards for Floo7^Jl7~"^nd~7l^od r*TIHgT permanent), fin*, deposit^^oh^hrMr!l° structure (temporary or equipment, or other uses may ^be storage of materials, or acting alone or in combination which, anticipated future uses, adversely affi^rV^K^^ reasonably floodway or increases flood heights.^ ffect the capacity of the h ORONO CC 367 (4-1-84) i Intensive vegetatio within § 10.56 '^ring within 75 1 rtr^e^r'winnin the Shore land feet of the shoreline !^®®i?imi;t^clearing of shrubs and overlay District IS prohib^ed.^^^^^ cutting, prunxn^g and trees less than 6 to provide a view to the trimming of trees of any site and to accomodate the water from the principal^^dvelli^vg^ picnic areas, access placement of permitted lock boxes,paths, beach and wa^^^aft access areas>^ P or other provided that wat^r a^Jkpg summer, leaf-on facilities fs viewed^fr^^^^^ ____------------------------------- conditions, is not J. Topographic ftlterations/Gradlng and Filling. 1. Grading and ^etage'^t^atment necessary for the oo"st'^“'=tion of structur ^ ^^u,,t;ion permits svstems, and driveways under valrdly “!“|°s^ance of a separate for these facilities do not j. all grading and filling Ictivity approved *°^ayrshall adhere to the grading andtreatment systems, and driveways sn filling standards of this section. 2. Grading,. “thl wattr:%"n"ilerlVed°!ntu\d“ o¥ this section. 3. public and parking areas, -<> f.not be constructed within 75 of tne u i section. If the public waters improvements shall be subject theno alternatives exist, s P procedure, and such review shal Ilkf “to “cc^^u^t'^he" f ollowing considerations = a. such improvements ^hall be designed . r = of natural vegetation and topography to achieve mLimt^ screening from view from public waters. V, All roads cuid parking areas shall oe ertil:^^ofs ift"e1irw1lt jurisdiction. ^ • finer 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 alteration permit. ■>. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading an-^ 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 auaount 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; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) \ J I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i t 1 i § 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; 4T •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 105.42; 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 does 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 obtained per the requirements of Section 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 public water# such as 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 approval of the 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 those standards found in Sections 10.55 and 11.41 of the Orono Municioal Code: 1. When possible, existing natural drainageways# wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convev. store, filter and retain storm water run-off beforeconvey# store# filter and discharge to puJolic waters. ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) \ r environment 6. 7. 8. S',0. \ fi. JUNE, 1980 a“wILDLIPE HAB?T^« PROTECTED AND PRESERVED P^ScaJ o? *S THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY Jarza ^udv tL^np „ ? FILTRATION.su%i!!f °® Water Quality Management study, and Orono's wa^raualit^ me!!,®'"'"! recommend this approach to permanent Plaroo^J^in , "p® "Ini'etonka. In addition, the Orono recui« orot.c^ individual wetlands and marshlands that It is the ooliew°rte*iw^**^^t City's storm water management program, dation^of o ’ effectuate the policies Ld recLmL-ations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan. Lnseriaiion o^thest iands? * easements for ENJOYMENt'*whttALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND in ooIJfoL^nf^ ° OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. «cn«io^f? d. ? • Shoreline Management regulations forrecreational development lakes, the city will prohibit overlv dense w!Il bHrUied'^ MinnetonL. L^e ^^LguJ^ions bavs excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive co«;ol oCL 1«''*l°Ped to provide reasonablecontrol over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. i^^fhorelfn^f ®? PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation ^n to d “ ^ P-^« = «ved insofar as practical and ieasonable excesrLtriHtr e"1 eoH erosion, and to utilize orwaVac^ton Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil be encLrager "etural stone rip rap shoreline protection will SEs*?s'T4°“".d;: -wh«rionrexistel n “PP^oved to provide riparian access circLs?ancefonlv “ i''', wm be permitted in limited natural rJo!r,!^^ absolutely necessary to maintain existing control oJ t^r?a Permanently lost by something beyond the Hsire fof deLer d°”jr' I°“ “eber conditions or the owner's a. fc • relb watercraft are not sufficient reasons fordisrupting sensitive lake beds. CMP 3-20 J r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^Ou/v^IL ^ 3 1998 DATE: February 23. 1998 ITEM NO.: ^3 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Amiiinistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Item Description: Purchase of Replacement Plow Truck The 1998 Capital Outlay Budget includes $68,500 for the purchase of a replacement plow truck for unit ^427, a 1984 model truck. Bids for the truck and equipment have been obtained through the State of Minnesota cooperative bidding process. The truck will be purchased from Boyer Ford of Minneapolis. The bid amount is $42,079. The box and plow equipment will be purchased from J-Craft of Kimball Minnesoata. The bid amount is $22,382.91. The delivery time for these trucks is a minimum of seven months because of a backlog of orders for the transmissions. If the truck is ordered now delivery will not be until at least August. We are requesting approval to place an order for this replacement truck for unit #427. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the purchase of a replacement plow truck from Boyer Ford of Minneapolis for $42,079, and box and plow equipment from J-Craft of Kimball Minnesota for $22,382.91. Funding to be from the 1998 Capital outlay Budget. i 11 ! ) i ! i REQUEST ACTION ^^6 2 3 i998 DATE: February 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Admifti^trat^ Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer ’s Report Item Description: Winter Maintenance of North Brown Road Trail The issue of winter maintenance of the trail along North Brown Road was discussed at the January 26th Council meeting. No decision was reached at this meeting, and City staff was directed to provide more information to the Council on winter maintenance of trails. We have met with the public work's personnel from the City of Long Lake regarding sidewalk and trail maintenance. Several years ago, the City of Long Lake purchased a new bobcat type tractor. This piece of equipment has a snow blower attachment that they use for clearing sidewalks. They are currently blowing the snow off to the side of the sidewalks. They have had some problems with damage to lawns from the salt and sand, so in some areas they have to blow the snow forward to vacant lot areas. The unit also has an attachment to blow snow directly into trucks to haul away. They have not had to do this yet. This bobcat is larger than the one that we own. Our bobcat is too small for sidewalk and trail maintenance. The current cost estimate for a similar unit is $35,000. The Cities of Wayzata and Plymouth have more expensive articulated units that can go around corners for snow removal in congested areas. The City of Long Lake is very satisfied with this unit and does not see a need to have a more expensive articulated unit. Long Lake completes snow removal for MnDOT on the sidewalks along highway 12. The City charges MnDOT $85.00 per hour for the machine with an operator. Long Lake is willing to complete snow removal for Orono on the North Brown Road Trail at a price of $85.00 per hour. We are estimating two hours per storm for clearing of the trail. Orono also has the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail. In the event that Orono decides to provide winter maintenance for this trail or other future trails. Long Lake is not interested in completing this work. They do not have a trailer for their machine so transport is difficult also they do not have the staff for greater amounts of trail maintenance. As outlined in my previous memo, we do not have the proper equipment to satisfactorily and efficiently complete winter trail maintenance. Any additional trail maintenance will require the purchase of equipment or contracting with another provider for trail maintenance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion on City's policy for winter maintenance of trails. I m a iT !■ Ti'^rnT ■ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 2 5 1998 DATE: February 25, 1998 ITEM NO.: CITY 0;' Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer ’s Report Item Description: Public Hearing for Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Project The Shoreline/ Heritage Drive/Lane area, was included in the recent MUSA expansion for sanitary sewer installation. No City cost contributions are envisioned for this sewer project. Any project would be assessed 100% to the residents. The residents along Shoreline Drive have contacted the City to complete a sewer project in their area. In the Heritage Drive/Lane area, several neighborhood surveys have shown that approximately half of the residents are in support of a sewer project. The Council previously ordered a feasibility study to analyze the options for sewer in this area. This study has been completed with several different options for combined and separate projects that could be completed. The intent of this process is to develop a sewer project that will serve the greatest number of interested residents at the lowest cost. On February 12th, a neighborhood meeting was held to solicit resident comment on the feasibility study. The project area contains a total of twenty two parcels eligible for sewer. Ten of these residents attended the neighborhood meeting. Written comments were received, in the mail, from an additional three residents. I have listed the resident interest in sewer on the attached map. This information was obtained from a combination of comments received in regards to the neighborhood meeting and comments from the neighborhood surveys. The project map, with the resident interest listed, is the preferred option from the feasibility study to serve the greatest number of residents at the lowest cost. This is a difficult area to serve with sewer because of the differences in elevations. The project area consists of three separate sub areas separated by high points. Based on resident comments, the subarea on the western side of the project will be dropped from further consideration. This is separate project that could be requested by the residents at a future date. There are fifteen parcels in the middle subarea that can be served by gravity sewer for an estimated $19,100/ unit cost. This number is based on fifteen parcels participating in the project. A different number of participants could affect the per unit assessment. We are still uncertain of the response from several property owners regarding interest in sewer. Our recommendation is to include all fifteen of these parcels for the formal public hearing in front of the City Council. Eight of the ten parcels in the downstream segments of the system have indicated interest in the project. The upstream segments of the project are less certain. It is possible to let properties out of the project at a later date, but difficult to include properties later. The most feasible option for the properties in the eastern subarea would be to provide service with individual grinder pumps that would be owned and operated by property owners. Any or all of these properties could connect to the system, with a grinder pump, at an estimated unit cost of $19,100 per unit. Two of the five properties have expressed an interest in sewer. The cost estimate per unit for gravity flow from each parcel to a City owned lift station is $42,800/ unit, and would require the participation of all five property owners. This option is clearly not feasible. The grinder pump option provides flexibility for sewer hook up in this area, at a somewhat reasonable cost. We are recommending including all five parcels in the public hearing, since several residents were not in attendance at the neighborhood meeting. A resolution to accept the feasibility study and schedule a public hearing for this project is attached. We have scheduled the hearing for 8:00 P.M. at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on March 23rd. Pending project approval, this would be good project to complete with the Edgewood Hills sewer project as the two projects are in the same vicinity. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to pass the resolution to accept the feasibility study for the Shoreline/Heritage sanitary sewer project and schedule a public hearing for 8:00 P.M. Monday, March 23, 1998. at the regularly scheduled Council meeting. Or a motion to amend the resolution to schedule another date and time for the public hearing mVAm 4^ W/1-. -i v.-k T m r > (4 II <11 lUTt/LfS Exccab E FM/Ea CftwPCR •?> yfs i^C’H- ^^H^ChAtilu SfPI)^ UVow/Mfli. I - S un\^s//. • A f. M / .ho Wp ^ /Ufj \y6n.my KI \00 ^Utdi\-6h,m\ \ ■% \ \ ~ ^ jf O / <^Mfflh.<wiMC * ll ^y/strvi. ,5fi / Y/f \ X \ ktW MO klo C-1 yf' HEWISI tr v: JZ. =^-y <3^' X FORCEMAIN GRAVITY SEWER GRAVITY MANHOLE RESIDENTIAL GRINDER STATION Scdt Wi ftti l%lOO/tiM\T Fon (J 12.01/|T\/ StLvfR. ipsivou IS UKjiTi HERITAGE DRIVE Mi ORONO, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER FIGURE 4 M Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engbwtrs A ArcNtects 1391004.0WG 2/20/98 COMM. 139100 fi ’ n aU fCTK y .1 • ’ jSi y ■ i irift irif nr-iir. t*irj‘Mairr«w ihr j t i ‘uAm.rt^ n n ■ I iim i 'WTinfiM ifin ' iba -■ ■ > .-■ rj*- ..J A RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON SHORELINE/HERITAGE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT WHERE ASy pursuant to Resolution No. 3999 of the Council adopted November 10, 1997, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer in reference to the Shoreline/Heritage samtary sewer improvement, and this report was received by the Council on February 23,1998; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1.The Council will consider the installation of such sanitary sewer improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $382,000. 2.A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 23rd day of March, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 2750 Kelley Parkway, at 8:00 p.m. and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 23rd day of February, 1998 ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk 1/1 Bonestroo MJm Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Bones,roo. Rosene. AnOC.K .,nJ Assocunes. Inc ,s .m AlI.rm.mee Aeon Bqu.U Oppor,um,y Employe, Pnncp.ils Otto G Bonc?lroo. PE • Joseph C Andcrhk, PE • M,.rv.n L Sotv.il.i, PE • R.ch^/d E lurnei. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • RoOefI O Schunicm. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE Robert W Rosene. PE ..nd Sus.in M Eberlm. C PA Senior Consolt.ints A.,ocr.rrePnnc-p,./5 Howard A S.nlord. PE • Ker.h A Gordon PE .Robert « * Rrcn^rd W Foster PE • D.rv.d O loskot.r. PE • Robert C Kussek A I A . M^rk ^ H-'"SOa Mich.tel T R.iutm^nn. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P .^nderson PE • M.rtk R Rolfs. PE Sidney R Willi.imson. RE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St R.^ul Rochester. Willm.<r nnd St Cloud. MN • Milwdukee. Wl F t February 18, 1998 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Feasibility Report Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Extension Our File No. 139100 Dear Mayor and Council: Enclosed, for your review is our preliminary report on the Sanitary Sewer Extension for the Heritage Drive area in Orono. This development is located north of Shoreline Drive and northeast of County Road 51 on Heritage Drive and Heritage Lane. This report describes the sanitary sewer improvements necessary to provide municipal sanitary sewer service to this area. Cost estimates for the proposed improvements are presented in the Appendices. We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Council or City staff at any mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom P. Kellogg TPK-.kf I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Date: February 18. 1998 Reg. No. 9451 m 2335 west Highway 36 • St Paul. MN SS1I3 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 I. Introduction The City Council has requested this report to determine the feasibility of constructing sanitary sewer improvements for the Heritage Drive area, as shown on Figure 1. The neighborhood is located entirely within shoreland making it difficult for some property owners to meet the 3 foot separation between the seasonal water table and their septic system. The City of Orono conducted a study to determine if there were neighborhoods in Orono which should be provided with municipal sewer rather than have the neighborhoods upgrade their existing septic systems. The Heritage Drive area was one of the ten identified neighborhoods in Orono designated as "rural” (unsewered) area. The proximity to lake shore is the primary factor suggesting municipal sewer service is preferable to long term septic system usage. City records indicate that at least 8 systems within the neighborhood are non conforming. The City has held neighborhood meetings with the residents to attain input and develop workable solutions for solving the problems. Five of the six property owners on Shoreline Drive have submitted a written petition to the City requesting sanitary sewer. Results of internal neighborhood surveys taken by Heritage Drive / Heritage Lane residents indicate approximately half of those property owners are in favor of sanitary sewer. This report describes the sanitary improvements required to serve the Heritage Drive neighborhood either in its entirety or in segments on an as requested basis. The proposed sanitary sewer improvements are presented on Figure 2. Figures 3 and 4 show design options to serve the entire neighborhood. The costs of the proposed improvements are pre.sented in the appendices and a cost summary is presented in the Cost Analysis section. Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvements n I I i i ‘ i’ II*:-' 1! i LOCATION PLAN Scots in fool ORONO, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS \139100\139100R1.0WG 2/20/98 FIGURE 1 COMM. 139100 m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers S Architects t iw i>i> > ■ I M ■' ill iW II ii I I iwi»« irm iiTrnBminigTii nr I UBiiMiiii I I m\m ■ it i ~i rmii m - . - I ^ f I- II. Summary and Recommendati ions constmcUon of sani.aor sewer to serve .he Heriuge Drive a«e is feasible from an engineering s.»dpoin.. The projec. is necessary because of residen.ia. m^ues. anTuie ^^^TroLTa: tealth nsk. The capital cos. as well as operation and maintenance costs have been considered i *.erm.n,ng that the project is cos. effective. The cos. of these improvements tue in.emela.ed an for 1 The following mcommendations are presentofor consideration by the Orono City Council: ^ ‘ 1.^at this Report be adopted as the guide for installaUon of sanitary sewer in the Hentage Drive area. 2. pSe2g“"'““ “ of •*>' P«>P»“'' P^Jec. prior .0 the 3.That a public hearing be held on the proposed improvements. The total estimated projec. cos. of $420,200 should be incorporated in die public notice. There are 22 units proposed to be assessed for the trunk and lateral iimprovements. Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvements ■■ - r f-T • -m> 1-^Tir r III. Sanitary Sewer The proposed sanitary sewer for the Heritage Drive area is shown on Figure 2. A review of the project site indicates the routes shown on the figures are recommended from a construction standpoint. The Shoreline Drive residents of the Heritage Drive area would be served by a gravity sewer. The proposed sewer would be constructed beginning at an existing sewer line located north of Grand Avenue on Shoreline Drive and terminating on Heritage Drive. Seven existing homes and one vacant lot (properties 1-7) would be served by this portion of the sewer shown as segment AB on Figure 2. Segment AB would be constructed using the traditional open cut method. The estimated costs are shown as Option 1 in the Appendices. Segment B to C and C-1 could be constructed as part of this project or at sometime in the future. The line from B to C-1 would be directionally bored so as to minimize disturbance to the street and maintain as much residential access as possible during construction. Installation of the pipe to point C would be by the open cut method due to the number of services required in this length. Cost estimates are included in the Appendices under Option 2. The construction of this segment would serve an additional 8 properties (properties 8-15 as shown on Figure 2) by gravity sewer. The five existing properties (properties 16-20) on the north end of Heritage Lane could be served by the construction of either segment EF or segment IF. Construction of segment EF would require the installation of a lift station as shown on Figure 3. Flows would be carried to the lift station by gravity and then pumped to point C. The total cost to construct segment EF does not appear to be feasible based on conventional sanitary sewer design. Construction costs for segment EF arc shown as Option 4 in the Appendices. Figure 4 shows another option to serve properties 16-20. In this design segment IF would replace segment EF. The five properties would be served by individual residential grinder stations that would pump to point C. This option would allow any or all of the five properties to be a part of the project at the same cost as properties 1-15 as shown on Table 1. An alternate desi?n to serve the north end of Heritage Lane by gravity was considered. Overall project costs would increase by about 20%, however, the long term operation and maintenance costs Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvements ilT ifiVlil iTiirrni*i'^Tihi“‘‘inrtTiT*Tr~if fi^n^anrn im m-i-i iiT~~ni~~ni ~r nii i.^-Am n m i r associated with a lift station would be eliminatt/ cooperation of several property owners as the alignme- appear to be feasible due to the costs and impacts l. alternate design are shown as Option 3 in the Api - alternate design would require the xts several yards. This option does not ng properties. Cost estimates for the Gravity service to properties 21 and 22 on the end of Heritage Drive would be provided by directionally boring a line from an existing .lOle on Livingston Avenue to the cul-de-sac on Heritage Drive. This is shown as Optic n the Appendices and segment GH on Figure 2. Properties 21 and 22 would also have the ' grinder station option previously discussed for properties 16-20 as shown by segment .* . m Figure 4. Sewer service to each home will h' nch PVC pipe. Services will be stubbed out toward each home a distance of approximate* .eet from the wye. The property owner would be responsible for the connection from ti . ^ .e to the sewer stub. Where the roadway iUrbed, the street will be restored to the original width with I Vz inches of bituminous wear rse, 2 inches of bituminous base course, i2 inches of aggregate base and geotextile r* .*uon fabric. All unexcavated areas of roadway lying within the construction limits will *'* i Va inch bituminous overlay following construction. jjeci will be constructed entirely on private property. The alignments selected and shown on ures 2 and 3 will require permanent and temporary easements to allow for construction. Detailed cost estimates for the sanitary sewer improvements are presented in the Appendices. Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvements associated with a lift station would be eliminated. The alternate design would require the cooperation of several property owners as the alignment bisects several yards. This option does not appear to be feasible due to the costs and impacts to existing properties. Cost estimates for the alternate design are shown as Option 3 in the Appendices. Gravity service to properties 21 and 22 on the west end of Heritage Drive would be provided by directionally boring a line from an existing manhole on Livingston Avenue to the cul-de-sac on Heritage Drive. This is shown as Option 5 in the Appendices and segment GH on Figure 2. Properties 21 and 22 would also have the residential grinder station option previously discussed for properties 16-20 as shown by segment JC-1 on Figure 4. Sewer service to each home will be 4-inch PVC pipe. Services will be stubbed out toward each home a distance of approximately 20 feet from the wye. The property owner would be responsible for the connection from the home to the sewer stub. Where the roadway is disturbed, the street will be restored to the original width with 1 Va inches of bituminous wear course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, 12 inches of aggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric. All unexcavated areas of roadway lying within the construction limits will receive a 1 Va inch bituminous overlay following construction. The project will be constructed entirely on private property. The alignments selected and shown on Figures 2 and 3 will require permanent and temporary easements to allow for construction. Detailed cost estimates for the sanitary sewer improvements are presented in the Appendices. Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvements r FORCEMAIN GRAVITY SEWER GRAVITY MANHOLE HERITAGE DRIVE m ORONO, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER FIGURE 2 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers A Architects 139100MD.DWG 2/20/98 COMM. 139100 i i r It i'l FORCEMAIN GRAVITY SEWER GRAVITY MANHOLE LIFT STATION ®300 HERITAGE DRIVE m ORONO, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER FIGURE 3 Bonestroo Rosene Andertik & Associates Ent^neers & Architects 139 lOOMD.DWG 2/20/98 COMM. 139100 --r. r ■ II ■ ■ ■ I Mi » iil ^ >|i I i' i M ......................... ,m-a ■ in Hm ^ FORCEMAIN - GRAVITY SEWER GRAVITY MANHOLE residential grinder station HERITAGE DRIVE ORONO. MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER 1391004. Owe 2/20/98 • FIGURE 4 ^ t Bonestroo rS Bosene mrv Andertik & |\j| Associates Engkteefs a Architects COMM. 139100 1 [i WMil ttjriTiTiT.Tirii II • * Untj I LI 1111 i.'Vi MHt ^fVTTi f* w^r* • IVJTillKl •llllO iT^il oiiiohr^fi iitjiimtiii •lire •IMfiie leori wroe [•nirtie n»e •]CtIi we lie •aiTCfV/ni WlliiliIiMrmwil wiie CITY OF ORONO 1998 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS HERITAGE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FILE NO. 139100 Sanitary Sewer Option 1, Points A to B PRELIMINARY COST PSTIMA TF ________ITEM 8" PVC, SDR 35, 8-10' deep 8" PVC. SDR 35,10'-12' deep 8" PVC, SDR 35,12'-14' deep 8" X 4" wye 4" PVC service pipe Cut into existing manhole Standard 4' diam. MH MH overdepth Improved pipe foundation Mechanical trench compaction Televise sewer Repair driveways Bituminous street repair Clear and Grub Furnish and install trees Mobilization Silt fence Sod with 4" topsoil _______ Estimated Construction Cost +5% Contingencies +20% Legal, engineering, admin. +5% Bonding and capitalized interest Total Estimated Cost UNIT PRICE $23.00 25.00 28.00 75.00 20.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 100.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 750.00 1.500.00 2.500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 2.50 2.50 EST. COST $4,600 15.000 8,120 600 3.200 1,000 4,500 1.200 2,200 1,250 1,090 4.500 1.500 .‘,500 2.500 5.000 3.000 17.: 00 $79,260 3,963 $83,223 16,645 $99,868 4,993 $104,861 Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer r i CITY OF ORONO 1998 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS HERITAGE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FILE NO. 139100 Sanitary Sewer Option 2, Points BtoC and C-f, (Directionat Bore) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ITEM 8“ HDPE, directional bore 8" PVC, SDR 26,14'-16' deep 8“ PVC. SDR 26,16'*18' deep 8" PVC. SDR 26,18’-20' deep Standard 4' diam. MH MH overdepth Outside drop for MH 8" X 4“ wye 4" PVC service pipe 4" service riser pipe Improved pipe foundation Mechanical trench compaction Televise sewer Common excavation Bituminous surfacing removal Geotextile fabric Cl. 5 aggregate base, 100% crushed Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41 bituminous wear course Bituminous material for tack coat Repair driveways Clear and Grub Furnish and install trees Mobilization Silt fence Sod with 4" topsoil UNIT EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Estimated Construction Cost +5% Contingencies LF LF LF LF EA LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF CY SY SY TN TN TN GL EA LS LS LS LF SY +20% Legal, engineering, admin. +5% Bonding and apitalized interest Total Estimated Cost Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer 650 75 75 100 4 28 3.5 8 240 20 1000 690 1100 1250 2500 2800 1900 300 350 200 13 1 1 1 500 5000 $30.00 30.00 33.00 38.00 1.500.00 100.00 150.00 75.00 20.00 20.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 1.50 10.00 32.00 35.00 1.50 750.00 2.500.00 2.500.00 5.000.00 2.50 2.50 EST. COST $19,500 2.250 2,475 3.800 6,000 2.800 525 600 4,800 400 1,000 690 1,100 7.500 5,000 4,200 19,000 9,600 12,250 300 9,750 2.500 2,500 5,000 1.250 12,500 $137,290 6,865 $144,155 28.831 $172,985 8,649 $181,635 i : t CITY OF ORONO'•SKssrrfST' FILE NO. 139100 f^itary Sewer Option 3, Points DtoB PRELIMINARY COSTPSTI ma rc __________ ITEM a HVC. SUR 35. 0*-8‘deep 8" PVC, SDR 35.8*-10*deep 10" PVC, SDR 35. 0*-8* deep 10" PVC, SDR 35, e-IO*deep 10" PVC. SDR 35.10'.12*deep 10" PVC, SDR 35,12'-14' deep 10" PVC. SDR26,14*.16'deep 10" PVC. SDR 26,16'-18* deep 10" PVC, SDR 26.18'-20' deep 10" HDPE, directional bore Standard 4' diam. MH MH overdepth 8" X 4" wye 4" PVC service pipe Improved pipe foundation Mechanical trench compaction Televise sewer Common excavation Bituminous surfacing removal Geotextile fabric Cl. 5 aggregate base. 100% crushed Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41 bituminous wear course Biturninous material for tack coat Repair driveways Clear and Grub Furnish and install trees Mobilization Silt fence Remove and replace fence Seeding w / topsoil, mulch & fertilizer Sod with 4” topsoil _______ Estimated Construction Cost +5% Contingencies +20% Legal, engineering, admin. +5% Bonding and capitalized interest Total Estimated Cost Heritage Drive Sanitary .Sewer UNIT LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA LF EA LF LF LF LF CY SY SY TN TN TN GL EA LS LS LS LF LF AC SY EST. QUANTITY 200 200 590 630 55 55 55 10 60 450 10 15 7 UNIT PRICE $22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 27.00 30.00 32.00 35.00 40.00 60.00 1.5C0C.O lO'" 90 75.00 210 20.00 7500 1.00 2065 1.00 2305 1.00 1100 6.00 2500 2.00 3000 1.50 2000 10.00 300 32.00 225 35.00 150 1.50 5 750.00 1 3.000.00 1 5.000.00 1 5,000.00 1000 2.50 250 10.00 1 3.500.00 3500 _ _2.50 EST. COST $4,400 4,600 14,160 15.750 1,485 1,650 1,760 350 2,400 27.000 *6,000 1.500 525 4,200 7.500 2,065 2,305 6,600 5.000 4.500 20,000 9.600 7.875 225 3.750 3.000 5.1 5.1 2.500 2.500 3.500 8.750 $194,450 __9.723 •nil tun $204,173 _40,835 $245,007 _12,250 $257,257 ■» I CITY OF ORONO 1998 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS HERITAGE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FILE NO. 139100 Sanitary Sewer Option 4, Points EtoF With Lift Station PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMA TE ITEM UNIT 8“ PVC, SDR 35. 8-1 O’ deep LF 8" X 4“ wye EA 4" PVC service pipe LF Standard 4' diam. MH EA MH overdepth LF Improved pipe foundation LF Mechanical trench compaction LF Televise sewer LF Lift station EA 4" HDPE forcemain LF Connect 4" FM to existing MH EA Repair driveways EA Common excavation CY Bituminous surfacing removal SY Geotextile fabric SY Cl. 5 aggregate base, 100% crushed TN Type 31 bituminous base course TN Type 41 bituminous wear course TN Bituminous material for tack coat GL Clear and Grub LS Furnish and install trees LS Mobilization LS Silt fence LF Sod with 4“ topsoil SY EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Estimated Construction Cost +5% Contingencies +20% Legal, engineering, admin. +5% Bonding and capitalized interest Total Estimated Cost Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer 625 7 210 3 6 2500 1160 625 1 325 1 5 1100 2500 3000 2000 300 225 150 1 1 1 500 3500 $23.00 75.00 20.00 1.500.00 100.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 50,000.00 20.00 500.00 750.00 6.00 2.00 1.50 10.00 32.00 35.00 1.50 1.000.00 2.500.00 5,000.00 2.50 2.50 EST. COST $14,375 525 4,200 4.500 600 2.500 1,160 625 50.000 6.500 500 3.750 6,600 5.000 4.500 20.000 9,600 7,875 225 1.000 2.500 5,000 1,250 8.750 $161,535 8,077 $169,612 33,922 $203,534 10,177 $213,711 CITY OF ORONO 1998 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS HERITAGE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FILE NO. 139100 Sanitary Sewer Option 5, Points G to H PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ITEM UNIT EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 8" PVC, SDR 35. 8‘-10’ deep 8” HDPE, directional bore 8" X 4" wye 4" PVC service pipe Standard 4' diam. MH MH overdepth Connect to existing MH Improved pipe foundation Mechanical trench compaction Televise sewer Repair driveways Common excavation Bituminous surfacing removal Geotextile fabric Cl. 5 aggregate base. 100% crushed Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41 bituminous wear course Bituminous material for tack coat Clear and Grub Furnish and install trees Mobilization Silt fence Sod with 4** iopsoil_____________ LF LF EA LF EA LF EA LF LF LF EA CY SY SY TN TN TN GL LS LS LS LF SY Estimated Construction Cost +5% Contingencies +20% Legal, engineering, admin. +5% Bonding and capitalized interest Total Estimated Cost Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer 50 250 2 100 1 2 1 100 150 300 2 250 450 500 350 50 40 30 1 1 1 150 250 $23.00 40.00 75.00 20.00 1.500.00 100.00 1.000.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 750.00 6.00 2.00 1.50 10.00 32.00 35.00 1.50 1,000.00 2.500.00 5,000.00 2.50 2.50 EST. COST $1,150 10,000 150 2,000 1,500 200 1,000 100 150 300 1,500 1.500 900 750 3.500 1,600 1,400 45 1,000 2.500 5,000 375 625 $37,245 1,862 $39,107 7,821 $46,929 2,346 $49,275 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL — FEB 2 3 DATE: February 17, 1998 ciTYcrcRcr.'j ITEM NO.: !(f Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer Report Item Description: Revised Weight Limits Resolution A resolution establishing seasonal weight limits was approved at the last Council meeting. This resolution listed dates for road posting from March 15th to May 15th. This resolution has been revised to list approximate dates from March 1st to May 15th with additional language added that dates are dependent on weather conditions. This provides flexibility in the time period for road postings. There is minimal frost this year and it is possible that roads may need to be posted earlier than normal this spring. In past years, this resolution has been specific for each year and was passed every year. According to the Orono Municipal Code and Minnesota State Statues, there is no requirement to pass a resolution each year for weight restrictions. The restrictions are in effect when the signs are in place. The weight limits and roads listed in this resolution will generally remain the same every year. In the event that weight limits need to be changed on any roads, a revised resolution can be approved at that time. This should simplify the process for implementing annual weight restrictions. Seasonal weight restrictions are a routine item and contractors and trucking firms are aware of these restrictions occurring each spring. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the resolution on axle weight limits for Orono City streets.! k r A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON ORONO CITY STREETS The City of Orono ordains that axle weight limits are restricted on the following streets in the City of Orono to protect these streets from damage when road and weather conditions wan* * in accordance with regulations as provided in Chapter 6.11 of the Orono Municipal Code. These weight restrictions are in effect during the spring thaw season between approximately March 1st to May 15th dependent on weather conditions. Streets may be posted for weight restrictions any time that road and weather conditions warrant weight limits to protect streets from damage. An exemption is provided for refuse collection vehicles to exceed the posted limits except no refuse collections vehicles shall be operated during restricted times where the gross weight on any single axle exceeds 14,000 lbs. The City also reserves the right to restrict refuse collection vehicles to the posted weight limits should conditions warrant. An exemption to posted weight limits is allowed for public service vehicles namely Northern States Power Company, Wright-Hennepin Cooperative, Minnegasco, U.S, West Communication, Triax Cable and septic tank service companies when responding to an emergency. An emergency response shall include but not be limited to power outages, gas leaks, emergency communication, line down or severed, etc. The following streets are limited to four ton axle limits; Arbor Street Casco Circle Dakota Avenue Baldur Park Road Casco Cove Dickenson Street Barrett Avenue Casco Point Road Dickenson Street Alleys Bayview Place Cherry Avenue Dickey Lake Drive Bederwood Drive Cherry Place Dunwoody Avenue Birch Lane Chevy Chase Drive Eastlake Street Blaine Avenue Chippewa Lane East Long Lake Road Bohn's Point Lane Concordia Street Eileen Street Bohn's Point Road Corral Road Elm Lane Brackett's Point Road Country Club Road Elm Street Briar Street Crestview Avenue Elmwood Avenue Brown Road, North Crystal Avenue Ethel Avenue Carman Road Crystal Bay Road Eagerness Point Road Carman Street Crystal Place Fairview Cottage Caroline Avenue Cygnet Place Farview Lane Casco Avenue Dahl Road Femdale Green 1 Page 1 of3 m «• '% Femdale Road West Forest Arms Lane Forest Lake Drive Forest Lake Landing Fox Ridge Road Fox Street (S. Brown to Orono Orchard) Fox Street (S. Brown to Willow Drive) Fox Street (#84 to Willow Drive) Frederick Street Glendale Avenue Grandview Avenue Hackberry Hill Hanlon Avenue Heritage Drive Heritage Lane High Lane Highwood Road Hunter Drive Ivy Place Keene Avenue Kelly Avenue Kenwood Way Lakeview Avenue Lafayette Ridge Court Lakeview Terrace Leaf Street Lilac Lane Linden Avenue Linden Lane Livingston Avenue Loma Linda Avenue Long Lake Boulevard Lydiard Avenue Lydiard Circle Lyman Avenue Lyric Avenue Maple Lane Maple Place Mapleridge Lane Minnetonka Avenue Minnetonka Highlands Minnie Avenue Myrtlewood Road Navarre Avenue Navarre Lane North Arm Drive North Arm Lane North Femdale Road Northern Avenue Oak Street Old Beach Road Old Long Lake Road Olive Avenue Orchard Beach Place Orchard Park Road Orono Lane Orono Orchard Road Orono Townline Road Park Avenue Park Drive Park Lane Partenwood Road Pheasant Lawn Road Prospect Avenue Railroad Avenue Rest Point Circle Rest Point Lane Russell Avenue Shevlin Drive Smith Avenue Spates Avenue Spring Hill Road Spmce Place Page 2 of 3 Starkey Road Stubbs Bay Road Tamarack Drive Togo Road Tonka Avenue Tumham Road Union Cemeteiy Road Vine Place Watertown Road Wear Lane North Wear Circle Webb Street Webber Hills Road West Femdale Road . West Lafayette Road Westlake Street Wildhurst Trail Willow Drive (Dickey Lake Dr. to Sixth Avenue) Willow Drive (Sixth Avenue to Medina City limits) Willow Drive (from South Brown Road to Fox Street) Willowbrook Road Windjammer Lap#* Woodhill Avenue J 9 m « • The following are nine-ton axle limit: Kelley Parkway Old Crystal Bay Road McCulley Road Tonkaview Lane Willow Drive (from Watertown Road to Long Lake) Willow Drive (from Fox Street to Watertown Road) Willow Drive (from Highway 12 375' north to Otten Brothers driveway) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held February, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor 1 1 Page 3 of 3 L COU.NCi. FEB 2 3 ly98 CITY C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; February 25. 1998 ITEM NO.: / "7 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Item Description: TH 12/Old Crystal Bay Road Traffic Signal Modifications l^ft Turn Arrow We have been experiencing operational problems with left turning vehicles on Old Crystal Bay Road at the TH12 traffic signal. During the morning and afternoon periods, when school is in session, there is significant congestion at the traffic signal. The Orono Police have observed motorists making unsafe left turns, on the yellow and red lights, because they are unable to get through on several cycles of green lights. The Orono Public Work's staff completed turning movement traffic counts during the morning and afternoon peak hours. This information was submitted to MNDOT for their review. The peak hour turning movements were high enough to warrant a left turn arrow for south bound Old Crystal Bay Road traffic onto eastbound TH12. The large number of school buses is also contributing to congestion and unsafe conditions at the intersection. LED Red Signal Indicators The City of Orono is responsible for the electricity to operate this signal and for changing of the light bulbs. A new type of LED bulb is available. The existing bulbs use 130 watts and last approximately two years. The new LED bulbs are brighter, use 30 watts and last approximately eight years. This results in a savings in both electricity and bulb replacement costs. Only the red bulbs are available in LED type. These are the most critical bulbs for safety reasons. The red LED bulbs cost more than the standard bulbs. Northern States Power Company has an interest free loan program to pay for LED bulbs. The Cities than pay this loan back with the savings in electricity costs. The power cost savings will pay for the LED bulbs in three to five years. TH 12/Old Crystal Bay Road Traffic Signal Modifications February 19,1998 Page 2 Project Costs and Fundine This project is eligible for Municipal State Aid funding. The MNDOT external signal design group will prepare the plans and specifications for this project. MNDOT has provided estimated costs for this project. Phasing Change Estimated Cost $3,III Work would include salvaging two existing three-section signal heads and installing two five- section heads with left mm arrows. New LED Red Indications Estimated Cost $2,500 Estimated cost for installation of new LED bulbs is $2,500. The bulbs would be purchased through the NSP no interest loan program. The total estimated cost for the left mm arrow and LED red indications is $5,500. This project is eligible for Municipal State Aid funding. Pending Council approval, this project is scheduled for completion this summer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of proposed improvements to the Old Crystal Bay Road/TH12 signal including southbound to eastbound left mm arrow and new LED red indications at an estimated cost of $5,500 with Municipal State Aid funding. : s { I s At . - r request for council action DATE; February 25, 1998 ITEM NO,% Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: ^7 Agenda Section: Engineer ’s Report Item Description: Change Order No. 8 North Lake Sanitary Sewer Project We are in the process of determining final payment quantities for the installation of the sewer in the North Long Lake project. This project is substantially complete except for turf restoration and completion of the final pavement surface this summer. Additional excavation was required to remove poor soils and unstable subgrade en.ounter^ y...... of the very wet conditions. These unsuitable materials had to be removed ^r^anular maLals. Because of the wet conditions, additional pipe was directio^l toed instead of open cut installation. This results in a reduction in turf ^ soil corrections that would have been required for conventional pipe installation. cta^ order includes an additional $28,154 in costs for additional excavation and a decrease of $19, in costs for turf restoration, resulting in a net increase of $8,354. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve Change Order No. 8, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $8,354.00. --T - /* ‘ • .J ^ - .. Owner: CityofOrono. P.O.Box 66. Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Contractor: Barbarossa & Sons. 11000 93rd Avenue North. Osseo. MN 55369 Date February 18,1998 CHANGE ORDER NO. 8 NORTH LONG 1 AKE./LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER File 13988 Description of Work Additional common excavation due to wet conditions, poor soils, and unstable subgrade encountered throughout the project. Also, a reduction in the sod quantity due to alternative pipe installation methods resulting in less restoration required. Unit Cont Unit Price Quant CY 7.00 4022 SY 2.25 -8800 Total Amount $28,154.00 ($19,800.00) $28,154.00 ($19,800.00) $8,354.00 i Original Contract Amount Previous Change Orders This Change Order Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $874,930.01 $76,753.00 $8,354.00 $960,037.01 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. date:2.- n -q? Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner: City of Orono cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 13988/oo.wbt I COUNCIL MEETING FEB 2 3 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY or ORCNO DATE: February 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: r>^*aitnient Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment ^7, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment. This payment is for the Lift Station 6 Renovation on Casco Point Road which was bid in conjunction with the North Long Lake sewer project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment ftl. North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $69,632.38 I'- ,1'f . 1 Rbsene ftn^ntvttArMKti Owner:City of Orono. P.O. Box 66. Crysul Bay. MN 55323-0066 _________Date: February 18, 1998 For Period:December 2.1997 to February 18.1998 Request No:_______7______ Contractor:Barbarossa & Sons. P.O. Box 367. Osseo. MN 55369 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NORTH LONG LAKE AND LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS File No. 13988 SUMMARY I Original Contract Amount Change Order • Addition Change Order - Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously II AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 77.490.00 $737.00 $ $ S $ $ $ s s Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCUTES, INC. Approved by Owner CityofOrono Specified Contract Completion Date:Date: l:\139\13988U^EQUEST7.WB2 874.930.01 9S 1.683.01 814.568.75 0.00 814.568.75 40.728.44 773.840.31 704.207.93 69.632.38 < a m I AM ■■ ■ ^ - iM- « ir-^r* 'V No. Item 1 8" PVC, SDR 35. O'- 8* deep in place 2 8- PVC. SDR 35.8'-10' deep in place 3 8" PVC. SDR 35.10'-12* deep in place 4 8" PVC. SDR 35.12'-14' deep in place 5 8" PVC. SDR 35.14'-16’ deep in place 6 8" PVC. SDR 35,16'-18' deep in {>lace 7 8” PVC, SDR 26,14'-16' deep in place 8 8" PVC. SDR 26,16'-18’ deep in place 9 8" DIP, 10’-12' deep in place 10 8" DIP, 16'- 18' deep in place 11 Std. MH 8' dp.. 4' dia., W/R1642B cstg. 12 MH depth greater than 8' deep 13 DirecUonal bore 4’' HDPE SDR 17 14 4" HDPE. SDR 17 15 Air release manhole 16 1-1/2" curt) stop and box 17 Connect 4" HDPE into existing manhole 18 4" 45 degree HDPE bend 19 4" tee with cap 20 4" X 2" HDPE tee 21 4" X 4-HDPE tee 22 2" X 1-1/2" HDPE reducer 23 2“ X 45 degree HDPE bend 24 4" X 2" wye 25 8" X 4" PVC service wye branch 26 8" X 2“ wye 27 2" X 1-1/2" reducer 28 4" PVC service pipe in place, SDR 26 29 4" PVC service riser pipe in place. SDR 26 30 4" HDPE service pipe directional bore 31 1 -1/2" HDPF .ervice pipe directional bore 32 Improved pipe fdn. in 6* increment depth 33 Mechanical trench compaction 34 Insulation 35 Sanitary sewer television inspection 36 Submersible Pump Lift Station 1 37 Submersible Pump Lift Station 2 Total Part 1 - Long Lake Sanitary Unit Contract Quantity Unit Price Quantity to Date Amount to Date LF 232 28.00 139 3.892.00 LF 752 29.00 1.071 31.05i».00 LF 1,303 30.00 974 29.220.00 LF 981 31.00 1.309 40.579.00 LF 1.024 32.00 968 30.976.00 LF 63 33.00 185 6.105.00 LF 220 35.00 138 4.830.00 LF 188 36.00 LF 40 38.00 40 1.520.00 LF 20 41.00 20 820.00 EA 24 1.440.00 24 34,560.00 LF 97 lOO.uO 102.7 10.270.00 1 140 20.00 140 2.800.00 Lr 5.812 8.40 5.716 43.014.40 EA 2 1.900.00 2 3.800.00 EA 3 350.00 3 1.050.00 EA 1 1.000.00 1 1.000.00 EA 16 50.00 10 500.00 EA 1 55.00 2 110.00 EA 3 50.00 3 150.00 EA 1 50.00 EA 3 35.00 3 105.00 EA 3 30.00 4 120.00 EA 2 30.00 1 30.00 EA 48 50.00 55 2.750.00 EA 5 50.00 2 100.00 EA 7 30.00 7 210.00 LF 1,465 18.00 1.285 23.130.00 LF 35 18.00 44 792.00 LF 225 20.00 197.5 3.950.00 LF 225 10.00 561 5.610.00 LF 6,500 0.01 6.500 65.00 LF 6.500 1.00 4.844 4.844.00 SY 50 10.00 22 220.00 LF 4.808 0.42 LS 1 44.200.00 0.98 43.316.00 LS 1 44.700.00 0.98 43.806.00 $380,303.40 l:\139M39S6\nEQUEST7.WB2 r i I f •It i 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4S 49 Part 2 - Water Main 8" DIP. Class 52 12- DIP, Class 52 6- DIP. Class 52 Cut into existing 8” CD* Cut into existing 6* DIP Hydrant 6- gate valve and box 8- gate valve and box 12“ butterfly valve and box Fittings Mechanical trench compaction Improved pipe foundation in 6“ increments Total Pan 2 - Watermain LF 95 20.00 46 920.00 LF 490 26.00 583 15.158.00 LF 5 19.00 10 190.00 EA 1 1.000.00 .1.000.00 EA 1 800.00 <800.00 EA I 2.000.00 1 2.000.00 EA 1 600.00 1 600.00 EA 2 750.00 2 1.500.00 EA I 1.000.00 1 1.000.00 LB 1.370 LOO 850 850.00 LF 590 LOO 639 639.00 LF 595 0.01 100 1.00 i:\139\i3988\REQUE ST7.V/B2 $24,658.00 50 Clear and grub EA 20 300.00 51 15.300.00 51 2' X 3' sump catch basin EA 2 1.000.00 2 2.000.00 52 4* diameter sump catch basin manhole EA 5 1.200.00 5 6.000.00 53 Catch basin manhole overdepth LF 17 125.00 5 625.00 54 Bituminous surfacing removal SY 11.600 1.00 11.500 11.500.00 55 Common excavation CY 3.700 3.25 4.532 14.729.00 56 Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed)TN 8.000 9.20 9,206 84,695.20 57 Type 31 bituminous base course TN 1.200 23.50 1.496 35.156.00 58 Type 41A bituminous wearing course TN 900 27.50 59 Geotextile fabric SY 11.000 1.00 10.819 10819.00 60 Bituminous material for tack coat GL 550 LOO 61 Bituminous street patching SY 300 6.50 62 Sawcut concrete driveway LF too 5.00 63 Sawcut bituminous LF 650 1.50 64 Bituminous driveway restoration SY 1.550 6.50 1.453 9.444.50 65 Concrete driveway restoration SF 3.200 3.50 169 591.50 66 12“ RCP in place LF 233 22.00 86 1.892.00 67 15“ RCP in place LF 141 24.00 121 2.904.00 68 15“ RCP. over 8’ deep LF 20 26.00 69 15“ RCP flared end in place with trash guard EA 2 900.00 1 900.00 70 Mechanical trench compaction LF 595 1.00 207 207.00 71 Improved pipe fnd. in 6" increment depth LF 595 0.01 72 Remove existing CMP culvert LF 450 2.00 100 200.00 ii miiiinifci I KH iriii .^1 rrpv *1 /f .i i&n fi'C.pauui*. ^ i- . ..if--— • 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 98 Furnish and install 15" CMP culvert 15" CMP flared end Riprap, Class m hand placed Sod with 4" topsoil Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer Erosion control fence Wood fiber blanket Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4* diameter Remove and replace wood or chain link fence Remove and transplant bushes Remove and transplant tree • Desiduous Remove and transplant tree - Coniferous Salvage and reinstall wood guard post Total Part 3 • Restoration Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Duplex submersible grinder station 2" HOPE, SDR 11 Connect to existing manhole 2" HDPE 45 degree bends Total Part 4 - Jce Arena Duplex Grinder Station LF 450 12.00 367 4.404.00 EA 30 100.00 16 1,600.00 CY 12 30.00 8 240.00 SY 28,000 2.25 AC 2 1,550.00 LF 1,000 2.50 1,000 2.500.00 SY 750 1.50 329 493.50 EA 6 225.00 6 500.00 1 500.00 LF 600 15.00 EA 12 75.00 EA 12 150.00 EA 15 150.00 FA 11 50.00 5.50 275.00 $206,975.70 LS 1 18,600.00 0.98 18,228.00 LF 1,160 6.00 1,105 6.630.JJ EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 EA 2 50.00 2 100.00 Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation Temporary controls, pumps and piping for Part 6 • Lift Station 12 Modifications Remove existing impellers and wear rings l:\139\13988tREQUEST7 WB2 S25.958.00 interim conveyance LS 1 2,000.00 1 2,000.00 92 Lift station demolition LS 1 5,000.00 1 5,000.00 93 New pumps, piping, valves, top hatch and slab LS 1 35.000.00 1 31.500.00 94 New control panel, base slab, dialer, and miscellaneous electrical LS 1 24.000.00 1 21.600.00 95 Sod SY 50 2.25 96 8" Class 5 aggregate base TN 75 12.00 73 876.00 97 3" thick bituminous driveway TN 30 45.00 Total Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation $60,976.00 J 100 :oi 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 81 11 12 and place new impellers and wear rings Total Part 6 - Lift Sution 12 Modifications Part 7 - Forcemain Alignment Deduct: Add: 4" HDPE forcemain, SDR 17 Air release manhole Sod with 4" topsoil Bituminous driveway restoration Total Part 7 - Forcemain Alignment Part 8. Residental Submersible Grinder Stations Residental simplex grinder pump stations Alternate No. 1 • MH 22 to MH 22A £* PVC, SDR 35. 10' -12' deep in place Auger or directional bote 8" PVC Std. MH 8' dp.. 4' dia.. w/RI642B cstg. MH depth greater than 8' deep Remove & transplant tree - coniferous Total Alternate No. 1 - MH 22 to MH 22A Change Order No. 1 Furnish & plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) Std MH 8' dp.. 4' dia., w/R1642B cstg. MH depth greater than 8' deep Total Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 4" riser pipe extension Total Charige Order No. 2 Change Order No. 3 Add 12" corrugated PE pipe 12" PE F.E.S. with trash guard LF EA l:\139\13988\REQUEST7.WB2 1 2.052.00 $0.00 LF (140)20.00 (140)(2.800.00) LF 643 8.40 643 5.401.20 LF 45 20.00 45 900.00 EA 1 1.900.00 1 1.900.00 SY 1.367 2.25 1.245 2.801.25 SY 33 15.50 845.00 154 1 19.00 625.00 147.00 1.00 $8,202.45 EA 10 3.290.00 10 32.900.00 itadons $32,900.00 LF 193 30.00 172 5.160.00 LF 55 75.00 84 6.300.00 EA 1 1.440.00 1 1.440.00 LF 2 100.00 5.20 520.00 EA 10 150.00 0 $13,420.00 EA 15 500.00 15 i 7,500.00 ! EA 3 1.440.00 3.00 4.320.00 j LF 6 100.00 6.00 600.00 $12,420.00 $0.00 2.793.00 625.00 4 r I 66 69 52 53 54 55 63 67 69 50 55 56 56 57 58 61 Delete 12" RCP in place 15" RCP flared end in place with trash guard Total Change Order No. 3 Change Order No. 4 4' diam. sump catch basin manhole Catch basin manhole oveidepth Bituminous surfacing removal Common excavation Sawcut bituminous 15" RCP in place IS" RCP flared end in place w/TG Clear and grub Total Change Order No. 4 Change Order No. 5 Common Excavation Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crushed) Total Change Order No. 5 Change Order No. 6 Modular block retaining wall Total Change Order No. 6 Change Order No. 7 Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed) Type 31 bituminous base Course Type 41 A biutminous wear course Bituminous street patching Total Change Order No. 7 Total Part 1 - Total Part 2 - Total Part 3 - Total Part 4 - Total Pan 5 - Total Port 6 - Toul Part 7 - Total Part 8 - Alternate No. Long Lake Sanitary Watermain Restoration Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Lift Station 6 Renovation Lift Station 12 Modifications Forcen^ain Alignment Residental Submersible Grinder Stations 1 • MH 22 to MH 22A l:\139\13988\REOUEST7.WB2 LF (154)22.00 (154.00)(3.388.00) EA (1)900.00 (1)(900.00) (S870.00) EA 4 1.200.00 4 4.800.00 LF 3 125.00 3 375.00 SY 400 1.00 400 400.00 CY 5,400 3.25 5.400 17.550.00 LF 206 1.50 206 309.00 LF 209 24.00 209 5.016.00 EA 1 900.00 1 900.00 EA 7 300.00 7 2.100.00 $31,450.00 CY 480 3.25 480 1.560.00 TN 940 9.20 940 8.648.00 $10,208.00 SF 500 18.40 379 6.973.60 $6,973.60 TN 310 9.20 108 993.60 TN ISO 23.50 TN 110 ■*.50 SY 480 6.50 S993.60 380.303.40 24.658.00 206.975.70 25.958.00 60.976.00 0.00 8.202.45 32.900.00 13.420.00 i.iaait amanaa atanat t b'rai .mm #ian.<a .■Jkl'UJm^L lui . . aarta. Total Change Order No. 1 Total Change Order No. 2 Total Change Order No. 3 Total Change Order No. 4 Total Change Order No. 5 Total Change Order No. 6 Total Change Order No. 7 Total Work Completed to Date 12.420.00 0.00 (870.00) 31.450.00 10.208.00 6,973.60 993.60 $814,568.75 l:\139\13988\REQUEST7.WB2 i r project payment status Owner CityofOrono Project No. 13988 File No. 13988 Contractor Barbarossa & Sons CHANGE ORDERS No. Date 06/06/97 3_ ± 1 06/10/97 06/18/97 08/06/97 08/19/97 10A)8/97 10/08/97 Description Mditional trees and manholes as a result of easement nceotiatinne Extend bypass piping in valve Substitute corrugated polyethylene pipe for RrP «onn sewer Constniction of ponding area and installaUon of storm o.u»r Additional Class S Constniction of modular block retaining wall_____ Regrading and paving 500’ of Long Lake Boulevarri Total Change Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY No.Period Start 07/01/97 08/06/97 09/03/97 10/07/97 11/04/97 12/02/97 07/01/97 08/06/97 09/03/97 10/07/97 11/04/97 12/02/97 02/18/98 Payment 195.908.86 316.864.61 49.031.45 65.025.79 60.431.50 16.945.72 69.632.38 Retainage 10.310.99 26.988.08 29.568.68 32.991.09 36.171.70 37.063.58 40.728.44 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date Retainage. Payment No. Tctal Amount Earned S773.840.31 40,728.44 $814.568.75 Original Contract Change Orders Revised Contract l;\139\13988WEQUEST7.W82 Amount 1.690.00 (737.001 31.450.00 10.208.00 9.200 00 12.522.00 S76.753.00 Completed ^.219.85 539.761.55 659.821.80 723.433.90 741.271.50 814.568.75 S874.930.0I 76.753.00 4 : --------------1^1 !■ 11 ■ . r > ^ I! V ;• f COUNCIL IWEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION rEB 2 3 1998 DATE: FebnS^ 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer ’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment #6, Bracketts Point/Bay Pidge Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of tliis Request for Payment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment #6, Bracketts Point/Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa Sc Sons in the amount of $8,899.60 r UM.: 1 Bonestrao Rosene Anderll(& Associates JUCHll Owner:City of Orono, P.0, Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date:February 17. 1998 For Period:November 4.1997 to February 17,1998 Request No:6 Contractor Barbarossa & Sons, P.O. Box 367, Osseo, MN 55356 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT BAY RIDGE AND BRACKETTS POINT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS File No. 13990 SUMMARY I Original Contract Amount Change Order • Addition Change Order * Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage S% 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ S 55,538.00 Subtotal Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. $ $ $ $ $ $ S S Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO» ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor: Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner City of Orono Specified Contract Completion Date:Date: l:\139\13990\HEQUEST6.WB2 523,740.00 579.278.00 463.468.75 0.00 463,468.75 23.173.44 440.295.31 431,395.71 8.899.60 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Item 8" PVC. SDR 35. O’- 8* deep in place 8“ PVC. SDR 35.8 -10* deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 35. IC-12’ deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 35.12*. 14’ deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 35.14’-16* deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 35.16*-18’ deep in place 8“ PVC. SDR 26.12’-14’ deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 26.14’-16* deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 26.16‘-18’ deep in place 8" DIP. 8'-10* deep in place 8” DIP. 14 -16' deep in place Std. MH 8' dp.. 4' dia.. w/RI642B cstg. MH depth greater than 8' deep Force main access manhole Outside drop Directional bore 8“ HDPE SDR 17 3- HDPE. SDR 11 Directional bore 3" HDPE SDR 11 Connect 3" HDPE to exist MCES FM stub Connect 3" HDPE into existing manhole Lightweight aggregate 3" X 3" HDPE tee with cap 2" X 1-1/2“ HDPE reducer 3" X 45 degree HDPE bend 8" X 4" PVC service wye branch 8" X 2" wye 4“ PVC service pipe in place. SDR 26 4“ PVC service riser pipe in place. SDR 26 4“ HDPE service pipe directional bore 1-1/2* HDPE service pipe directional bore Improved pipe fdn. in 6* increment depth Mechanical trench compaction Insulation Sanitary sewer television inspection Submersible Pump Lift 'nation I Submersible Pump Lift Station 2 Total Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer l:M39\1399(AnEQUEST6.WB2 Contract Unit Quantity Amount Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date LF 975 31.00 823 25.513.00 LF 547 32.00 5II 16.352.00 LF 831 33.00 1.237 40.821.00 LF 582 34.00 581 19.754.00 LF 95 35.00 55 1.925.00 LF 50 36.00 76 2.736.00 LF 41 36.00 10 360.00 LF 82 37.00 150 5.550.00 LF 210 38.00 170 6.460.00 LF 20 50.00 20 1.000.00 LF 12 54.00 4 216.00 EA 17 1.700.00 15 25.500.00 LF 39.4 85.00 43.3 3.680.50 EA 1 2,000.00 I 2.000.00 LF 8.2 300.00 4.1 1.230.00 LF 630 29.00 624 18.096.00 LF 1.815 20.00 1,772 35.440.00 LF 184 24.00 184 4.416.00 EA 1 3.000.00 1 3.000.00 EA 1 1.000.00 1 1.000.00 LF I.OlO 30.00 1.010 30.300.00 EA 1 50.00 EA 1 25.00 EA 5 30.00 2 60.00 EA 22 30.00 26 780.00 EA 1 50.00 LF 850 20.00 653 13.060.00 LF 35 20.00 LF 300 24.00 300 7.200.00 LF 120 24.00 LF 1.950 3.00 1,000 3.000.00 LF 1.950 1.00 2.144 2.144.00 SY 20 20.00 11 220.00 LF 4.075 0.60 LS 1 40.000.00 0.98 39.200.00 LS 1 40.000.00 0.98 39.200.00 $350,213.50 j ;i L ____________________________________ r f- ' 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 Part 2 • Restoration Bituminous surfacing removal Common excavation Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed) Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41A bituminous wearing course Geotextile fabric Bituminous material for tack coat Bituminous street patching Clearing and grubbing Sawcut bituminous Bituminous driveway restoration Concrete driveway restoration 27 ” diam. catch basin with casting Remove existing CMP culvert Furnish and install 15’ CMP culvert 15" CMP flared end Boulder retaining wall Sod with 4" topsoil Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer Erosion control fence Wild flower seeding Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4" diameter Remove and transplant bushes Remove and transplant tree - Desiduous Remove and transplant tree - Coniferous Total Part 2 • Restoration Change Order No. 1 ADD Residentail simple grinder pump stations Total Alternate No. 2 Alternate No. 3 Bid • Directional Bore 8" HDPE, MH-ltoMH-9 kM 39M 3990\REQUEST6.WB2 SY 4,000 1.50 4.000 6,000.00 CY 2,100 3.50 808 2,828.00 TN 2,500 9.00 1.746 15.714.00 TN 600 28.50 599 17,071.50 TN 600 29.00 SY 4.700 1.25 2.687 3.358.75 GL 300 1.20 SY 700 6.75 LS 1 5.000.00 1.0 5.000.00 LF 100 6.00 SY 600 6.75 SF 100 10.00 EA 1 1,000.00 1 1.000.00 LF 150 5.00 65 325.00 LF 150 20.00 53 1.060.00 EA 4 150.00 SF 80 14.00 66 924.00 SY 13.000 2.00 4,656 9,312.00 AC 0.4 3,280.00 LF 1.000 2.00 590 1,180.00 SF 800 0.30 EA 20 220.00 EA 20 600.00 6 3,600.00 LF 300 16.00 97 1,552.00 EA 40 50.00 6 300.00 EA 15 300.00 2 600.00 EA 15 300.00 1 3.600.00 $69,825.25 S0.00 1 ti- p'■ Kf. ut 66 67 68 69 70 17 65 67 68 70 1 16 66 69 ADO Directional bore 8" HOP. SDR 17 DEDUCT 8“ PVC, SDR 35. 10'-12 ’ deep 8" PVC. SDR 35.12*-14 ‘deep 8" PVC. SDR 35.14 ‘-16’deep 8" PVC. SDR 35.16’-18 ’ deep Lightweight aggregate Total deduct Total Alternate No. 3 Change Order No. 1 Directional bore 3" HOPE. SDR 11 Directioni: bore 8" HOPE. SDR 17 8" PVC. SDR 35.12*-14 ’ deep 8" PVC. SDR 35.14 ’-16- deep Lightweight aggregate Total DEDUCT 8" PVC. SDR 35.0‘-8’deep 3"HDPL SDR 11 8“ PVC. SDR 35. lO’-ir deep 8” PVC. SDR 35.16'-I8*deep Total Total Change Order No. 1 Total Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer Total Part 2 - Restoration Total Change Order No. 1 Total Work Completed to Date l:\139M3990\REQUEST6.WB2 LF 1010 90.00 1010 90.900.00 LF -400 33.00 -400 (13.200.00) LF -515 34.00 -515 (17.510.00) LF -45 35.00 -45 (1.575.00) LF -50 36.00 -50 (1.800.00) LF -1010 30.00 -1010 (30.300.00) (S64.385.00) $26,515.00 ($38,794.00) $43,430.00 $350,213.50 $69,825.25 $43,430.00 $463,468.75 LF 783 24.00 691 16.584.00 LF 446 90.00 376 33.840.00 LF 115 34.00 115 3.910.00 LF 5 35.00 5 175.00 LF 40 30.00 40 1.200.00 $55,709.00 LF -253 31.00 -253 (7.843.00) LF -783 20.00 -783 (15.660.00) LF -435 33.00 -435 (14.355.00) LF -26 36.00 -26 (936.00) I aa-a'n..i">a-rn II ri~nrnm-fc/l‘a-eenriia.a<r-r»ii-i'ni.>tyneii r.aimrt--tTTrutfirrtia -afa <-in lili -wryra'ioai fr-aif«i ar . r Ik PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner CityofOrono Project No. 13990 FUeNo. 13990 Contractor Barbarossa & Sons CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Description Amount 1 08/19/97 Changes due to unstable soils encountered 55338.00 2 3 Total Change Orders $55,538.00 PAYMENT SUMMARY No. Period Payment Retainage Material on Hand l;\139\13990\REQUEST6.WB2 Completed 1 Start 09/03/97 117,259.45 6.171.55 123.431.00 2 09/03/97 10/06/97 167.485.24 14.986.56 299.731.25 3 10/06/97 10/15/97 94.305.55 19.950.01 399.000.25 4 10/15/97 11/04/97 24,270.12 21.227.39 424.547.75 5 11/04/97 12/02/97 28.075.35 22.705.04 454.100.75 6 12/02/97 02/17/98 8,899.60 23.173.44 463.468.75 7 8 9 10 Total Payment to Date $440,295.31 Original Contract $523,740.00 Retainage, Payment No. 6 23.173.44 Change Orders 55.538.00 Total Amount Earned .$463,468.75 Revised Contract $579,278.00 f 1 %. COUNCIL r/£zr!Na FEB 2 3 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY or ORONO DATE: February 20, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator’s Title Cit>‘ Administrator Report i t i Item Description: 1998 Consultant Engineer Fee Schedule 1 1 The 1998 fee schedule for services provided by the City's consultant engineer, Bonestroo Associates, is attached for Council review. The schedule lists hourly rates charged fci the various positions. The rates have increased from 0% to 4.2% over the 1997 rates. The rates at the high end of the schedule are increasing 3.3% to 4.2%. The rates at the low end of the schedule are increasing 0% to 2%. Although the 4% increase appears high in relation to the general rate of inflation, the overall fee schedule increase is at a reasonable level. If the economy and inflation rate continues as it is through 1998, the City should expect a lower fee schedule increase for 1999. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion 'o approve the 1998 fee schedule for services provided by the City's consultant engineer. ENGFBE98 N •. 0 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene vS Anderlik & I\Jl Associates Engineers & Architects December 1,1997 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderhk and Assocuites. Inc n «»n Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo, PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • M<«rvin L. SorvaM. PE • Richard C Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunichi, PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene PE and Susan M Eberlin. CPA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Hov^ard A S.mford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE. • Robert C Russek. A l A • Mark A Hanson, PE • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P. Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney R Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F. Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwvaukee. Wl City of Orono Attn: Mr. Ronald Moorse P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 1998 General Engineering Rates Honorable May«)r and City Council: Serving mimieipalitie.s is not only our specialty; it is our privilege and pleasure. We appreciate the trust you've shown in us as we've helped you plan for, set and reach your engineering and architectural goals. To help you prepare for projects in the new year, we are enclosing our revised hourly rates for general engineering services, which will be effective January I, 1998. We strive to strike a balance between keeping our hourly rates as low as possible while maintaining our commitment to keeping staff and technical capabilities innovative and efficient. If vou have any questions concerning any aspect of our rates or services, please feel free to contact me at 636-1600, or directly at 604-4765. Again, we have appreciated our relationship with the City of Orono. and our entire staff looks forward to serving you in 1998. Sincerely, BONESTROO ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Marvin L. Sorvala MLS: tb EncloiJU'T - 1998 RATE SCHEDULE HOURLY RATE CLASSIFICATION Senior Principal 1998 $92.50 Principal/Project Manager | Senior Scientist Registered Engineer/Architect | Natural Resource Specialist Project Engineer/Architect/Scientist | Senior Field Supervisor CIS Specialist | Senior Designer Graduate Engineer/Architect/Scientist | Field Supervisor Senior Draftsperson | Senior Inspector Inspector 1 Draftsperson | Senior Technician Technician Word Processor Clerical Total Station Equipment GIS Workstation Equipment Attendance at Regular Council Meeting $25.50 $20.00 $20.00 $50.00/mt ' 1 The above rates will be multiplied by 1.3 for review of private developer plans and inspection of private work to cover professional liability insurance costs and legal expenses. These rates are adjusted annually at the first of the year in accordance with the normal review procedures of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Reimbursable Expenses - At Cost Reproduction, Printing, Duplicating, Mileage Out of pocket expenses such as stakes, field supplies, telephone calls, ect. City of Orono Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Highway 12 Land Use Concept Plan - Resolution • i 1 Request for Council Action continued Page 2 February 19,1998 Highway 12 Land Use Concept Plan 5. The sub-area in the southwest quadrant of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 would be planned for office/high tech/medical or similar development. A portion of this sub-area may also be considered for medium density residential development. Orono's current industrial area on the south side of Highway 12 east of Old Crystal Bay Road would be maintained or redeveloped as office, high tech, medical, etc. Benefits of Concept Plan The key benefits of concentrating retail development in a more compact area are as follows: 1. Focuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail area. 2. Focuses on maintaining a vital downtovra and "sense of place" for both Long Lake and Orono. r' \ 5. A compact retail area encourages pedestrian activity. It is easier to plan, coordinate and control the development of a more compact retail area than an extended retail strip. Focusing development toward Brown Road could strengthen the ability to obtain desirable development on the north side of Highway 12 east of Otten Brothers Nursery. Enables better control over the amount of retail development that occurs in this area. Provides the opportunity to generate stable jobs in office, high tech, medical, etc. A more compact community scale retail area matches the design of new Highway 12 with no interchanges through Long Lake. Limits the number of north/south roadways that would be affected by retail development (increase traffic and activity levels). Maintains a lower activity level in the area west of Willow Drive. 11. Would create less pressure for providing an access from new Highway 12 to the retail area. 9. Request for Council Action co"«W COUNCIL ACTION requested. a,e Council consensus regarding the ‘ I RESOLUTION ADOPTING A GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT ALONG *^fIGHWAY 12 ComprehensiveZXV^r' land use along ^n“»d oldSTavT," throughout the Highw^tfarf^mT” ‘ HioW.v 10, ■' important that the Council has a clear vision for land use alone Highway 12 to guide its review of proposals for development along Highway 12; and * study by the *' *“• “ '*’« of extensive » . 1 ’^'*'“*“ssion, the Council reviewed several oeneral WHEREAS, this concept plan has the following benefits: 1. Focuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail area. 1 i Page 1 of 3 2. Focuses on maintaining a vital downtown and "sense of place" for both Long Lake and Orono. 3. A compact retail area encourages pedestrian activity. 4. It is easier to plan, coordinate and control the development of a more compact retail area than an extended retail strip. 5.Focusing development toward Brown Road could strengthen the ability to obtain desirable development on the north side of Highway 12 east of Otten Brothers Nursery. Enables better control over the amount of retail development that occurs in this area. Provides the opportunity to generate stable jobs in office, high tech, medical, etc. A more compact community scale retail area matches the design of new Highway 12 with no interchanges through Long Lake. Limits the number of north/south roadways that would be affected by retail development (increase traffic and activity levels). 10. Maintains a lower activity level in the area west of Willow Drive. 11. Would create less pressure for providing an access from new Highway 12 to the retail area. NOW. THEREFORE, PE IT RESOLVED by the Orono City Council, that a general concept plan for land use along Highway 12, calling for community scale retail ^^yel^ment focused in a cLpact area in and near downtown Long Lake (closer to Brown Road than to Wi low Drive, at least in the short-term) most closely reflects the Council's vision for development al g Highway 12. 9. i Page 2 of 3 ♦ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Page 3 of3 r COUNCIL f/*£2Ti.\o FfTB 2 3 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 20,1998 ITEM NO:<33 Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment • Update In response to Council direction, staff drafted an amended park dedication ordinance to address the legal issue of the rough proportionality between the impact of a development on the City's park system and the park dedication amount. The draft park dedication ordinance was reviewed at a joint work session of the Council and Park Commission. At the work session, the Council indicated general support of the draft ordinance but directed staff to make three additional changes to the ordinance. These are as follows: 1.Include findings regarding the impact of commercial/industrial development on the City's park system as the basis for establishing parameters for a park dedication requirement for commercial and industrial development. 2. 3. Enable the park dedication requirement to be triggered by a development independent of a subdivision. Enable the park dedication cap to be exceed^ when a neighborhood park is planned to serve a specific residential development. Because these changes required joint effort between City staff, the City's planning consultant and the City Attorney, they have not been completed for the Council meeting. The adoption of the amendment to the park dedication ordinance requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission and final approval by the Council. Staff will complete the draft ordinance by Friday, February 27 so that the Council can review and comment on the draft ordinance before it is brought to the March 16 Planning Commission meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize staff to proceed to draft an amended park dedication ordinance outlined above. PARKDED UPD I I COUNCIL FEB 2 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cuYC" o DATE: February 20, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: £1 Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Park Plan Element of Comprehensive Plan - Conceptual Changes - Resolution The Council and Park Commission met in a joint work session on February 12, 1998 to discuss an outline of general park needs as the basis for a long-term park, open space, and trail plan. After discussion of the long-term park needs, it was the consensus of the Council that the parks element ot the City s Comprehensive Plan should be amended to reflect the need to acquire additional park land in both the urban and rural areas of the City. Council directed staff to draft a resolution to reflect the Council consensus. A resolution is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution reflecting the consensus of the Council that the parks element of the City's Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect the need to acquire additional park land in both the urban and rural areas of the City. PKELEMEN I f i i I II ~ I !■ f TTITBm«ir'i1iii~bifi~riiB ■ ~ la'—I mr ■ i i r <1 A RESOLUTION REFLECTING COUNCIL CONSENSUS REGARDING AMENDING THE PARKS ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REFLECT THE NEED TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARK LAND IN BOTH THE URBAN AND RURAL AREAS OF THE CITY f ^ Park Commission has, through substantial efforts, identified a set of needs related to parks, open space, and trails in the City; and WHEM AS, meeting these needs will require the acquisition of additional land for parks, open space, and trails in both the urban and rural areas of the City; and .0 mee. .he ■ X A .u oflfie City's Comprehensive Plan does notinclude the acquisition of additional park land in the City's rural area. held this 23rd ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Page 1 of 1 i J r i i . i - : p, - i h f -1 % ‘r COUNCIL r/'£-' -. FEB 2 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cm' c" cnr.^:0 DATE: February 20,1998 ITEM NO: 9^^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Resignation of Irving English from His Police Officer Position Officer Irving "Chip" English has submitted his resignation from his Police Officer position effective March 1,1998. A copy of his letter of resignation is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the resignation of Irving English from his Police Officer position, effective March 1,1998. J c. 1 1' !S. I a TO;Chief Cheswick FROM: Officer English DATE: February 13, 1998 SUBJ: Resignation This memo serves as my resignation from the Orono police department. As required by department policy, I am providing you with a two week notice. My last working day will be Sunday, March 1,1998. If there is any paperwork that needs to be completed to facilitate my leaving, please let me luiow as soon as possible. I wish to make my departure as smooth as possible. Thank you. c: RonMoorse ail i.arcT '■ r ~riii ~rr T~~irw>i^«i > iTrf untiw irn mn> i >i imr a t■. i i~ i iii ay Whgira ir»«ii ~'i' ■■ i i lOii ■ i m i *r#«i Af ^. COUNCIL f/£=Tir !3 FEB 2 3 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY cr cn''\'o Date: February 18,1998 Item No: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed: Name: Title: Gary Cheswick Chief of Police Agenda Section: Item Description: Hiring of Full-Time Officer Exhibits:None DISCUSSION On February 13, 1998, Officer Irving English submitted his letter of resignation. Because of this vacancy, there is a need to hire a replacement. In March, 1997, testing for a police position provided a rating of possible candidates. A part-time vacancy was filled by the hiring of Steven McNally. Steve McNally has shown that he is an outstanding officer with impressive work ethics. Because of this, I am recommending Steve McNally be offered the position. COUNCIL ACTION REOUFSTF.n Re<]uest Steven McNally be hired for the position of full-time police officer, effective March 2,1998, at the first year salary level of $2,926.72 per month ($16.89 hourly), with benefits. COUN'CIL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACHON rr r 7 ' ' r> Date: February 18, 1998 Item No: Jl *7 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed: Name: Title: Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Agenda Section: Item Description: Hiring of Part-Time Officer Exhibits:None DISCUSSION With Officer Steven McNally being accepted as a full-time police officer, an opening for a part-time officer position is available. The position of part-time officers have provided the police department with an invaluable resource in filling vacant shifts and providing additional personnel as needed. In addition, it has provided us the ability to evaluate personnel as a police officer prior to a full time position becoming available. Community Service Officer Christopher Fischer has been employed with the City of Orono since April 4, 1995 on a part-time basis, and more recently in a full time capacity in animal control. He is qualified to be licensed as a full time police officer and has experience in working with the police department as a CSO and as a Reserve Officer. Chris has shown intense interest in the part-time police officer position, and understands that his full-time status in animal control would be changed. Because of his internship and employment within the police department, I am recommending he be hired as a part-time police officer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Request Christopher Fischer be hired as a part-time police officer with an hourly rate f $11.89 per hour. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Scheduling of a Council Work Session REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL M£!IT|\ig P’EB 2 3 1998 C'TYr- ..-s.j Date: February 18,1998 Item No: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Gary Cheswick Chief of Police Item Description: Request Disposal of Old Squad Cars Exhibits:None DISCUSSION The Police Department requests permission to dispose of three squad cars which were previously used in police patrol, and have now been replaced. They are described as: 1994 Ford Crown Victoria, 109,098 miles, VIN #2FALP71W1RX 182882 1995 Ford Crown Victoria, 115,695 miles, VIN #2FALP71W3SX 156242 1995 Ford Crown Victoria, 94,652 miles, VIN #2FALP71W5SX 156243 COUNCn. ACTION REQUESTED Request permission to sell above squad cars to highest bidders as per city ordinance. COUNCIL P/:. kU I I ' 1 i f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 2 3 1998 DATE:CITY o:' o ITEM NO: BO Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Conceptual Approval of Hennepin County Election Equipment Purchase ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter Re: Election Equipment Replacement; A Cooperative Effort 2. Concept Approval Election Equipment Purchase Form The attached letter from Hennepin County outlines the conceptual plan for replacement of existing election equipment to be used in the 1998 elections. Briefly, Hennepin County, upon approval, would purchase election equipment to be used throughout the County. Hennepin County would then require the cities to use the equipment under a signed lease agreement, and the cities would be required to pay only for a maintenance agreement on the machines. Orono currently owns four optical scan machines and ballot boxes, and pays annual maintenance agreement fees. Ownership of this existing equipment, which is ten years old, would be transferred to the County for their use as trade-in equipment. In return, the City would receive four new precinct counters and four new ballot boxes. At this time, Hennepin County is requesting the City's approval of the conceptual plan for replacing election equipment. Once the County has approval from all cities in the County, they will award the contract to the successful bidder. At that time, the City will be to asked to approve the User Agreement containing the details and costs for the service/maintenance agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to grant conceptual approval of the general concept of Hennepin County purchase of new election equipment. • it". Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer February 10,1998 - I ' '— ,' Dorothy M. Hailin, Clerk City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Hailin; fcS i 2 1993 Re: Election Equipment Replacement; A Cooperative Effort 19ST atySlInty Tai^^ forS to consSerthe^^^^' vi'If ''0*'"9 equipment is not a new concept. In research and recommendations of that Task Force retsnifprt inlh*' r countywide standardization of voting equipment. The equipment. Another important result of this effort was the rnimhin *^ie Optech HIP optical scan precinct voting semcesto cilieson anon.goin8basis. Thiscooperali»e.ffonrS^tn “XTJSaTo P-csramming City/Sun^TaiklFtorw comparison to advances in technology now available. The Force found justification for replacement and uooMrtl ® countywide replacement and upgrade. The Task alternatives, the Task Force recommended to cominup nrpri!!r'f^ equipment. After investigation of various equipment and system features offered by optical scan votfnq eouiomeit on technology as the method of voting in the county. The necessary in justification of an upgrade set minimum *[^P^®ssive. The Task Force identified desirable features Th, b,«e opbc, sen s,stems tested In rr^CSlnatXl replaententof old voting e,„ipm«n. with the County to continue countywide uniformity of votina eauiomint and rm budget situations in each municipality, but it enables us av,ltebte.theCouX„l,,p,ovSrSrv^o:2S'S^^^^^^ teri'en!lJS “SS^n 'UPl'Pments determined necessary at end So Jartfor^Hy^usrsrt^Sore n“““ System* S«ndSeguteaPacIPcSystems. VendOte^are ’^^^r^r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ However°wencVw 10“ JJme°a '* »“*''<«'“» sucesslul bidder in March. ^ Hhf County. The equipment will be provided to cities with no utLd~:Z~m™^^^^ as the egulpment Is e pu°:^e;^Sme7e^*S-Snt°'“''" ''ansterredto the County (or trade-in ensideratlon wili^nfp^'inin t Tf" ® countywide service agreement with the successful bidder The County « K "‘^P-front* the costs, and assess a pro-rated prunft oS back toeach city to be reimbursed to the County on an annual basis. As stated pro-raieo per unit cost back to 3. Hennepin County General Services Ta.xpayer Services Division A'600 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487'0060 Recycled Paper Ite m s«» .»» ILS^ l«.*a January 10,1998 Memo regarding election equipment Page 2 previously, we cannot provide actual costs or details until the contract is awarded; however, we believe per unit costs on a countywide basis should be lower than those assessed on a city-by-city basis. The City and County will enter into a User Agreement which will include the conditions identified above. Timeframes applied to preliminary requirements and implementation in a project of this magnitude are realistically subject to change, however we anticipate the following schedule of events: February 18 Proposals from vendors are due no later than 2:00 pm February 19 February 27 County commences two-week evaluation process for consideration of proposals submitted Written approval of the concept contained herein must be received from all cities March 9 Contract awarded to the successful bidder for an Optical Scan Precinct County System and related full service agreements March 16 User Agreement containing all details and costs for service agreement completed and forwarded to cities. This timeframe will give cities six weeks to present the agreement to the Governing Body or proper authority for consideration and approval. April 27 Cities return the approved User Agreement to the Coun;y Junel New equipment delivered and old equipment retrieved by the successful bidder NO LATER than June I. This condition is firm in the contract specifications! The County is requesting cities' written approval of ONLY the concept outlined above. If you haven't already done so, you may want to present this concept to your governing body or proper authority on an informational basis before any formal action is required. Approval of this concept from each and every city in the County is necessary at this time, as countywide involvement Is the most critical element in the success of this city/county project. The County cannot, and will not, proceed any further until we can be assured of an agreement and willingness to participate in this group effort by all cities. Please consider this request immediately. Return the enclosed Concept Approval form no later than February 27, 1998. As you can see from our anticipated schedule, time is of the essence! If all goes as planned, this new equipment will be on hand, folly tested and available for the 1998 elections. If you have any questions, please contact Marge Christianson at 348-5103. Patrick H. O'Connor, Director Taxpayer Services Department c; Jeff Spartz, County Administrator Sandy Vargas, Deputy County Administrator enclosure r CONCEPT APPROVAL ELECTION EQUIPMENT PURCHASE The City of has reviewed the Hennepin County letter of and accepts the general concept of Hennepin County purchase of new election equipment for cities, using city-owned equipment as trade-in on the new equipment, and continued no-cost election programming services for cities. Formal approval by the City in the form of a County/City User Agreement will be requested following the County's award of a contract to the successful bidder. Date City Manager, Administrator or Mayor Return by February 27, 1998 to:Marge Christianson, Supervisor of Elections Taxpayer Services Department A-600 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 ; ~if - -ii— iminirr — ft '■a n an ■■ ii mu fi i— i tittii i i ~iniiiiTii~ T n i imiiMli 0'm wi ^ a Mfnn .. .t •!. ,ii w.'nLr’A>a^&4tf. r ' .'N Vj REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 2 3 1998 DATE: Februar)CllttV ITEM NO: 3/ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE Rene* & Patricia Stemau 440 North Arm Drive SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Clvde Gates 1 .'ot Race on Luce Line April 18, 1998,8:30 a.m. -10:30 a.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. r r * r f I KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,19 to December 31,19 Owner: fac' I ^----------------------fr f -------^------------------------------------------------z____ j f\ Property Address: ^40 iMfl /jV/yi , Oj^df ffi/1 ~.SV-» Mailing Address (if different): Phone: (home) UllO (include city and zip) (work) 6^2^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ^ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: Purpose for more than 2 dogs: l<H l^ lM fi Ch\U Dogs normally kept: inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: SI50.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: Normal Business Hours: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) After Hours Contact: (name)_ (phoneX Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applrcan^ ]'hhl Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approva l Denial Dat e . V I <.'wa t a-n.iCMft nmrL«l«r tmn k r *cS‘=Kss:s!K'““™'' Permit #; Phone Number: Fee: $50.00 Date Received: Name: Address: City, State, Zip: Location of Parade,or Event: ScA^eg / Ai.'Mi, •Ap^ ■LM/S Hours of Event: j-, ld\So,r„i*, Date of Event Type of Event: Signature 2^^P//3/9^ ^ Date Approved: □ Denied: □ By: Remarks: /i; r-5a Kiy 50. Cv 010399,3 t i : Date:February 18, 1998 To:Ron Moorse, City Attorney From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Polic Subject:Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application of Clyde Gates to hold a foot race within our city on Apnl 18,1998. ^ Requested requirements are to include: Applicant must provide enough volunteers to direct runners/traffic at intersection roads along the race route. Applicant must provide first aid to the runners. Provided the above requirements are met, I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. i \ II 1 I ■! f I ~ntwn iM |1 I I ■ I'mn f I li T III I it H ~I 1 iTr |1T» I ~iiTi Tr If] r-| j|j[U i-~ghi|~i ni TII> ii ^ri in 1l l lli i lanll I n n ~ll n n"l mmrtf-Tnrr r f ■■ ili i rnri—ri n n wt ii r ■ ■! i ■rtiMr— i iiimr 11 i mm i ni ii i a ^ii ^ m i it ■■ i} i ! \ i ! -nJ 7- couNciL FEB 2 3 1998 ciTYcr cr'" h ' . 's 12 Feb 1998 Thu 2:46 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Enployee Name Check Number 044033 044033 PETERSON, BARBARA A. Totals Check Number 044033 Check Number 044034 044034 MOORSE, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 044034 Check Number 044035 044035 FLINT, RICHARD Totals Check Number 044035 Check Number 044036 044036 GOETTEN, J. DIANN Totals Check Number 044036 Check Number 044037 044037 JABBOUR, GABRIEL E. Totals Check Number 044037 Check Number 044038 044038 KELLEY, CHARLES Totals Check Number 044038 I Grand Total Check Date lO-Feb-98 lO-Feb-98 lO-Feb-98 10-Feb-9B lO-Feb-98 lO-Feb-98 Page 1 Check Amount 269.36 269.36 184.70 184.70 269.36 269.36 269.36 269.36 323.22 323.22 269.36 269.36 1,585.36 r ■! fY~Mi I ^ aiiMii I fiimai. i in llii im i I i ■■ liTliifc i _ •) v' wm :l9) v' 9t •! 12 Feb 1998 Thu 2:43 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044015 044015 NECKMAN* STEPHEN J Totals Check Number 044015 Check Number 044016 044016 BRINXHAUS, JOHN F, Totals Check Number 044016 Check Number 044017 044017 DEBAERE, DONALD L. Totals Check Number 044017 Check Number 044018 044018 GREGORY* JAMES D. Totals Check Nusdt>er 044018 Check Number 044019 044019 HANSEN, STEVEN C Totals Check Number 044019 Check Number 044020 044020 OBBRAIGNER, SCOTT G Totals Check Number 044020 Check Nusd>er 044021 044021 OBRIEN. RANDY L. Totals Check Nun^r 044021 Check Number 044022 044022 PALMER, GREGORY A Totals Check Number 044022 Check Number 044023 044023 RATHBUN, BARRY J Totals Check Number 044023 Check Number 044024 Check Date ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 Page 5 Chech Amount 42.78 42.78 1,048.80 1,048.80 918.70 918.70 242.39 242.39 832.23 832.23 670.82 670.82 200.52 200.52 675.76 675.76 862.53 862.53 1 ’! J 12 Peb 1998 Thu 2:43 PM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name Check Number 044024 044024 SKREEN, DALE S Totals Check Number 044024 Check Date ll-Feb-98 Page 6 Check Amount 620.88 620.86 Check Number 044025 044025 ROSS, JOHN A.ll-Feb-98 Totals Check Number 044025 95.91 95.91 Check Number 044026 044026 STEPFENHAGBN, RONALD B.ll-Feb-98 Totals Check Number 044026 Grand Total 1,054.36 1,054.36 38,200.82 ti L r 12 Feb 1996 Thu 2:39 PH Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55681 55681 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION ll-Feb-98 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 55681 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 55682 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES S5682 55682 55682 ll-Feb-96 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 55682 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 55683 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 55663 ll-Feb-98 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Totals Check Number 55683 GREAT HEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Check Number 55684 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 55664 ll-Feb-98 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 55684 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT fi COLL Check Number 55685 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 55685 ll-Feb-98 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 55685 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 55686 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 55686 ll-Feb-98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Number 55686 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 55687 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 55667 ll-Feb-98 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 55687 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 55688 MN MUTUAL LIFE 55686 ll-Feb-98 MN MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Number 55688 MN MUTUAL LIFE Check Number 55689 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEP COMP 55689 ll-Feb-98 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COHP Totals Check Number 55689 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Transaction ARiount 6,459.00 6,459.00 3,182.58 3,182.58 7,481.75 13,646.91 1,079.68 1,079.68 174.50 174.50 184.50 164.50 225.00 225.00 3,198.65 3,198.65 455.30 455.30 315.00 315.00 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS N/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE H/H PICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON IC0266780 SKREBN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H STATE TAX H/H DEFERRED COMP W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H ^ r 12 Feb 1998 Thu 2:3*> PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55690 55690 PEB5C0/0BRA ll-Feb-98 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 55690 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 55691 PEBSCO/US CONP OF MAYORS 55691 ll-Feb-98 PEBSCO/US CONP OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 55691 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 55692 PERA 55692 55692 ll-Feb-98 ll-Feb-98 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 55692 PERA Check Number 55693 UNITED WAY 55693 ll-Peb-98 UNITED WAY Totals Check Number 55693 UNITED WAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 25.18 25.18 1,855.91 1,855.91 4,230.17 5,527.39 9,757.56 30.00 30.00 37.607.19 Page 2 Comments OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H iil fci ^1 n —— -— r 19 Feb 1998 Thu 3:40 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 1 Check Number Date Name Check Number 55695 55695 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 19-Feb-96 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 55695 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Check Number 55696 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. I Check Number 55699 BARBAROSSA 6 SONS 55699 55699 55699 55699 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 BARBAROSSA k SONS BARBAROSSA k SONS BARBAROSSA k SONS BARBAROSSA k SONS Totals Check Number 55699 BARBAROSSA Ik SONS Check Number 55700 BLACKOHIAK k SON 55700 55700 19-Feb-98 21-Jan-98 BLACKONIAK k SON BLACKOHIAK k SON Totals Check Number 55700 BLACKOHIAK k SON Check Number 55701 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. Transaction Amount Comments 1,486.00 1,486.00 POLICE GENERATOR 55696 19-Peb-98 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.44.62 SANDER PARTS Totals Check Nuab«r SS696 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.44.62 1 Check Number 55697 AT a T HIRELESS SERVICES 1 55697 19-Feb-98 AT a T HIRELESS SERVICES 5.50 CELLULAR CHAGS 1 55697 19-Feb*98 AT a T HIRELESS SERVICES 5.49 V CELLULAR CHAGS 55697 19-F«b-98 AT a T HIRELESS SERVICES 134.73 CELLULAR CHAGS j Totals Check Number 55697 AT a T HIRELESS SERVICES 145.72 1 Check Number 55698 AT6T 55698 19-Feb-98 ATaT 7.60 LONG DISTANCE Totals Check Number 55698 ATaT 7.60 43,743.38 4,068.40 25,889.00 4,831.20 RFP #7 NLL/LLCC RFP 86 BR/B PT RFP #7 NLL/LLCC RFP «6 BR/BPT 78,531.98 160.85 337.16 JANUARY DEC 1997 SERVICE 498.01 55701 19-Feb-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.2,645.78 HETLAND INVTORY FYMT «3 55701 19-Feb-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.2,317.50 BYRDG/BRPT ASSIST DEC 55701 19-Feb-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.1,833.28 NLL/IXCC ASSIST DBC 55701 19-Feb-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.286.93 BYRDG/BRPT RFP5 55701 19-Feb-98 BCRIESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.172.17 NLL/LLCC REP6 55701 19-Feb-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.160.00 I/I SAGA HLLS/FRST LK DEC 55701 19-Feb-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.274.50 OCB RD TRAIL ADM - DEC 55701 19-Feb-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.643.00 DEC APPLICATIONS Totale Check Humber 55701 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC.8,333.16 19 Feb 1998 Thu 3:40 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Check Number Date Name Ch«ck Number 55702 BOCHBH ENVIRONMEOTAL SERVICES 19-Feb-9B BUCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES55702 Totals Check Number 55702 BUCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Check Number 55704 CATCO PARTS k SERVICE 55704 19-Feb-98 CATCO PARTS k SERVICE Totals Check Number 55704 CATCO PARTS i SERVICE Check Number 55705 CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 55705 55705 19-Feb-9B 19-Feb-98 CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 55705 CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESTotals Check Number Check Number 55706 CHESWICK, GARY 55706 19-Feb-98 CHESNICK, GARY Totals Check Number 55706 CHESWICK. GARY Check Number 55707 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO 55707 19-Feb-98 Totals Check Number Check Number 55708 CULLIGAN 55708 l9-Feb-98 Totals Check Number COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 55707 COLOl^IAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. CULLIGAN 55708 CULLIGAN Check Number 55709 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 55709 19-Feb-98 DEPUTY REGISTRAR Totals Check Number 55709 DEPUTY REGISTRAR Check Number 55710 FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. 55710 19-Feb-98 FIRSTAR TRUST CO. Totals Cneck Nuinber 55710 FIRSTAR TRUST CO Tremsaction Amount Comments 1,200.00 1,200.00 TV INSPECTION Check Number 55703 BUDGET PRINTING 129.97 CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS 55703 19-Feb-98 BUDGET PRINTING 4.80 SHIPPING CHGS 55703 19-Feb-98 BUDGET PRINTING 4.98 SHI. ING CHGS 55703 l9-Feb-98 BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 55703 BUDGET PRINTING 139.75 £54.62 654.62 BRAKES - 425 18.00 12.00 STUMP DISPOSAL LOG DISPOSAL 30.00 24.00 24.00 meals HENN CO CHEIFS MEET 898.06 898.06 FEBRUARY DISABILITY 32.00 32.00 FEBRUARY SBIVZCE 8.50 8.50 TABS FOR 8167 16,500.00 16,500.00 GO 82 DEBT DUE 3/1/98 ti! 1 : f • [ •i MS.': I I III II ii.iiimiiiiiiimiiiiinii H.NIIIIIII ■in II niiia i ' - 19 Feb 1998 Thu 3:40 PM Check Number Date Name Check Number 55711 55711 55711 55711 Q k K SERVICES 19-Feb-98 G 4 K SERVICES 19>Feb>98 G 4 K SERVICES 19-F«b-98 G 4 K SERVICES Totals Check Number 55711 0 4 K SERVICES . Check Number 55712 GALL'S INC. 55712 19-Feb-98 GALL'S INC. Totals Check Number 55712 GALL'S INC. Check Number 55713 QAFPA. GREG 55713 19-Feb-98 GAPPA, GREG Totals Check Number 55713 GAPPA. GREG Check Number 55714 GERALD T. FINN 55714 19-Feb-98 GERALD T. FINN i I Total* Check Number 55714 GERALD T. FINN Qieck Number 55715 KASEMAN, CAROLE 55715 19-Feb-98 HASBMAN, CAROLE Totals Check Number 55715 haseman. carols Check Number 55716 HBALTHPARTNERS 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 19-Peb-9e 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 HBALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPaVi:N;.RS HBALTHPARTNERS HBALTHPARTNERS HBALTHPARTNERS HEALTHTsJlTNERS Totals Check Number 55716 H7AXTHPARTNERS Qieck Number 55717 HENN COON.» ;^-Ai;.*ER / Check Register City of Orono 55717 19-Feb-98 . C .^rn TREAURER / Totals Check Number 55717 HENN COUNTY TREAURER / 55718 HIGHMAY 55 RENTALCheck Number 55718 19-Feb-98 HIGHWAY 55 RENTAL Totals Check Number 55718 hlGHir < 55 RENTAL IL Transaction Amount 5.93 90.61 12.15 108.69 134.98 134.98 82.36 82.36 301.43 301.43 17.33 17.33 328.50 163.77 6a041.33 328.50 163.77 6«041 33 13.067.20 571.74 571.74 81.75 81.75 Comments UNIFORM UNIFORMS UNIFORMS BOOTS - MCNALLY MILEAGE & PARKING REFUND OVERPAYMENT PARKING health - 1/98 HEALTH - 1/98 health - 1/98 JANUARY HEALTH JANUARY HEALTH JANUARY HEALTH Page 3 DECEMBER ROOM 4 BOARD COMPRESSOR \ 19 Feb 1998 Thu 3:40 PH Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55719 55719 55719 HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES 19-Feb-98 HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES 19-Feb-98 HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES Totals Check Number 55719 HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES Qieck Number 55720 KNOLLENBERG, KRIS 55720 19-Feb-98 KNOLLENBERQ« KRIS Totals Check Number 55720 XNOLLENBERG, KRIS Check Number 55721 LOGIS 55721 19-Feb-98 LOGIS Totals Check Number 55721 LOGIS Check Number 55722 MEDICA CHOICE 55722 55722 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 MEDICA CHOICTB MEDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 55722 MEDICA CHOICE Check Number 55723 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 55723 19-Feb-98 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 55723 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 55724 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM 55724 19-Feb-98 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Totals Check Number 55724 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Check Number 55725 MOORSE, RON 55725 19-Feb-98 MOORSE, RON Totals Check Number 55725 MOORSE, RON Dieck Number 55726 NORTH AMERICAN SALT CO, 55726 55726 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 NORTH AMERICAN SALT CO. NORTH AMERICAN SALT CO. Totals Check Number 55726 NORTH AMERICAN SALT CO Check Number 55727 NSP 55727 19-Feb-98 NSP Transaction Amount 67.04 82.46 149.50 44.00 44.00 900.00 900.00 202.25 10,043.00 10,245.25 22,378.66 22,378.66 210.80 210.80 24.45 24.45 1,613.66 3,210.89 4,824.55 1.185.83 Page 4 Comments IBM SEL II REPAIR IBM WW15 SHOES PIMS APPLIC JAN MARCH INSURANCE MARCH INSURANCE MARCH SEWER 4TH QTR AFF ACT PRO WORK SESSIONS 54.98 TONS SALT 109.4 TONS SALT ST LIGHTING 1/98 f •- J /X V fj r h' 19 Feb 1998 Thu 3:40 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55727 55727 55727 55727 NSP 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 22-Jan-98 NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Number 55727 NSP Check Number 55728 ORONO SELF SERVICE 55728 19-Feb-98 ORONO SELF SERVICE Totals Check Number 55728 ORONO SELF SBIVICE Check Number 55729 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 55729 04-Feb-97 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Totals Check Number 55729 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Check Number 55730 POWBRCLEAN COMPANY INC. 55730 19-Feb-98 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Totals Check Number 55730 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Check Number 55731 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 55731 19-Feb-98 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Totals Check Number 55731 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 55732 ROLLINS OIL CO. 55732 19-Feb-98 ROLLINS OIL CO. Totals Check Number 55732 ROLLINS OIL CO. Check Number 55733 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN 55733 19-Feb-98 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN Totals Check Number 55733 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN Qieck Number 55734 SEARS 55734 19-Feb-98 SEARS Totals Check Number 55734 SEARS Check Number 55735 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION 55735 19-Fcb-98 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Transaction Amount 375.99 110.27 158.28 1,830.37 30.82 30.82 144.00 144.00 1,693.35 1,693.35 6,931.49 6,931.49 224.59 224.59 21.25 21.25 153.46 153.46 -75.00 Page 5 Comments ELECTRICAL SERVICE ELECTRICAL SERVICE HIHAY 12/WILLOIf DIESEL MARCH INSURANCE JANUARY CLEANING ASSESSING FEE OIL,HASSR FLUID BAG FOR PBT HISC TOOLS REVERSE DUPLICATE . 1 I r r 19 Feb 1998 Thu 3:40 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Kunber Date Name Qieck Number S5735 55735 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION OS-Jan-98 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Totals Check Number 55735 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Check Number 55736 SNYDER DRUG STORES 55736 19-Feb-98 SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number 55736 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 55737 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC. 55737 19-Feb-98 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC, Totals Check Number 55737 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC. Check Number 55738 STANDARD SPRING 55738 19-Feb-98 STANDARD SPRING Totals Check Number 55738 STANDARD SPRING Check Number 55739 STAR TRIBUNE 55739 19-Peb-98 STAR TRIBIRIE Totals Check Number 55739 STAR TRIBUNE Check Number 55740 STREICHERS 55740 19-Feb-98 55740 19-Feb-98 55740 19-Feb-98 55740 24-Nov-97 j 55740 19-Feb-98 55740 19-Feb-98 55740 19-Feb-98 i 55740 19-Feb-98 1 55740 19-Feb-98 1 55740 19-Feb-98 J STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals a.eck Number 55740 STREICHERS Check Number 55741 THIN CITIES SERVICE CENTER INC 55741 19-Feb-98 TWIN CITIES SERVICE CENTER INC Totals Check Number 55741 TWIN CITIES SERVICE CENTER INC Check Number 55742 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 55742 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE Transaction Amount 75.00 0.00 132.17 132.17 205.02 205.02 59.65 59.65 26.00 26.00 181.91 6.34 19.06 40.23 58.14 -38.23 15.92 167.96 132.37 31.84 251.72 55.91 55.91 0.85 Page 6 Comments VAN ZOMERAN FILM, BATTERY HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY SPRING, U-BOLTS Sl^SCRIPTION 13 WEEKS CASH AND CREDITS MISC EQUIP MISC EQUIP MOUTHPIECES MISC EQUIP BATON HOLDER FLASHER MISC SUPPLIES CHARGER MISC SUPPLIES RADIO REPAIRS NOVEMBER INSURANCE Amount Comments 14.98 6.42 444.15 NOVEMBER NOVCMBER NOVEMBER INSURANCE INSURANCE IN.SURANCB 466.40 45.94 88.75 DECEMBER DECEMBER r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 20,1998 Council at ^1998 ROLL c/nf'’ • The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder (arrived during discussion of item nS, Sandra Smith, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard (who left the meeting shortly after arrivai), and Liii McMiiian. Janice Berg was absent. Council Member Goeiien was aiso present. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS Conditional Use Permits (»l) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - Conditional use permit to seasonally allow a horse in the LR-1A Zoning District - 6:33-6:44 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to keep one horse on the property during the summer months, April through November. There are two pasture areas proposed. Pasture #1 is 1.14 acres and pasture #2 is .67 acres for a total of 1.81 acres. A previous proposal under consideration included a bam and the housing of two horses. Bressler reviewed the findings, namely the requirement for the CUP, compliance with applicable provisions in the zoning code related to feedlots, and fencing. Pasture #1 is no^ considered a feedlot due to its size and would not need to meet a 300' setback from protected waterways as required for pasture #2, which meets the 300' setback. A minimum of two acres of pasture is required for keeping one horse. The intention for the minimum size requirement is to provide adequate area for each animal if the pasture is used as a foo J source. The horse would be fed and would not be dependent on grazing in the pasture. Staff recommends E ^.proval with pasture #1 being the primary site and the use of pasture #2 to occasionally relieve pressure on the vegetation of pasture #1 The recommendation is based on findings of the extension educator from the University of Minnesota, Mr. Geske. Pendleton had no additional comments at this time. ' i 1 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#1 - #2289 Jon Pendleton - Continued) There were no public comments. Smith confirmed that the horse would be housed elsewhere over the winter months Lindquist asked the applicant if he was satisfied with the staff recommendatio^. . —a..... iio «r5«aoriiv tn nrovidc relief for vegetation growth m pasture #1. Hawn noted the letter referencing best management practices is not specific as to of Inum Pendleton said he will speak with Mr. Geske regards t^s sue and w,II _,.....gfTiith Said Pendleton would most likely be required to of manure Pendleton said he will speaK witn Mr. vje.Kc .C5a.«».e - r„:j'jsu^^ 3 “,“ Sved by time of I i-HT-io moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2289 per recommendation with letter from Mr. Geske referencing proper program procedures. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0 (M) #2290 STEVEN AND ELAINE SILUS, 3225 CASCO CIRCLE - Conditional use permit to grade within S' of the south property line to allow a driveway an retaining wall - 6:44-7:02 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Viewed. The driveway is located 2' from the property line with a to prevent runoff. Runoff will be directed into the south side yard. The dnveway ha previously been blacktopped and was shared with the neighboring PraP««y. A drainage Lale with steel edging and rock mulch is proposed in the side yard. No fabnc underlayment is proposed because it would increase hardcover. Hawn asked about the height of the retaining wall. Silus stud maximum height by the house and be lower closer to the street. The curb is 8 g ■ «t BVt'»tf> t«« ajUfl MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#2 - #2290 Steven and Elaine Silus > Continued) The space for backing out of the driveway is proposed at 24', where 21* would be allowed without the conditional use permit. Typically, 30' is recommended for a side-loading garage. Van Zomeren clarified that the application is not for a variance but for a conditional use permit, which has different standards. The use is authorized in the zoning code with performance standards. Grading within 5' of a lot line is allowed as a CUP. The Planning Commissioners are to decide whether this grading should be allowed. Van Zomeren reviewed the analysis presented in the packet. It was noted that • ’le neighbors object to the retaining wall and driveway being located 2' from their property line. Van Zomeren noted the need for proper turning radius. Variances were granted in March, 1997, for the property. The structure meets the 10' side setback. Typically, normal grading for a new home and driveway does not require a CUP. The building inspector determined that grading within 5' of the property line is not normal or customary. One concern is whether the grading will impact the amount of drainage on adjacent property. Van Zomeren reviewed Staffs recommendation asking for consideration of issues as laid out in the packet. If the Planning Commissioners vote in the negative, findings are required. Van Zomeren said the neighbors, the Spilseth's are out of town and ask that consideration be given to their comments made in their letter, which was included in the packet. Silus had no additional comments at this time. Joan Fitzpatrick, a fnend of the Spilseth's, said the Spilseth's were against the driveway being 2' from the property line. She indicated exhaust fumes would gather from this location. The Spilseths object to losing the combined driveway, increasing the elevation, and potentially increasing runoff. Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, asked why the application was not considered a variance request. Van Zomeren said the application has always been for a CUP and no hardship substantiation is then required. McMillan asked if a driveway can be located at the property lot line. Van Zomeren replied that this could occur, but in this case, the grade was being changed and was not considered normal or customary. She indicated the problem was created by the surveyor's use of topographical maps, which can var 2', which on a narrow lot such as the subject property can be unreliable. Van Zomeren noted that conditions can be placed on the CUP. If the conditions cannot be met, the CUP can be denied. r (#2 - #2290 Steven and Elaine Silus - Continued) » ^ it,b.“'tS “ ‘v~",,garage doors. Smilh asked « ne g g ^ ^ Si.';;:rertyr"®r!:id ,hawan wouw be needed along .he north property hne to allow the driveway to be lower. drainage would run into the side yard. lower yet if the footings were moved. Hawn said she could not support the plan as there were design options available to the »rcan. a. the to ^ cons.mc.ion began .ha. would have elinunated the proWems She „o?ed the situation was not created by the neighborhood^ plan was opposed by neighbors, and would have an adverse effect on the neighbors as well. Smith, Lindquist, and McMillan agreed. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to deny Application #2290 for a conchtional use permit to change the grade within 5' of the property line. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. The application will be reviewed by the Council on January 26,1998. NEW BUSINESS Prclindinary Plats <«3t mi6 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN :..i____ «!«♦ ffti- a 1-lAf riass 111 Subdivision - 7:02-7:04 p.m.VIEW DRIVE - Preliminary plat for a 3-lot Class III Subdivision The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. .ffvnt4__ITiifllPM ni i imi n MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 Bress er reported that the application is a proposal for a 3-lot subdivision of a 7.97 acre parce. Two new 2 acre lots and a 3.97 acre ^ elding lot for the existing residence would be created. All lots meet the lot width and i ea requirements and future building sites will coitform to code. Access will be from Golden View Drive. The application was reviewed by the septic inspector and approved. There was rearrangement of one lot line due to an dtemate septic site location. Dressier said there are no drainage issues. The park dedication has not been determined. Staff recommended approval. Hilbelink had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2316. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. The application will be reviewed at the January 26, 1998 Council meeting. Lot Line Rearrangement with Variances (Item #4 discussed afrer Item #5 due to absence of applicants.) Variance Renewals The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present Bressler reported the proposal is for renewal of a lot width variance for constmction ofa new readence. Pictures were distributed. The existing principal structure would be retained as an accessoty structure with plumbing and heating facilities removed upon ^mpletion of the lew residence. The existing shed does not meet the side setback. The combined footpnnt of all accessory structures is 1,960 s.f In this district 2 000 s f is the m^mum combined footprint allowed for accessory structures. The City AtZe>^h^ dl^Hng^uZ"'^*''^^ covenant prohibiting the use of the accessory structure as a rental ■ -aa. • rV*. • ft• a-lA.* # 1J-. J'^ Vi* l . r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (US - #2330 Robert Beutler - Continued) Dressier said Staff recommends approval of the renewal variance of 65.11' to allow the construction of a new residence on a lot of record. Conditions include removal of the plumbing and heating facilities from the current principal structure prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and execution of the restrictive covenant. Mrs. Wendy Beutler said the time period for the new construction had expired. She did not believe removal of the heating facilities was previously stipulated. She would also like to maintain running water for gardening purposes. Mrs. Beutler said the Planning Commission had previously recommended maintaining the heating and plumbing facilities, but the Council required removal. She thought this pertained to the plumbing only. Mr. Beutler said the Council requested the restrictive covenant due to concern that the structure would be used for rental purposes. He would like to have the structure heated. Beutler indicated the structure is in good condition and meets all code requirements. Hawn said the Planning Commission had previously recommended maintaining the toilet facilities. Mrs. Beutler said she has no plans to rent the structure but would like to retain it for storage purposes. She noted that it is only 900 s.f and the proposed residence has a 1200 s.f footprint. Mr. Beutler said there is no room in the garage for storat'e. She is willing to remove the bathtub and water if necessary. Mrs. Beutler said the restrictive covenant would transfer with the property if sold in the future. Lindquist read statements from the November 25, 1997 Council meeting indicating Council's rationale for removing the heating and plumbing facilities. Council Member Goetten referred to Resolution #2196. The conclusions state that prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicants would have to remove all heating and plumbing facilities. Mrs. Beutler asked if heating is allowed in an accessory structure. Lindquist said he did not believe the Council would change their opinion, and he would only approve the variance as previously approved without any further changes. McMillan said the applicant has the right to know what is allowed in an accessory structure. Dressier asked Vang to explain. Vang said unit heaters can be installed. The problem with the current heating system is that it is a complete furnace. Vang said the Council has had discussions on this topic and currently allows a water tap in an accessory structure but prohibited plumbing fixtures. Mrs. Beutler asked what could be done to make the structure usable. ra.ff I a~r MafcAfc M U n ■—~r ■ TiTii ■ i iT ■ *r ■‘Ml# * MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 (#5 - #2330 Robert Beutler - Continued) Lindquist said the concern is the structure being easily turned back to a residence, and the City is trying to ensure that this does not occur. Vang noted that this has happened in the past. Smith informed Beutler that from a practical standpoint, the structure would be allowed a tap with some simple type of heating unit. Mr. Beutler said he would further discuss the matter with Council. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2330 based on renewal of an elapsed variance. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2315 C. DOUGLAS AND MARILYN HOLCOMBE, 1040 AND 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - Lot line rearrangement, and variances for lot area and lot width - 7:22-7:38 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property being proposed for a lot line rearrangement. The rearrangement would eliminate a problem where a portion of the driveway for 1040 Loma Linda is on property owned by 1056 Loma Linda. It would also provide 1056 Loma Linda with more lakeshore. The rearrangement would reduce the lot area and width for 1040 Loma Linda Avenue and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue would increase in size. Neither property meets the lot area and lot width requirements. While hardcover would increase sli^tly on 1040 Loma Linda, the percentage would actually decrease for 1056 Loma Linda Avenue due to additional lot area. The proposal would result in a more functional lot line. Van Zomeren informed the Planning Commission of a problem in the neighborhood due to differing opinions from surveyors regarding lot lines. This controversy may aiiect the property. Van Zomeren said the lot line rearrangement is an improvement of the existing situation and recommends approval. Lindquist asked who will decide which surveyor is correct. Gaffron said the sbc property owners affected will have to join together in a land registration proceeding to come to a conclusion. This is a long and expensive procedure. Lindquist questioned whether approval of this application would affect the problem. Vang said the setbacks may vary by as much as 18 ”. Van Zomeren said the lot line rearrangement is internal to both lots so it can be conceptually approved. i 'ii-.'-r pi . •at'*’ r i n i i i t mu ii~ ~ n iTiripi nnni~tirf*rMM m~ i~ii'» ■ minutes of the orono planning commission Feting held on January 20, i99s (#4 - #2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe - Continued) Bill Bockmann, 1090 Linda, informed the Comrnission that the property line problem begins at 1098 Loma Linda and continue northward. smith asked if the applicant was willing to “10“"d oft r "s regues. woufd no, have an impact on the problem. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2315. Mr. Bockmann indicated that a «"sion »f Ms “TnStt<Sl.'Sst Ju"ggested the neighbors meet to discuss the issue. wou Van Zomeren noted that an application would be heard in February for an average lakeshore setback variance. Hawn noted that an application request for a side lot line variance would be affected. McMillan asked that the Council be made aware of the situation. indicated that the fire lane is located within the area affected and may be a solutionIt was 1 to the problem smith asked that a letter be sent ,0 the neighbors advising them of the simation. currently exists on the property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Conditional Use Permit Amendment iUA\ urMR freshwater FOUNDATION, 2500 SHADYWOOD ‘ ^It^n .. update cureen. tenant listing and t. a«.w a corporate research center tenant - 7:38-8:16 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, Mr. Brown and Mr. Burton, were present. 8 \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20. 1998 (#6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the Freshwater Foundation currently has a conditional use permit to be a research facility in the B-4 Zoning District. The applicants are asking for permission to sign a lease with a corporate tenant that would enable biological research to continue in the building. Mr. Brown said negotiations are underway with an unnamed tenant, who will be leasing the entire lower level of the building, which includes the "boat room". The research the tenant will be conducting is similar to that which was previously done by the University of Minnesota and Freshwater Foundation. This lease will result in the entire building being used for research. The upper level is leased by the Watershed District and two other corporate tenants, along with the Freshwater Foundation and conference center. Brown related the history behind the building and its use. It was built by the Freshwater Foundation in 1972 with private funding for the University of Minnesota in perpetuity. The University decided to discontinue operating the facility several years ago resulting in the building being taken over once again by the Freshwater Foundation, who is primarily a publisher. The 51,000 s.f building is a first rate research facility according to Brown. The proposed lease will allow the Foundation to continue educating people regarding fresh water. Van Zomeren asked if the Planning Commissioners would allow the use to continue as a research facility and make a recommendation to the Council to amend the CUP. Smith asked wha» the reseaich would involve. Brown said the major part of the research will be related to processed water. He did not wish tc elaborate further on the tenant's research. There were no public comments. Schroeder asked who the tenant would be for the lower level. Brown said the prospective tenant is a major midwestem corporation involved in biological and chemical research. Smith asked if there were safety concerns to consider. Brown said the corporation was highly responsible. Smith asked how the City can verify the conditions. Van Zomeren said the inspector will review it. Brown elaborated that the research is subject to many levels of investigation and agency control. McMillan asked how the lease would afifect the LMCD, who currently is leasing an office in the lower level. Brown said the LMCD is willing to move if appropriate accommodations can be found. The space available on the upper level is not large enough for the LMCD use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (U6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Hawn asked if it is the owner or leasee w ho obtains the conditional use permit. She said she is uncomfortable with approving an application without an understanding of the tenant's use of the facilities. Hawn said she would consider approval with appropriate signatures sought of designated agencies involved in overseeing the research. Without that information, Hawm felt she would not know what she would be approving. Brown said he thought the CUP was for the owner. Van Zomeren said the CUP is for the use and done for both a tenant or an owner. She said the current CUP allows for research facilities in the building. Van Zomeren said the conditional use can be reviewed and subject to conditions. Smith would like staffs involvement in being satisfied that the steps were in place with the appropriate governmental agencies. Lindquist agreed with Hawn's concerns but supported the conditional use. He feels the research should be reviewed and would be satisfied with it being conducted by staff Hawn asked what agencies would be scrutinizing the research. Brown said he was not familiar with it noting approvals require alot of paperwork and many levels of screening. The lease requires the tenant to meet standards of local, state and federal agencies. Brown did not believe the University of Minnesota was required by Orono to have a CUP. Hawn said she was confused in that other research facilities have not been asked for a CUP in the past but a CUP is being requested for this particular use. She asked that more information be provided on which to base a decision. Brown said the CUP has already been granted. He asked staff if the use of the lower level by another research facility would be within the use allowed under the CUP. He felt it was an issue of occupancy. Schroeder referenced Resolution #3561 for the conditional use permit. He did not feel there was any need to obtain approval by the City since research would still be conducted as allowed by the CUP. Van Zomeren said the University of Minnesota did not require City approval but the Freshwater Foundation needs to obtain a CUP. She wanted assurance that what is being conducted within the building by a corporation is consistent with the CUP previously approved. She noted the use is similar but being conducted by a corporation rather than the University. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 {#6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Van Zoineren noted that the parking is based on square footage and no changes are being made. Brown noted that they have another building site for additional parking if needed. Hawn asked that a list of permitting agencies be sought and agreements stating the tenant has meet conditions. Brown felt a list of agencies might be possible to obtain but the agreements fluctuate. Hawn suggested obtaining a copy of the permit from the agencies. Brown felt this might conflict with confidentiality of the research. He noted that the corporation was leasing the entire lower level to provide a level of security. Discussion was had regarding whether documentation by agencies assuring staff of requirements being met by the tenant with review in six months would be satisfactory. Schroeder informed the applicant that the Commission was concerned that no manufacturing take place in the facility. Hawn said the concern was also for hazardous materials being in place. Hawn wanted to see that the applicant was required to do the documentation for the staff. Brown felt this could be worked out. He felt the complexities of the research would be difficult to understand. Schroeder moved to approve the continuation of the conditional use specific to a corporate tenant with the condition that during the first year of occupancy, review be conducted in six month intervals. The applicant is also to provide a written report from governmental agencies identified and involved that the tenant is in compliance. Brown said he felt the agencies might not be aware of all the regulations required. McMillan suggested the concerns be passed on to the Council. Schroeder suggested a statement be signed by the tenant stipulating their understanding of the conditional use and agreement to abide by it as part of the lease. Brown said the lease includes such language. Schroeder felt the use was already included in the resolution as written and felt a motion was unnecessary. Smith questioned whether the resolution needed to be amended. Schroeder felt there was no need to amend the resolution. Van Zomeren said her purpose in bringing the application before the Commission was to provide direction to the applicant to determine if the proposal was in compliance with the current permit. McMillan said only so much of the use can be discussed. Schroeder noted the meeting was also a public hearing. Hawn said the process allows for potential oversight of the activity that would be forfeited if no motion is made. Schroeder disagreed as staffihas the right to oversee the conditional use. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Van Zomeren read portions of the resolution, page 2, 3E, referencing the UM of the Mlding, She said there was the possibility to add to the statement that the '««> was bJng rented by a corporate tenant for research facility. Schroeder noted that tenants were named In the resolution. Lindquist agreed that no action should be taken. Coflditional Use Permit (#7) M318 C.N. OSTROM & SONS FOR JEANNE MITHUN, 755 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - Conditional use permit for a guest apartment m basement - ».I6- 8:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier reported that the application is a proposal to convert basement space into a guest apartment for use by relatives with an exterior door added for emerpr ;y egress^ A sLond kitchen and bathroom facilitated the need for the conditional use permit for a non rental guest apartment. Dressier reviewed the findings as noted m the packet An existing staircase in the garage area leads to the lower level. The mam access to the basement urn is not through the main living area, which does not meet the mtent f *e code. A construction driveway will be removed once construction is completed. begun on the basement remodeling. The location of the staircase also lends to a possibility of creating a separate unit if a barrier is constructed in the garage. He ® basement would likdy continue to be used for storage. Dressier also noted that if the CUP was denied, state law allows for granting of a variance to allow temporary “se ot a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This provision has not been used in the ity in the past. Ostrom had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Van Zonieren reported that she had visited the site stating the basement had been constructed with no door or window resulting in the inability to have a bedroom locat^ '■> the basement. She felt it was unlikely that it would used as a separate dwelling with only the north side having two windows and a door. Without remodeling, the space could only be used for storage. Ostrom said the area of the basement where the new construction is located had been a crawl space. The owner has a large extended family and would like to have space for them to stay on another level. The only access would be through the garage. ‘ ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (^7 - #2318 C.N. Ostrom & Sons for Jeanne Mithun - Continuea) Smith questioned what controls there would be for future owners. Van Zomeren suggested a covenant be attached to the certificate of title. Smith agreed that would be appropriate. Van Zomeren said prevention of the second driveway would be a control mechanism. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2318 with the understanding that a covenant to restrict the use as a rental unit be filed and no driveway be provided to the secondary residence. McMillan noted that no interior staircase gives credence to approving the use. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Conditional Use Permit with Variances (#S) #2312 CLAUS WEILER AND RENEE MEERKINS, 1135 NORTH ARM DRIVE - Variances for an oversized accessory structure and located in front of the principal structure, side yard setback, rear yard setback, and bluff setback variance. A Conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure in on a through lot- 8:28-8:49 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The proposal is to construct an additional garage and first and second level decks on the rear of the residence. The oversized accessory structure requires variances to be located in front of the principal structure and for side yard setback at 15.96' where 30' is required. A conditional use permit is required for locating an accessory structure on a throu^ lot. The decks require a street setback variance to be set at 19' where 35' is required, and a bluff setback variance. The property meets hardcover and structural coverage requirements. There are significant elevation changes on the property. Bressler indicated there are two portions of property, that area of the building site and lot 6, which is a separate lakeshore lot separated by undeveloped Elmwood Avenue. The proposed decks would be visible from the lake. There is an existing 3-car garage. There are sliding glass doors in place for the decks. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (US - #2312 Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins - Continued) Dressier reviewed staffs recommendations. Dressier said staff recommends approval of the variance for the additional garage to be located 170' from the front lot line, and Staff also recommends a conditional use permit for a smaller garage. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance and bluff variance. Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance. Staff said the non-conforming shed should either be moved or removed. The applicant will remove the shed if the accessory structure is allowed. The applicant had no comments at this time. There were no public comments. Lindquist was informed by the applicant that they did not understand the bluff issues. Meerkins said the decks were in poor condition and were removed when the house was resided. Dressier said staff had not been aware that there were decks previously on the residence. Weiler said the decks ran the length of the house and extended 7-8'. Van Zomeren indicated that the permit for residing did not note the existence of decks. Weiler informed Schroeder that the additional garage was proposed at 25'x45' but would be changed to 22'x45' or 990 s.f to meet the 1000 s.f requirement. The extra garage will be used to store boat, lawn equipment, bicycles, and other storage uses. It was noted that the bluff requirements became law in 1992 after the residence was built, including the decks. Hawn said she would support construction of the decks at the same size as previously existed. Weiler said he could obtain pictures to determine the previous size. Weiler and Meerkins agreed with constructing the decks at the same size as previously existed. Lindquist said he would agree with denial of the variance for the oversized accessory structure as proposed. Weiler said he would agree to the size limitation of less than 1000 s.f Hawn noted that the 15' side setback would then meet the requirement eliminating the need for a side setback variance. The applicants were asked to redesign the accessory structure and gain information on the decking. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2312 subject to a new design plan for the accessory structure and determination of original deck sizes. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#8 - #2312 Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins - Continued) Van Zomeren noted that the building permit taken out on 7/2/94 for residing did not include a survey of the decks. Variances (#9) #2320 CHRISTOPHER AND MARY SMITH, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3650 CASCO AVENUE - Variances for an average lakeshore setback to add a bay window over an existing deck This item was tabled at the request of the applicant. (#10) #2322 STEVEN N. FILIPS, 2570 THOROUGHBRED LANE • Variance for a fence within 50’ of a rear lot line on a through lot - 8:49-9:00 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the applicant requests an after-the-fact approval to construct a 6’ high privacy fence along the rear of the through lot. Information was incomplete when the applicant was advised that no variance was required. A variance is required for any fence over 3-1/2 in height on a through lot. The Council suggested the applicant submit the request for review by the Planning Commission and to allow a temporary variance. Car headlights create a problem from Trufflila Trail. The fence is located on the rear third of the property and is technically within a non-city protected type 1 wetlands. The covenants require adherence to other agency regulations. Vegetation will be planted that in time will negate the need for the fencing. Gaffron said the City ’s intention is not to have any 6’ fences where there are through lots. A 3-1/2 ’ high fence needs to be 50’ in from the lot line. Gaffron reviewed the hardship statement and issues for discussion as found in the information packet. He noted the peculiarity of this property in contrast with other properties due to its location directly across from an intersection. Headlights shine directly into the residence across the rear yard. Gaffron related the conditions of approval necessary if a recommendation is made for a temporary variance. This includes providing a landscaping plan with a time schedule for removal of the fencing, conformity requirements of the fence, and advisement to the applicant with meet any standards established by other government agencies having jurisdiction over the wetlands. \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JATRJARY 20, 1998 (mo- mil Steven N. Filips - Continued) Smith questioned whether a 3-1/2' high fence could remain in the wetland area. Gaffron ^id this would have to be discussed with the Corp of Engineers. Filips said he was informed that the issue needed to be resolved with the City first before review by the other agency. Filips said he would need two growing seasons before removal of the fence. Lindquist noted there were fir trees on the property. Filips said he would need more screening than those trees provide. There were no public comments. Lindquist said he would not want to see fencing placed on other lots and asked that the fence be removed within three years. Schroeder agreed that the fence should not have been constructed but noted the unique headlight problem. Filips also noted that there are numerous tree stumps on the lot indicating trees have been removed. He said other properties in the area have more vegetation. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2322 for an after-the-fact variance for the 6' temporary fence to be removed in a time period not to exceed 2-1/2 years from this date to allow the vegetation plan to replace the fencing due to the problem with headlight glare. McMillan questioned whether there was room to plant trees in front of the fence. Lindquist said the vegetation plan could allow trees to be placed on either side of the fence. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - Variance for bluff setback to add a porch and replace an existing deck to an existing residence - 9:00-9:19 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. A representative of Lake Country Builders was present. m «tr - '■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#11- #2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the applicants propose to remove the existing deck on the lakeside of the residence and replace it with a deck, stairs, and a 18'x22' screened porch to the north side of the residence. A bluff setback variance is required. The existing residence straddles the bluff line at the required setback. Van Zomeren noted that almost any new construction or remodeling would require a variance from the setback due to bluff and location of CoRd 51. Van Zomeren said the porch will be on pylons requiring minimal grading. Other setbacks are met. Regarding the bluff issue, the topography severly impacts this lot, more so than any other adjacent lots. The residence is also closer to the road than the other neighboring homes. Van Zomeren indicated that the existing deck was in poor condition. She questioned whether the applicant should be allowed to expand or add more structure to a lot that today would not be allowed to be considered buildable. The Shoreland Ordinance came into effect into 1992, and the house was built in 1983. The builder said the porch would be 14'xl8' with the deck continuing around in front of the porch. He referenced a letter in the packet from the home owners regarding the hardship and their intentions. Interior remodeling is currently underway. The builder indicated the only other location for the deck would be off the master bedroom. He noted the lot is large but the unbuildability of the property creates the hardship. The builder said the owners are ecologically minded and have no plans for any further additions. During public comments, John Erickson asked if the additions would be in front of the 75' setback from the lake. Van Zomeren replied to the negative. Lindquist indicated that the construction is basically on top of the bluff The builder reported that the elevation only drops 4-1/2' from the front to the back of the home resulting in a flat building pad. The bluff drops off from the deck location. He verified the poor condition of the deck. Lindquist and McMillan said they would both deny any new structure on top of the bluff The builder asked the intention of the bluff ordinance. Lindquist said the intent is to eliminate any impact on the bluff. The builder noted that post footings would be used resulting in no ecological impact or excavation. He asked for consideration of the hardships with the unique land and house setting He feels the situation when evaluated on a case by case basis would not set a precedent in allowing the deck and porch. The builder said the adjacent homes are closer to the lake and have screened porches and additions. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#\ \ . #2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson - Continued) Smith indicated that the ordinance came into effect after the residence was built. She would allow replacement of existing structure but could not approve the addition of structure. Smith noted there could be an impact on erosion as well, which would have an accumulative effect. McMillan noted the presence of sliding glass doors. The builder said one door is on the lakeside to the deck. The other door is part of the addition and located off of a bathroom. He would have to make the door stationary if no deck is allowed. It was noted that the 8’x8' deck is included in the information but not shown on the survey. This deck would be located in the bluff impact zone. Lindquist informed the builder that he could not approve this deck. The builder said the ordinance allows for no further construction on this home. Lindquist said there are many homes in Orono in a similar situation. The builder ask«^ if a screen porch could be screened in on the existing deck. Lindquist said it was a probability. The builder agreed to table the application in order to redesign the deck. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2325 subject to redesign of the deck. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short break was held.) (#12) #2296 ROBERT BREDESON, 1395 REST POINT ROAD - Variances for lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, stir.dural coverage, rear yard setback, and hardcover to construct a new residence on a vacant lot and a fence forward of the lakeshore setback - 9:28-9:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported the proposal is for the construction of a 1,166 s.f residence with an attached 520 s.f garage on a lot of record not meeting current zoning district requirements. An encroaching fence into the 75' lakeshore setback is also proposed. Variances required for the proposal include lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, rear setback, structural coverage and hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks. Bressler showed the Commissioners what the allowable building pad would be. He referenced a table located on page 4 of the packet showing the lot sizes in the neighborhood, which also do not conform to current zoning. Bressler noted that the property was not assessed for sewer. There is a "Y" service at the sewer main in the street for a possible future sewer stub. He also indicated that the property is at the 932.5' elevation. This low elevation would not allow for a basement. ^ ‘i4l- > MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#12 - #2296 Robert Bredeson - Continued) Another concern is the lift station located on the northeast comer. It was incorrectly installed. The applicant is to be compensated and a utility easement required. It was determined in 1972 that there was no need to reassess the value of the property due to the lift station because it did not decrease its buildability. The zoning requirements have not changed since that time. The history of the land value indicates a discrepancy with the two adjacent properties, which questions whether the lot was taxed as a buildable lot. Bressler reference a letter from City Attorney Barrett, which indicates that if the property was deemed unbuildable, it would not be a taking and would not deprive the property owner of its use. Bressler reviewed the issues 1-11 as noted in the information packet. He then reviewed considerations for the Commission to approve or deny and issues regarding the buildability of the lot. (See pages 5-9 of the packet.) Bredeson said he was unaware of the structural coverage limitation of 1500 s.f until recently. He said he is willing to reduce the size of the residence. He indicated that the change would affect the average lakeshore setback. Regarding the lift station, Bredeson said the City planned on placing it in the comer and adding shmbbery and controls, which was not done. There were no public comments. Schroeder asked if the applicant received any settlement for the lift station. Bredeson said he received $925 to reimburse him for his attorney fees but not for the easement. Lindquist asked if an offer of $2,000 was made for the easement. Bredeson said an attempt was made at that time to reduce the value of the land. Lindquist asked if a sewer charge was made to the property. Bredeson said he did not believe so because the tax rate was less due to the vacancy of the land. Lindquist questioned, with the small lot and the lack of a sewer charge, whether the lot was ever considered buildable. Bredeson said other lots in the neighborhood are similar in size with the same setback. He feels that no precedent would be set if the lot was deemed buildable as there are no other vacant lots. Hawn said the other homes were built many years ago prior to current zoning regulations. She informed Bredeson that the Commission has never granted variances for a house of this size on such a small lot since zoning regulations were put into effect. Without the sewer assessment, Hawn feels the history of the property indicates that there was no intention for this lot to be buildable. John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood, noted his concerns about prior sewer projects done in the City. 1 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#12 - #2296 Robert Bredeson - Continued) Lindquist indicated that the size of the lot is key to whether the lot is buildable. Bredeson noted that homes have been built on 45' wide lots. Smith referenced information provided regar ding variances received for properties in the neighborhood and the pattern of lots approved for building. She questioned how this chart factors into today. Bressler said there were not many changes. Lindquist noted the subject lot is only 7600 s.f Van Zomeren informed the Commission that the study is from the years 1980-1987, which shows a substantial difference in the year built. Bredeson said there were lots on the west side with only 60’ of frontage. Lindquist agreed but noted that when review is of lots that have been approved for building, some lots were found too small on which to build a house. Bredeson said homes have been built, but Smith countered that the homes are not being built today. Schroeder referenced the memo from City Attorney Barrett regarding this issue. If variances were denied, it would not be considered a "taking" and the property owner would still derive use of the property without building on it. It was explained to the applicant what is a "taking". Lindquist moved, Haw:* seconded, to deny Application #2296 based on the number of variances necessary, the minimal size of the lot, the lack of a sewer assessment, and the City Attorney's memorandum stating that it would not be a taking if denied. Bredeson questioned what would be allowed. Smith suggested that perhaps the adjacent properties would be interested in purchasing the land. Bredeson said he felt the proposal would improve the area. Schroeder noted this presented a difficult situation, and given the size, history, and number of variances needed, he viewed the property as being unbuildable. Schroeder felt the City would take the view that building on the property would not be an improvement because of its small size. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #2319 RON LAUER, 1040 TONKAWA ROAD - Variances for hardcover to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence ■ 9:58-10:22 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The Applicants were represented by Builder, Ron Lauer, and Architect, Bruce Schmidt. ■aaajrjantfcj. r L (#13 - #2319 Ron Lauer - Continued) Gaffion reported .ha. .he proposal is a reques. for >^^7" rerrniVons.mf setback to remove the existing house, zoning requiring a 140' minimum home on .his 1.85 acre lot The propeity .sand 75' wid.h. The property -.s,*^/;f/,"*' lT.o .he Ldence in 1985 se.backwi.hafunc.ionalwd.hofl 12. Addi. and 1986 for a pool and ^*8« j ,he 75-250' serback. A certifica.e has should improve the grade for drainage. Gaffton reviewed .he issue.issuer. While .he Casco Poin. and Res. Poin. ar^s have ^n r«"‘edjariMce^^^^ Gamon M.d^hs meeting the hardcover requirement. Gaffron reviewed .he issues for discussion, #1 and #2, as no.ed in .he packet Lauer imroduced Mr. & Mrs Buxron, who propose .o build the residence ~ ,2. majority of the driveway would be into the 250-500 zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#13 - #2319 Ron Lauer - Continued) T'he house is about 3500 s.f. Schroeder felt the home could be made smaller. In that case, Schmidt said they would prefer to move the driveway back into the hill, which to him would not make sense. Lindquist informed Schmidt that the intent is to build new construction without requiring any variances, which sometimes requires tree removal. There were no public comments. Hawn reported that while visiting the property there did not appear to be major trees within 5-6’ of any building area. She did not believe moving the house back would interfere greatly. Lauer presented another proposal for location of the house. Hawn inquiry about the hardcover amounts. Lauer said the 75-250' hardcover would be about 30% with parking area being located behind the 250' setback line. Schmidt said the size of the patio and sidewalk would be reduced. It would require cutting of 6-8 trees. Schroeder reiterated that other homes in the area have been built without variances and lots are not substantially different. Gaffron inquired about the relationship this proposal would have to the hill and house location. Lauer said a smaller home is located 56’ from the lake to the south and the point recedes back affecting the average lakeshore setback. McMillan asked if 30% hardcover was possible in the 75-250' setback. Lauer said it was possible Schroeder asked about meeting the 25% requirement. Lauer said it would require pushing the home into the hill. Schroeder presented the possibUity of decreasing the size of the home noting he would like the hardcover to be at a maximum of 25%. A member of the audience, who is a Realtor, felt the 30% hardcover requirement was consistent with the neighborhood, felt the reduction from 40% to 30% shows an improvement, and requiring less would be irresponsible of the Commission. Schroeder objected to that comment. The Realtor said a 10% reduction would be enviable and did not mean to criticize the Commissioners themselves. Mr. Buxton said the 25% hardcover requirement could be met by pushing the home back into the hillside. He reported that the hill is not large but has a woodland abutting it. Buxton said the change would make the driveway entry awkw ard and remove some of the value of the woodlands. He feels there needs to be enough room for parking during the winter months. He felt there would be substantial changes to the proposal if the vanance was not allowed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (U13 - #2319 Ron Lauer - Continued) Robert Edmunds, 1030 Tonkawa, said he was not in favor of requiring the house to be moved back into the hillside. He reported there is a history of significant drainage problems, which would increase with retaining walls and cutting into the hillside. He noted the problem with the lakeshore cutting back in that area. Edmunds did not want to see the City strictly adhering to the 25% hardcover requirement in building the large homes due to the expensive properties. He did not feel it would make sense to maintain the footprint and building as it currently exists. Smith acknovvledged the public's awareness of the area but felt the residence could be decreased in size. She noted additional hardcover can also affect drainage and feels it is important to maintain the reasonable limit of 25% hardcover. McMillan moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2319 for a hardcover variance of 30% m the 75-250’ setback. Vote: Ayes 3, Hawn, McMillan. Lindquist; Nays 2 Smith, Schroeder. The application will be presented to Council at their January 26, 1998 metiing. (#14) #2323 TIM NE^ON ON BEHALF OF DAVID POMIJE, 3120 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - Variances for hardcover to build an addition to an existine residence -10:22-10:42 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was represented by Tim Nelson. Van Zoineren reported that the 1.9 acre property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District The applicant filed for a hardcover variance, but the proposal would also require a conditional use permit if the proposed guest apartment on the second floor were allowed. The remodeling includes adding another wing to the home, additional driveway, including access to a lower level storage area. The current 75-250' hardcover is 25.6% and proposed ai 35.2% for an increase of 7.2% for the 9,552 s.f residence. Van Zomeren noted that the architect did prepare an alternative plan, which is not preferred by the apphcMt. The alternative plan creates an effect of a long facade along the property line. This plan would requiic dnvtway and building realignment for hardcover compliance in each setback. Van Zomeren said, along with the lack of lot ai ea for a guest apartment, there is the issue of its use. A request for tradeoff of what can be done in the 75-250' setback for transfer into the 250-500' setback is a consideration. Van Zomeren indicated that the hardship criteria is not met as it is a creation of design. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#14 - #2323 Tim Nelson for David Pomije - Continued) Nelson said the plan was to work with the neighbors and present a sensible plan, ■^e intention was for additions that would be less obtrusive to the neighbors He said tat a solution to the hardcover issue could be to pitch the dnveway to dram away from the to Jd produce a situation beneficial to all. Nelson said the existing garage enters side^ Frontading requires more hardcover. He noted that new construction would have elled tta iii.l?o be located farther back on the lot. Nelson said the neighbors did not object to the plan and prefers an addition that does not project outward. Lindquist informed the representative of the difficulty in obtaining approval for more than 25% of hardcover in the 75-250’ setback. Regarding the theory of trading hardcover zones. Smith informed the representative of the need to meet the guidelines. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if a variance was sought for the remodeling of one wing. Van Zomeren ^d the small amount of hardcover that exceeds 25% was difficult to det^t McMillan asked if consideration was given for the addition when the remodeling begun. Pomije said the idea for the addition was always there but the was a matter. He is attempting to tie it into the remodeling at this point. McMiUan inform him that she would have preferred to see the overall scheme together. Lindquist said he did not support the hardcover variance. Pomije said the designers were attempting to think the whole plan out no^ The ownw did not see the need to build the entire plan at this time. The intent is to determine what can be done. Hawn asked what the need is for the additions. She was informed that the applicant had a large family. Van Zomeren explained the uses and floor plan. A staircase would be added. Space would be utilized for storage. One level would be a terrace, work shop. yard, and more storage The second stoiy would link to the main staicture with a kitchen room bathroom, and guest area The master bedroom on the second floor could not access the guest area, also on second floor. The access would requinng going down a staircase in one wing and across the foyer and up another staircase to the guest house. Van Zomeren said this could result in a duplex-type arrangement. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#14 - #2323 Tim Nelson for David Pomije - Continued) Hawn said she did not believe adding 10% hardcover to accommodate recreational vehicles constitutes a hardship. She felt the 3-4 garage stalls should be adequate. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2323. It was noted that the differentiation from the last improvement proposal to th'' property was the increase in hardcover. Bill Kranz, construction manager, informed the Commission that the needs of the owner include storage for jet skis, snowmobiles and room for his e.\tended family. He said a separate storage garage for toys could be built and meet code. He said they were trying to meet with neighbors to present the best plan. The phases do not need to be connected. Kranz said the owner would like to maintain inside storage. The apartment concept was a thought to assist the owner's family, and there was no intention to make it into rentals. Kranz said the drainage currently runs to the house down to the lake; that would be changed to move drainage away from the lake. It was noted by the representative that the first 100' from the lakeshore is in complete compliance with code. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be heard at the February 9, 1998 Council meeting. Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use (#15) #2331 MARC GILLETT HAVING AN INTEREST IN 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • Request for finding of substantially similar use to allow a go-cart business to locate in the Orono Mall - 10:42-11:10 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (# 15 - #2331 Marc Gillett - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application is to find in favor of the applicant that a go- cart business is an appropriate use in this zoning district. The applicant is requesting to lease 800-1200 s.f of commercial space from Bill Wear in the Orono Mall to sell go-carts and accessories. This is currently not a permitted use. Van Zomeren suggested it could be a similar use to that of a hobby or bicycle shop. She referenced the list of permitted and conditional uses as noted in the packet. The question for the Commission is to determine whether this use should be allowed in the B-1 Zoning District or whether appropriate in another zone. The application would be subject to conditions relating to hours of operation, repairs, lighting, etc. Van Zomeren reported that the intent of the B-1 Zoning District is to supply commodities and services to the surrounding neighborhood. This use would serve a larger area. She asked if go-cart sales is compatible with this zoning. Marc Gillett distributed information and pictures relating to go-carts. He said it is a safe sport in a controlled, ilm environment. He was asked how he proposes to keep people from operating the go-carts around the building. Gillett said the go-carts would have to be operated on a test track. The local track is found at the Dakota Technical School in Rosemount. The clearance for these vehicles is less than 1'' so it is not practical to test drive them off-track. Test driving would not be allowed on site. Hawn asked about the size of the go-cart and delivery. Gillett said the go-cart would fit in the back of a pick-up truck and weighs about 140 lbs. with a child in it. Delivery service could be arranged. The carts are powered by a 5 horsepower Briggs engine. There would be about three on display. McMillan asked about repair work. Gillett said the go-cart comes in as a fi’ame in a box and is assembled with an engine. It would then be taken to the test track. A vacuum system would be used for running the engine. There is the possibility of silencing the sound. Gillett said the sound is similar to that of a vacuum cleaner running. Gillett said he would not have to run the engine in the shop. It was later questioned how any repair work could be tested if the engine was not allowed to run. Schroeder was informed that the go-carts carried a warranty when purchased. Schroeder questioned whether the engine repair would be greasy. Gillett said the shop would not be greasy. Hawn questioned why the applicant wanted the business in Orono when the test track is in Rosemount. Gillett said he lives in nearby Minnetrista. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#15 - #2331 Marc Gillett - Continued) Van Zomeren said she had a signed statement from Bill Wear. The retail space is that of the old library. There were no public comments. McMillan questioned why the use would be different from that of a sport goods store. Van Zomeren said that was a possibility but did not think of engines as being part of that use. Gillett noted there was merchandise being sold as well. Schroeder moved, McMillan, to request that this use be considered substantially similar to a sporting goods store. Hawn felt the involvement with engines showed a substantially different use from sporting goods stores. She felt the request should be treated as a conditional use in order to set controls. Schroeder amended his motion to recommend a text amendment to allow selling of go- carts in the B-1 with performance standards and service. McMillan declined to second the amended motion. The possibility of the conditional use of (A) garages for servicing and repair of automobiles with repair functions taking place in a totally enclosed building was considered. A member of the audience asked if lawnmowers were sold and serviced in Orono. He was informed that this did not occur in Orono. They may be sold in a hardware store, however. Schroeder moved to recommend an amendment to the B-1 to add a conditional use under (A) to add go-carts to the automobiles for servicing and repair. Van Zomeren said this would involve a text hearing and public hearing, and 4/5ths Council approval. The applicant would then have to apply for a conditional use. The motion failed for lack of a second. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny Application #23331 due to the lack of finding substantially similar use under permitted or conditional uses. Schroeder felt if garages for automobile repair and service were allowed, this use should also be allowed. Smith felt the other tenants may not agree. Schroeder said the owner could make that determination. i - ; MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#15 - #2331 Marc Gillett - Continued) Van Zomeren asked if Mr. Wear wanted a hardware or paint store, whether the store would be allowed to repair snowblowers or lawnmowers. She was informed that this could probably happen. Smith added that she would hope a response to neighborhood complaints would happen. Curt Krantz, 2120 Fox Street, received clarification that the use was being considered for the Wear Building. He asked if the use was based on the building or merchandising of the item. Lindquist informed him that it would include both the merchandise and repair of go- carts. Krantz was informed that the equipment company across the street from the Wear Building is in Long Lake. McMillan informed him that this use was not included as a permitted use at this time. He asked if the concern was over noise or grease. Lindquist said his concern was for noise. Smith concurred. Gillett indicated that the engine noise could be silenced and suggested that be a condition. Smith said it would be difficult to control. Hawn asked if the stipulation can be placed that no engine running could be allowed. Gillett said he would favor that option as his goal is for exposure of the go-carts. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Schroeder. It was suggested the applicant speak with S^aff regarding such use in the Navarre are?. Zoning Code Amendments (#16) #2332 AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.44 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ADD CAR SALES AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE B-5, LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHERE THEY ARE CURRENTLY NOT ALLOW - 11:10-11:24 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Afldavit of Publication were noted. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant has withdrawn his request. However, Mr. Katainan, owner of the Bay Furniture Store, submitted a letter asking for ideas for use of the building, especially in regards to display and storage. Katainan is present and asking for guidelines. Katainan said the applicant, Mr. Bury, has renewed his previous lease alleviating the urgency of moving forward with the application. Katainan would like to review the issue, however, regarding display, storage, and aesthetics. Katainan noted the availability of additional parking on the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#16 - #2332 Zoning Code Amendment - Continued) Lindquist informed Katainan that a few display cars was satisfactory. Schroeder said the concern was not with the sale of classic cars but with a used car lot. McMillan added that it also would have required amending the code as the use did not fit in with permitted or conditional uses as written. Schroeder said he would have supported the application if all vehicles would be stored inside. Lindquist noted the applicant did not wish to be limited. Schroeder said economics necessitated the need for the applicant to sell late model cars as well. Mr. Katainan asked if Mr. Bury resubmitted his application later in the year, whether the Commission would consider it. Lindquist was informed that Katainan has reviewed the list of permitted uses. Lindquist said the possibility was there to add to that list. He suggested Katainan speak with staff regarding how a use might fit into one of the permitted categories. A public hearing would be required to amend the ordinance. Katainan said he would not want to pursue it if the probability of approval was narrow. He was informed that the process requires at least two-three months. Katainan volunteered to assist in the review of the permitted uses. He was informed that he should allow enough time for the process to be completed if another application is submitted. (#17) #2333 AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECTION 5.40, LICENSING OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND SECTION 10.02, DEFINITIONS, AND SECTION 10.20, SUBD. 4, ACCESSORY USES, TO DEFINE HOME OCCUPATIONS AND ESTABLISH REGULATIONS - 11:24-11:38 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Van Zomeren reported that the draft ordinance regarding home occupations is based on work sessions held by the Planning Commission. She received information fi’om City Attorney Barrett regarding firearm dealers for their review. The 1985 legislature removed from municipalities the ability to govern the sale of firearms. It was reinstated in 1993 and can be addressed in the zoning ordinance limiting the location of firearms dealers. A list of licensees was provided to the Commission. Van Zomeren reviewed the definition of home occupations, the accessory use, employees, exterior alterations, interior alterations, enclosed areas and accessory structures, outdoor storage, noise parking, signage, equipment and machinery, retail sales, visibility, hours of operation, customer traffic, deliveries, hazardous materials, home parties, prohibited occupations, disability provision, and enforcement as noted in the information packet. The amendment also eliminates the licensing provision for home occupation. Violations have not yet been addressed by the City Attorney. Included in the information is the text of the ordinance draft and minutes from prior meetings where the topic was discussed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#17 - #2333 Home Occupations - Continued) Curtis Krantz, 2120 Fox Street, voiced his approval of Staffs preference regarding eliminating licensing, strengthening the zoning regulations, and handling violations on a complaint basis. He was informed that farming is an agricultural use, not regulated as a home occupation. Krantz supported the draft but questioned the ability of City employees to enter homes and limiting the number of customers. He feels the City is overstepping their bounds by limiting the number of customers, which he feels is a restraint of trade. He asked how it would be policed. Lindquist informed him that the City would respond to complaints. Smith said the boundaries are set to use only when a complaint is received. Krantz was informed that the regulations apply to residences and a more intense business use should be located in a commercial area in order to maintain the character of residential neighborhoods. Schroeder noted the increase in traffic would not benefit a neighborhood. Lindquist said the City is attempting to place reasonable limitations on home occupation and to give people an idea on what is acceptable. He informed Krantz that the Commission is happy to hear any suggestions for changes and incorporate rules that benefit the community as a whole. Smith noted that the provisions are for response to complaints on what is reasonable and not necessarily a mandate. Krantz agreed with handling problems on a complaint basis. He does not feel the City has the right to limit the business. Krantz asked if firearm dealers would be able to continue operation in the City. Lindquist asked Krantz to submit his name for notification of any public hearings regarding the issue. Lindquist said the matter will be discussed in the near future. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2333. Vote: A^es 5, Nays 0. (#18) #2327 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - An amendment to Section 10.44 of the Zoning Code to allow coffee shops, bagel and pizza restaurants in the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District - 11:38 p.m.- 12:03 a.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow as a conditional use, three specific additional uses: 1) coffee retail sales, 2) bagel retail sales, and 3) pizza retail sales This request is in conjunction with an application for development of the church property by Orono Development. Gaffron agreed with Mr. Krantz of the need to update the list. I minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Gaffion noted that the B-5 District currently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts soft d^s not'hKwVtS.S“" p“"ortton^aTI^e"^‘^e“ ' "s *e Sc‘h Stan ;n office bS" inclu'di^g Mr. Katainan’s Rimitiire store area and auto repair area. Gaflron reviewed the intent of the B-5 District, which was wntten in about 1975 Traffic problems are a consideration. Permanent uses are shown in Exbi^bct E. The conditional uses list was amended in October, 1996, to delete borne and garden equipment rental. generate a fair amount of traffic. Gaffion reviewed questions for the Commission to consider regarding whether the use. In the analysis. Gaffion indicated that the B-5 uses should be neighborhood onented and must provide service to the surrounding neighborhood. He reported that certain restaurant types may create potential problems for the distnct and oossibilities. Gaffion indicated that if the proposed uses are allowed, staff should be directed to develop conditional use standards that would limit the operations to a scope and level appropriate to the district. Examples of such limitations were given and are noted in the packet. .'ll MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Tom Dillon, Orono Development, and Mike Sepena, the General Contractor, were present. Dillon reported that the 11,000 s.f. neighborhood service facility is intended for neighborhood use. He feels the coffee and bagel sales would be similar to that of a tobacco sales business and should be a conditional use as noted by candy, ice cream, etc. shops. Dillon noted the use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to enhance the site and community. He said he has spoken with business owners who agreed with their goals for the property. Dillon felt the coffee and bagel shop could share space. The pizza sales would be take-out only. The hours of operation would be consistent with the neighborhood. He does not feel traffic would increase. Dillon said he agrees with recommendations made by staff for an amendment to allow the use as a conditional use, which he feels is appropriate to the neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were no public comments. Schroeder asked if the applicant was proposing all three uses. Dillon said they needed to know what uses would be allowed in order to approach perspective occupants. Gaffion explained for McMillan the differences between Class I and Class II Restaurants referencing page 2 of the memo. Gaffron noted that the definitions may not apply today. Dillon said he did not feel the use fit either one of these definitions. Lindquist asked if the primary tenant has been secured. Dillon said a national bank would be occupying 3100 s.f of the 11,000 s.f total. Schroeder was informed that the consideration for the proposed uses was not based on economics but based on retail use allotment. Lindquist said he would agree with the coffee and bagel sales but could not support pizza sales. Schroeder was informed that there would be a separate entrance. Hawn noted that when the property was rezoned, the intent was to make it available for commercial and retail use, such as real estate office, lawyers, accountants, etc., uses that do not generate foot traffic as allowed in the B-1 District. It was not her intention to see retail food sales on this site. Dillon said the B-5 resulted in a very limited use for the site. Hawn said that was deliberately done. \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) He sees this use as the candy shop of the 1950 s. Smith asked if the coffee-bagel sales purpose was to primarily serve the neighborhood or to serve area employees. Dillon said the purpose was for the neighbors and customers of the bank. The Commissioners questioned how much traffic would be generated by the« was agreed that the traffic would be more than what ts generated by the bank. Dto _____I j I___tnainritv hpino talce-out customers. Dillon reported tr was agreed that the traffic would be more man wnai g j the use would be subtle with the majority being take-out customers. Dillon reported that the tenants themselves determine what traffic needs they must have to gener^e enough business. Havim said the B-5 District speaks of the undesirability of high traffic generators and feels the use is not compatible with this zoning district. Gaffion noted that the Dairy Queen is a seasonal business. O’Sullivan added that this particular Dairy Queen is a high volume store for a non-Brazier Dairy Queen. John Erickson suggested taking the property to the north of O'Sullivan and zoning it all commercial. Sepena asked is the uses were substantially different from that of a Dai^ Quera. ^wn said she felt the Dairy Queen was present due to its historical insertion m the distnct Hawn said she is against the restaurant uses. Gaffion noted that the property was changed to B-5 from residential one year ago. Dillon said he felt the coffee-bagel use is similar to the candy, ice cream, etc. use. He will ask the applicant to amend the application to eliminate the pizza sales. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve the amendment of the B-5 for allowed conditional uses to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales. Schroeder felt the neighbors would appreciate these businesses. McMillan asked if the uses would be tied into the candy, ice cream, etc. category. Lindquist said the uses would be added to the list of conditional uses. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON J.ANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) GafIron said he would recommend that limitations be placed on the use as a separate line. The limitations would need to be developed. He has been given some suggestions from Shardlow, which is currently not reflected in the proposed language. Lindquist and Smith said they would like to review the language when drafted. Schroeder felt satisfied with staff handling the matter. Lindquist agreed to let staff develop the details and send it forward to the Council for review. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hawn. Council will review the application at their February 24 meeting. Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances (#19) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Variances for hardcover and front yard parking setback and a commercial site plan review to construct an 11,000 sq. ft retail/service center building - 12:03-1:00 a.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gafffon reported that the application is a commercial site plan review and variance approval for the multi-retail building noted in agenda item #18. Variances include 500- 1000’ zone hardcover and parking setback from street. The property is 1.86 acre site. Gafffon noted the property as it exists today and with proposed improvements for a bank building and retail sales. A portion of Navarre Lane was vacated last year. The site contains stormwater management ponding serving the Culver site. Gafffon reviewed the application with regards to conformity with performance standards of the B-5 District as laid out in the information packet. He noted that the building layout is similar to what has previously been shown. Gaffron reported that the hardcover is less than what is seen elsewhere in Navarre. There will be building space for 6-8 tenants. Inside floor plans are not yet available. The permitted and conditional uses are in conformance as are lot area and lot width. The ffont yard setback requirement is 20' minimum and proposed at 5'. The landscape architect has commented that more space should be provided for plantings. A 20' rear setback is required for the through lot but proposed at 14'. Entrance monuments are also being proposed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Gafiron indicated that fencing is not being proposed. Fencing is required, however, where the property abuts the residential district. A arborvitae hedge is being proposed. Landscape Architect Case suggested additional screening in the landscape pian. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider whether screening should be included along the Olive Avenue frontage. Gafiron reported that the City does not usually get involved with design, but the proposed buildings will be significant to the area. He reviewed the exterior finish. Elevation reviews must be provided to ensure a consistent appearance. In Staffs opinion, Gafiron said the building lacks character and consideration needs to be given to the expanse of uninterrupted roof The only outbuilding will be a trash enclosure proposed 30' from Olive Avenue, which Gafiron feels may not be the best location. Screening of that enclosure is required and building exterior should also be compatible with the other buildings. A drainage plan has been submitter.. A grading plan indicates an expansion of the retention pond existing on the site. The City Engineer has made recommendations, including the need to revisit the proposed storm sewer lines in that storm sewer and ponding calculations need to be provided. The entire site will drain to this storm pond via grading and a series of catch basins and storm sewer lines. Gafiron said the City Engineer has commented on the grading plan submitted. He noted that design grades, especially down to Olive Avenue, are steep. Grades and slopes need to be examined and erosion control materials used. Plantings should strive for a 1:S slope. The proposed retaining wall is over 10' in height. A pedestrian path had been discussed for location along the wall but eliminated due to the safety issue with the height of the »»dll. Concern was also voiced over the starkness of the wall as viewed from Olive Avenue. O'Sullivan had suggested the pedestrian path by the north lot line but felt this may be difficult to do. A path through the parking lot would need alot of review. Gafiron noted the wall would need to be screened. The building height meets requirements but the broad expanse of roof should be modified. V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#\9 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the general performance standards noted in the application in relation to exterior storage, traffic control and site circulation, signage, lighting, and parking standards. The traffic will move in a counter-clockwise rotation through the bank drive- through window. Both a north and south access is proposed. Exiting traffic may be a problem with the close proximity to the Culver's Restaurant. There will be two-way traffic on the exit and in front of the building. The City Engineer suggested the use of a right-in, right-out scenario if two accesses are provided; he recommended only one access. Hennepin County will need to review this issue. The City Engineer felt the entrance was too close to the intersection. A condition was placed on the Culver's Development for another review of the access due to this issue. Gaflfron said Staff questioned the need for the entrance monuments and indicated they must meet the 10' setback. More detail is required regarding lighting. The parking standards are met with 62 spaces proposed and 56 required. The code calls for one space for every 200 s.f of office space; the plan has one space for every 150 s.f of space. Gaffron said the intensity of the restaurant use can be limited by the parking. No joint parking is planned, but O'Sullivan had previously suggested overflow parking for Culver's on this site. The setback for parking in the front is an issue for consideration. If the road expands, the parking will disappear. At least a 10' wide green strip for landscaping should be provided. The setback is also important in maintaining the natural character of the City. Gaffron reviewed how the 20' front yard could be accomplished as cited by 1-4 in the packet. He added that the building could be pushed back on the lot to accomplish #2. Gaffron said it is unclear whether the intent of the code section regarding drive-in standards applies to restaurants or general drive through services. Gaffron felt the canopy area should not impact the neighborhood except for the possibility of headlight glare, which may require screening. Gaffron expressed the need for additional landscaping due to the loss of trees on the property. Gaffron reviewed the variance requests including hardcover. He questioned the granting of the magnitude of hardcover variances considering the lack of detail or hardship statement. The question arose of whether the storm water treatment concludes that the e.xcessive hardcover has a limited impact. Gaffron said the front parking setback should be evaluated in its regard to what is appropriate in Navarre. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 Gaffron, while acknowledging guidelines, said additional work is required on the plans Tom Dillon noted that the 11,000 s.f. building is less than what was previously ptaed. He anticipates a 5-6 month construction period. Dillon feels the two egress locations on CoRd 19, with the southern egress being shared with Culver's, is an improvement for t e property. He noted the service window location is toward the rear of the building being the best location for both the building and the neighborhood. Dillon felt the hardcover issue was difficult to solve with the slopes, elevations, and ^nd. He noted the lack of flexibility with the property being within two •^^eshore zones. He indicated the ponding and filtration to marsh areas will aid water quality^ Dillon asked for clarification on the 20'setback requirement from Olive Avenue. It was his belief the setback would be at 23' and meet the requirement. Dillon noted he has not answered all of the concerns but will work with Staff. Mike Sepena reviewed the site plan. He referenced the confining steep elevations, which drop, for a minimum depth. Changes to this and the driveway are being kept to a minimum to reduce the need for fill. He indicated the 10' wall does taper upward. The 5 variance to the front yard setback is necessary, according to Dillon, to maintain Uneal integrity. He felt if Shadywood Road was expanded, this site is only one of many that would be affected. Gaffron clarified the setback issue. John Erickson comments that the Shadywood setback is unrealistic as the property Ms away to the back. He thought the plan for planters would be an improvement. Encl^n feels Olive Avenue is so narrow that it is practically a bike path now. He did not believe the neighbors would object to the parking extending to the back of the building ^d would most likely be the area where employees would park. Erickson is in support of bushes planted separating the retaining wall from his property, which he says would be a vast improvement to what currently exists. There were no other public comments. Schroeder agreed that a 20' setback would not be possible. McMillan said she would like to see more green space, however. Dillon said the area in front of the building on the County right-of-wav is all green space, along with other areas he pointed out. Sepena also noted the open are«»s on the comers where landscaping could be located. Dillon said he would work with Staff on a landscaping plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Dillon said he understands the need to change the roof line. He will work with Staff on the Ughting plan. Dillon said he spoke with the Watershed District, who were satisfied with the preliminary plan and with the ponding, but required the City hearing pnor to their formal review. Dillon indicated that a 5 ’ setback is built in with the sidewalk separating the parking area. He preferred unrestricted ingress and egress for the two access points, especially on the south where it is shared with Culver's. Hawn asked how much more land would be required to gain two lanes of parking in front. Sepena said it would be a tradeoff and impact ilie rest of the lot noting 64' is at the minimum. Lindquist asked what should be added in front of the building. Schroeder suggested trws planted in pots. Dillon replied that it would create a problem with snowplowing. Sirath felt that 5' would not make a difference. Schroeder indicated it would encroach on the Olive Avenue parking. Gaffron suggested bump-outs in order to save trees. Sepena said it would depend on the parking allotment. Dillon informed Schroeder that his intent is to frame the property with trees. Gaffron indicated that further work with the development on the issues is necessary. Schroeder felt the Planning Commission should see the plan again. Commissioners agreed. Lindquist asked Staff to work through the issues and develop a list of topics for discussion. Gaffron said the plan will be reviewed at the February 17 Planning Commission meeting and the February 23 Council meeting. Smith felt the two locations for access were intensive with the combined use with Culver's, the sea of concrete that would exist, and the increased traffic. She is worried about the level of activity in the area and asked Staff to review this issue. Schroeder, Lindquist, and McMillan felt that two accesses were necessary. Smith asked to see options. Schroeder indicated the building could be reduced in size but limited depthwise. Smith acknowledged the current plan is an improvement. Smith asked that the exterior desi^ be reviewed. Schroeder suggested the drive through be located to the side to gain the 20' setback Dillon said that was possible but would present a problem with stacking and gaining access to the back of the building if eliminated. Gaffron said a possibility is to eliminate a portion of the 20' driveway. Schroeder asked that more than 5' be provided in front. He would like to see a landscaping plan such as the 5' plus trees. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2326 for additional review of plan and work on landscaping, roof design, signage, exterior design and issues noted in this discussion. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 (#19 “ #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Dillon asked about the hardcover variance. Schroeder indicated that the building has been reduced in size. Lindquist and Schroeder were in support of the variance request. Sketch Plans (#20) #2321 DAN ANDERSON, OWNER OF 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD to subdivide the parcel into 8 lots for residential development The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the review is of a sketch plan for the 17-1/2 acre Carpenter property located on Old Crystal Bay Road. All existing buildings have been removed. The plan calls for 8 lots with two cul-de-sacs, with septic systems and wells. Lot 8 is to be served by an individual driveway. The prop)erty also contains woodlands and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline, which will impact lake setbacks and tree preservation. The bluff located on 3 of 4 lots forces the setback to an average 150', where normally the setback is 75'. Gaffron indicated the issues for discussion include access, lot area/width standards, on site sewage treatment, bluff impacts, tree preservation, park dedication, archaeological sites, wetlands, and stormwater drainage. Gaffron said the code would generally limit individual access to major roadways. A change will be necessary for access to Lot 8, possibly by an outlot road. Hennepin County will also need to review access. Gaffron said the best plan would be for all lots to access from one road, but with circumstances being as they are, two roads would make sense. Gaffron reported that the lots meet the 2 acre zoning. Lot 3 does not meet the 200' width requirement. The four lakeshorc lots are narrow, and the angle of the existing property boundaries with the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out the lots. The setbacks are 50' front, 30' side, 50' rear, and 75' setback from the bluff Septic sites have been tested. There is limited building flexibility, especially for Lot 6. Steve Weckman has reviewed the sites and is concerned that the 6% slope is not being met. More mound systems may be necessary and additional review required. The bluff affects 3 of 4 lakeshore lots. Gaffron indicated that the tree line follows the shoreline presenting pristine views from the bay, which should be preserved. He is concerned with building a corridor to the lake and suggests some limitations within the corridor to ensure that trees are not cut down to the lake. He suggested a tree conser\ ation easement. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#20 - #2321 Dan Anderson - Continued) Gafiron said a trail corridor is laid out for the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Hennepin Parks has a long term intent for a trail system connecting the Luce Line to Noerenberg. Difficulty in continuing the east side trail is due to topography problems and preference has been shown for the trail continuation on the west side of the road. The subdivision will be subject to park dedication, whether by fee or land. There are no apparent wetlands on the property but confirmation will be required. A site grading plan will also be required when the preliminary plat application is filed. Issues for consideration include access and number of access points. Gaffron said Staff will scrutinize the viability of the building envelopes of specific lots noting the septic system feasibility is key to determining the number and layout of lots. The applicant will be asked for tree or woodland preservation methods as well. The applicant said Ed Otto of Otto Associates did the plan and soil testing. Anderson said he appreciates the beauty of the area and tree preservation is vital to maintaining the value of the property. Anderson said the areas most appropriate for building sites are not in the wooded areas. Smith indicated that the problem with tree and woods preservation would most likely arise once the residences are built and resided in. Lindquist suggested the use of a restrictive covenant. Smith agreed. Anderson felt the property owners will want to maintain the trees. Schroeder asked for a plan regarding this issue. Otto responded to the issue of access. He said consideration was given to a horseshoe type connection, but the property lacked the depth and hardcover would increase. He felt the outlot option would be best for site distance. He suggested an option for Lot 8's driveway. Otto understood that the County would have to review access. Otto did not believe a frontage road would be a good option to serv'e Lot 8. Gaffron suggested a driveway run across the road. Otto was concerned with being too close to Old Crystal Bay Road. It was indicated that the applicant is not adverse to a bike path or easement. McMillan suggested that the only way to solve the access issue for Lot 8 may be to eliminate a lot altogether, noting Lot 7 would have a difiicult building envelope. Gaffron noted that this would decrease the number of lakeshore lots to three. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 (#20 - #2321 Dan Anderson - Continued) Schroeder stated the septic regulations govern the planning of development and no exceptions would be made in regards to septic. McMillan indicated the difficulty in obtaining two septic sites for 2 acre lots. Otto said the slopes are also a concern as well as the 6% restriction. Otto indicated that the Lot 3 septic sites are 6% for the primary side on the north side and 8% for the alternate. Lindquist informed him that all septic sites must be conforming. Gaffron said sewering would make it easier for building sites, but there is no plan for sewering and the property is not within the MUSA. He noted the Council is reviewing expansion of 2 acre zoning but it is difficult to predict what will occur in the future. Plans for alternate sites are required but they may not be needed in the future. There were no public comments. (#21) #2324 JAMES RENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into three lots for residential development Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan is for a two acre site located across from Maxwell Bay in the 1/2 acre zoning. The 3-lot subdivision will meet the width requirements in the LR-IC Zoning District. Three options are being provided for the development. Option A is the preferred layout. It would include an outlot driveway at a 30' width. A private road is required for the three lots. Lots 1 and 2 require back lot area variances where 3/4 acres is required. Option B is a modified plan with two lots abutting the County road. An outlot would serve the back lot and meet the 3/4 acre standard. Lot 3 becomes somewhat limited in its development flexibility in this scenario and would creates the need for an additional driveway access. Option C includes a short cul-de-sac and is the most conforming of the three proposals. No width variance is required but there would be alot of hardcover due to the road. There are also potential changes to the character of the neighborhood in this proposal. Gaffron reviewed the pros and cons for a cul-de-sac. This would be the shortest cul-de- sac developed to date in the City. The minimum paved width for a private road is 24' and 20' for a public driveway. The total hard surface for the entire site, including the road, would be 21,000 s.f. or 24% of the property. This assumes that all three lots are conforming to the 25% hardcover limitation in the 75-250' zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI A^^NING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#21 - #2324 Janies Render - Continued) Staff sees both good and bad points to having a cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac would meet code and not significant add to hardcover. A road could be developed if made private for maintenance control by the residents. Gronberg was asked what the best solution was, and he said that the owner is concerned with the use of the property by the public. The character of the neighborhood is also a concern. He felt Option A is a simpler plan with the three lots and a County road on one side. He felt there was a need for three lots. A shared driveway, however, is a possibility. McMillan was informed that Lot 1 exceeded hardcover limitations as drawn. The three lots would be limited and have similar homes. Gronberg said the owner understands that no variances are allowed. The plan is to leave the existing house on the property. Gafifon said if a cul-de-sac was built, it could be made smaller. The fire department would prefer this option for staging purposes. McMillan questioned how it could be made smaller, citing example of an island. An island would make it difficult to plow. Hawn asked what effect a shared driveway would have for the fire department. Gronberg asked whether an approved fire turn, or Y shape, could be used. Gaffron said the hardcover would be about half the amount as a cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked Gafifon to review the fire turn or Y with the fire department. Smith said she would like to see all three driveways from a single driveway and submitted or review or with a variation of a cul-de-sac. (#22) #2329 BOB WAADE, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3280 AND 3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - to develop townhouses in the LR-lC-1 District Robert and Iris Waade were present. Gaffron reported the sketch plan is for development of property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as the Straley property, which was owned for a time by the DNR for a possible access site. The proposal is to divide the property into two lots, each containing a duplex. The property is in the LR-lC-1 Zoning District and is within 200' of commercial zoning. This creates some options for the property with either duplexes or a PRD, attached units with a 3 unit per acre density. The sketch plan presented is for duplexes. This property has gone through several rezonings. The Shoreland regulations affect the property as a PRD requiring a tiering concept regarding the number of units on site, with less development, and located further back on the lot. The plan is for the duplex concept and meeting code. A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#22 - #2329 Bob Waade - Continued) A 30' wide outlot is proposed over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new dwelling units. Ttus far exceeds the City's three unit threshold for a driveway, requiring a road. The applicant is asking for an easement to serve the back lot, requiring 3/4 acre with 1/2 acre in front. 100' widths are required. One plans calls for the road to come across the north along the property line of Lot I to Lot 2. A 50' outlot could be a road, and Gaffron questioned whether it would need to be developed without the neighboring properties. Once option according to Gaffron would be a development with 7-8 townhouse units. If a PRD, it would require a 200' setback with shared or private road. If the development is as proposed, a driveway to serve 4 lots could continue to serve the houses in the neighborhood. This is however for the rest of the neighborhood. Gaffron said the duplex credit in the LR-IC-1 District requires a conditional use on a single lot. It meets the sewered requirement, being adjacent to commercial property, and construction within 200' of the district. The property does not meet the width requirement but does meet the area requirement. Gaffron said the backlot consideration is problematic for hardcover. It would use the full 25% of hardcover allowed in the 75-250' zone but have a minimal driveway and apron. More detail is required. A question of lake access is also a consideration. How many of the units would receive access. Gaffron questioned whether the plan would be approved for access by the LMCD. The code stipulates lake access to as many as have title. The ability to have 4 slips on I dock is not probable with requirement of having lakeshore. Lindquist asked the applicant what his intentions are for the property. Waade said he would like to have 4 slips and keep the units as rental units with two separate duplex units. Lindquist asked what determinations are needed. Gaffron said the plan would require Council and LMCD review. He said code allows only 4 slips on 1 property only. Hawn acknowledged that this problem is created with the lot ownership and lakeshore as developed. Lindquist suggested for the duplex plan to create the ability for the road to serve all 7 properties with a 50' outlot rather than an easement. A decision has to be made regarding where the road is to be located, who is to build it, whether it be private or public, and if the road will be shared. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUAB.Y 20, 1998 (#22 - #2329 Bob Waade - Continued) A width variance is required for Lot 2. If this cannot be granted, the question is whether the property can become a duplex and may require being a single family residence. The possibility is for a single family on the lakeshore lot with a duplex to the rear. Waade said he could follow that plan but would rather have two duplexes. Lindquist asked about slips. Waade said he would like a slip for each unit. Schroeder said he should discuss this with the LMCD. Gaffron did not believe the City would allow a corridor outlot. Conditions may also have to be placed on the property where slips could be lost. Mrs. Waade asked about the road. The owner’s responsibility for the road would be through Lot 1 and should be at a 28' width and paved. An outlot must be 50'. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#23) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 15,1997 Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#24) REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS January 23 - Lindquist February 9 - Hawn ADJOURNMENT Lindquist adjourned the meeting at 1:52 a m. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person iV'«> information ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCILMEETINQ FEB 2 3 1998 CriYOFORONO VI i COufvC, - i 4l\< J MEETING THE HUMAN SERUICE NEEDS Fee 2 3 ,999 OF WESTERN HENNEPIN COUNTV crvnr „ ' ' ^- uRGl\;0 Summary of Findings I. Background - Why this project uias begun The purpose of this project is to discover how to best assess needs and coordinate human services that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25 communities of western Hennepin County. Also, the purpose is to build community ownership of a structure for meeting those needs. Initiated in the summer of 1997, the project evolved from informal discussions involving Hennepin County administration and officials from the cities of Hopkins, Plymouth, Shorewoo^ St Louis Park and Tonka Bay. Their concern was how human services needs could be met appropriately following the demise of Suburban Alliance, one of three human services councils in Hennepin County. The predecessor to Suburban Alliance, the West Heimepin Human Services Planning Board (WHHSPB), was formed in 1973 under a joint powers agreement. Renamed Suburban Alliance in 1994, the organization was headed by a board of more than 40 people, including residents appointed by the city councils and members of provider agencies. Suburban Alliance ceased operations in January, 1997. Since then, emergency services funding for die 25 western municipalities has been managed by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Planning Council. Other activities and programs once operated by Suburban Alliance have either been disbanded or moved to other agencies. Given the growing needs of the residents in the west Hennepin communities, the existing services operating in these communities and the socio-economic dynamics of the late 1990 ’s, this project was undertaken to develop a structure to assess current and future human service needs, ensure coordination of services, improve communications, maintain accountability, and promote joint decision-making. The project was also undertaken to learn how assessing needs and coordinating human services can be a community effort by everyone involved. II. Methodology - Hom this project is being conducted For most community undertakings to be successful and productive, the participants mi^ know they have a stake in the creation, operation and outcomes. With this as a guideline, the project was designed and is being conducted. The key elements of the project are fourfold: j, working group that includes Hennepin County administration and officials of five municipalities designed the framework of the project by articulating its scope and objectives. They hired, with County fundin;^, liie two consultants to implement the project. 2. ^formation about eflective and efficient approaches for coordinating and delivering human services to the residents of the 25 municipalities of western Hennepin County was gathered m more than 120 telephone interviews. The interviews were with Hennepin County commissioners representing the western suburbs, elected and appointed officials from the municipalities, staff from the cities, staff of provider agencies, school district officials, members ot faith communities, citizen volunteers and recipients. (Please see the accompanying list.) Inforniation from the interviews was supplemented by data from the 1990 U. S. Census and mid decade updates, as well as research on models that might be applicable to the delivery of human services in the western suburbs. 3. Five fireus groups are being conducted to review the draft recommendations. More than 100 prople have been invited to attend, including many of those who participated in the telephone interviews, as well as other concerned individuals. 4. Final recommendations, with feedback on the draft recommendations from the working group and from the focus groups, will be prepared. These recommendations will be submitted to the West Hennepm cities and the County for their consideration. Throughout, the goal h^ been to discover the best ways for assessing the needs of residents in the 25 communities, coordinating human services and nurturing community ownership of the outcomes. Whether shape and scope the final recommendations assume, they will be successful only if those Charged with implementing them believe the recommendations can work and feel ownership to make III. Data - n summary of luhat uias learned The following summarizes what was learned from the telephone interviews and supplementary data Each of the 25 communities in western Hennepin County is unique in its origins and its currrot charaettr St. Louis Park, for example, is a first-ring suburb where much of its current development occuned during the years following World War II. The towns on or around Lake Minneto^ begM ^ resort communities where one-time summer cabins now are year-round homes. In second- and third-nng suburbs, most of the growth has occurred during the last two decades. Other communities remain rural in nature and are just beginning to more fully develop. ^^*i!f** human service needs emerges. These needs include: fordable and accessible health c^; emergency assistance including stocked food shelves; services tor ^niore agmg m theu- homes, including chores and home maintenance; conflict resolution in tamilies, mcludmg mtervention in domestic abuse and parent education; mental health services; after school prop^s for older kids and teenagers; ways to end the isolation of the poor, elderly and Jhers, including t^sportotion and telephones; and substance abuse services. Respondents also noted that virtually all of these issues are exacerbated by both welfare reform requirements and the fact that people do not see that there are problems in the communities. WiAin the wide range, participants in the project agree that four needs dominate the provision of human services — affordable housing, transportation, child care and jobs. fordab le houa ing: The lack of affordable housing is found both in home ownership and the rental market It wfects such different groups as the family seeking to buy its first home, the elderly couple who fears losing their home b^use ^ey camiot kwp up with either maintenance or property taxes, the entiy-level employee who does not have the fimds or the credit rating to rent a modest apartment and the welfare mother who, although possessmg a Section 8 voucher, cannot find such an apartment in the western suburbs. Transportation: The biggest problem reported is the dearth of buses that could move people to their destinations. This includes getting to workplaces in the suburbs and to other destmations in their own or neighbming communities. While a close examination of the bus routes may not bear it out, many complain that it is often necessary to travel to downtown Minneapolis in order to get from one community in the western suburbs to another. Others also voiced concern that community bus systems operating in the suburbs often do not travel between communities but only operate within one or two communities. Some participants said that providers spend too many resources trying to find a taxi ride or repairs for a recipient’s car rather than devoting their energies to fostering substantive changes in the public transit system. Child care: The need for child care that is affordable, caring and adaptable to the schedules of working parents (particularly single mothers) has been an issue since women entered the work force in ever greater numben during the 1970s and 1980s. The need is growing as welfare reform programs and the reduction in subsidies for poor families are put into place and implemented. Jobs: This need has become ever more pressing since passage of welfare reform legislation by Congress and the formation of state programs aimed at implementing the federal legislation. The jobs issue also includes the necessity of devising appropriate matches between business and industries and their requirements with the job training programs. There is a need for job training that deals with the whole person going through the program. This includes the necessiQr of developing productive work habits such as filling out a job application, dressing iq>propriately for the job and getting there on time every day. Virtually every participant in the project said the needs will loom ever larger in the coming yem because of two factors — the further implementation of welfare reform programs and the aging of the population. Furthermore, many participants said that dealing n^th these needs is made more difficult because of the perception that most residents can solve their problems by themselves. Dealing with the needs is also made more difficult because there is no Sj :<tematic way to know what is happening in the communities and with the recipients being served. Participants repotted they have no easy access to demographic data, information about recipients, or information alwut other programs that could help recipients. Most said they relied on talking to recipients when they caine for help, or they picked up information from the media, professional journals or in networicing with others in their field or in the conununities. In addition, providers lack a vehicle to coordinate their programs with others. Individuals reported they know their programs and the people they serve, but they often have little information about other programs in odier communities. Several participants said they did not know the capacity of the human service system in western Hennepin County. Consequently, vital resources are not allocated wisely and, thus, are wasted. Despite the lack of coordination, there are efforts to get together to share ideas. Some are informal and others are woiking groups that are more or less structured and are operating in relatively small geographical contexts. Participants, however, said these networking efforts were not broad or deep enough to make coordination work. Respondents stressed that having some form of organization sandwiched between funders and providers that is given the authority to establish funding criteria and funnel money would be counter productive. What is needed is a joint effort that does the planning and coordination. Creation of new agency is not necessary to do that. Virtually everyone stated there is desire for collaboration in planning and coordinating services, and in dividing resources. The issue is the shape any collaboration should have, its authority and the scope of its activities. While many believe more coordination is necessary to address human service needs, they also believe that creating a framework for collaboration is crucial. The basic elements of any such framework should include: identifying the goals of the collaboration effort; setting quantifiable outcomes that must be achieved in order to measure what has been accomplished; . including all stakeholders in funding and operating programs Hennepui County, municipalities, foundations, funding agencies, school districts, service providers, businesses, recipients, citizens; .... j * maintaining credibility by having all stakeholders participate directly, make decisions and not delegate their authority and their opportunity to contribute to others; limiting the work of the collaboration to planning and coordination, including assembling necessary information and then using that information to allocate resources to eliminate overlaps and fill gaps in services; minimizing staff so that efforts are focused on accomplishing the goals and outcomes and not on sustaining a bureaucratic structure; establishing priorities and focusing resources (one person likened this to setting up a triage system); . • r utilizing existing efforts and building on them, sometimes by fostering replication of successful programs; creating an extensive data base to be used as part of a solid referral system; ensuring the collaboration has no vested interest in the programs themselves by not operating its own programs. The most frequent suggestion was that collaborations must be decentralized, the product of grass roots efforts that are created and operated at the local level and that address a broad range of needs. Participants also said people need to be rewarded for partnering. The links between provideia should not be simply trading information on programs and the rewards should not be the numbw of clients. The reward for a team approach should be the number of recipients who “get ahead. Just such a shift in the paradigm is critical If collaboration is to work. Opinions differed on how recipients should be involved and to what extent. About half the respondents felt strongly that recipients should be included in the design and implementation of a collaboration. It would be arrogant and shortsighted, they said, to plan for meeting the needs of people who were not even included in the process of putting together a system for meetmg those needs. On the other hand, about half argued that trying to put your life together — if you’re a smgle mother attempting to finish a job training program so you can get off welfare, or a corporate manager downsized out of a job or a senior citizen wonying about how you can stay m your home w 40 years and remain independent — often requires so much energy and time that little of both is left over for serving on a collaborative. lU. Draft Recommendations - liihat they are based on The draft recommendations that will be presented in the focus groups are based on *e needs and directions provided by the respondents. The recommendations incorporate ways to address mese factors: Those in nee»* of human services include both the poor, working and non-working, a/^.those of varying financiai resoorces who need help with problems that are beyond their capacity to resolve. The focus must include the four most pressing needs — affordable housing, child care, transportation and jobs. These issues affect both the poor and those who have limited financial resources. The geographic area of western Hennepin County is very large and the 25 communities are unique, assuring that one, centralized, vehicle for coordinating human services programs will be imworkable. The work of plaiuiing for and coordinating human services must be decentralized Collaboration is vital if meeting needs effectively and efficiently is to be accomplished. Collaboration implies an integrated approach, radier than simply sharing information or loosely coordinating existing services. Any effort to collaborate must emerge from the conununity, reflecting the problems of its residents and using its ideas and resources to solve them. It must have community involvement and support to succeed. Providers must work together if they are to succeed. Working together will be accomplished only if the framework for the relationship is clearly established. Four key elements in a new framework are 1) how data is collected and maiuged; 2) how funding is allocated; 3) how outcomes are measured; and, 4) how local conununity collaborations are support^ but not controlled. Being an active partner in a community-based collaboration should be rewarded when funding is allocated. Success should be measured by the number of recipients who accomplish what the provider sets out to do, e.g., jobs at die end of a job-training program and affordable child care for working parents. Dealing with some needs will require changes in policies by those outside the communities of western Heruiepin County. Those who are able to address these issues must be represented in any collaboration. Decisions must be made by those who have the authority to implement them. This includes decisions about organizational structure, funding and coordination with other on-going efforts. To some extent, deebion-makers would be gatekeepers. Deebion-makers cannot operate in a vacuum. They must have information ab^ut the commuuity and ib problems, and ideas from the community for delivering human services. Most importantly, this infonnation must come frtim the residenb and the recipients. Such information will go far in assuring that there will be new ideas and new perceptions about long-time programs. A regional perspective b necessary, particularly when dealing with such funding sources and trying to influence policy changes. U. Conclusion What emerges from the interviews is that most respondents believe vital resource are wasted because friere is a lack of coordination. Virtually everyone said they wanted more coordination, as well as more co mmunication about what is happening in the communities and in human services programs. Most said they prefer decentra'.ized collaborations as the major vehicle. What also emerges is that many people are working, in one capacity or another, to meet the needs of residents in the 25 communities. They have much experience and many ideas about what works and what does not work. And, they have a lot of energy and commitment to devote to the task What they need is help putting their experience, ideas, energy and commitment together by being supported yet not controlled in: creating a clear sense of common mission; collecting, managing and reporting data; allocating funding; and measuring outcomes. Prepared by Penny Simison and Michael Winer, January 1998 K ' COORDINATING WESTERN HENNEPIN rOi;\TY HUMAN SF.RVTrPt; Local Community Collahoratives Local community coilaborauvcs come together based on a perceived need by one or a few organizations, including municipalities, school districts and others that rally others to address the issues. S' receive dollars from a variety of sources to establish and coordinate services in their area while Others coordinate services without receiving outside dollars. Either with or without outside dollars, some collahoratives create scrv ’ice coordination entities [e.g. family service ccnters/onc-stop shops]. Work with the municipality, school districts and others for service coordination that are outcome-based and ensure that the mi.x of providers meets the needs of the area. Provide input on outcome-based service goals to the County through the Office of Information and Support. Municipalities Become actively involved with local community collabo''atives. Participate actively with the Office of Information and Support. Help fund the Office of Information and Support. Office of Information and Support for Western Hennepin rmii^^y I. O n -going Planning • Compiles information on needs, assets, products, outcomes, indicators and benchmarks from all sources. • Conducts regional and local area planning with input from the municipalities, local community collahoratives and service providers and citizens. • Researches best practices. Plans to fill gaps and coordinate efforts through multijurisdictional approaches. Builds in incentives for regional cooperation and local collaboration. technical Assistance Helps foster the creation of local community collahoratives. Provides assistance to local community collahoratives through trained assistants to: function effectively; reach out to the larger community for involvement and resources: separate their lunctioning as a collaborative from the products they produce (e.g. serv'ice center]. Coordination Regularly aggregates information and reports useful information to the local collahoratives. service providers. County, municipalities and school districts, business and industry. Interfaces with Northwest and South efforts; regional bodies such as CASH. Metro Council, etc. Advocates with foundations and state and federal governments to maximize resources. Coordinates with County for maximum input and to advocate for fair share distribution of funding. 3. Service Providers Contract with the County to provide scrvice.s and implement outcome-ha^ed contracts. Coordinate services through the local community collahoratives. Participate actively with the OlTice of Support and Information. Provide accurate data on services, costs and outcomes for compciiiive analysis. County i*unncls designated moneys to local community coilaborauvcs. Contracts with service providers, including emergency services, based on planning efforts. Contracts with .service providers through outcome based .service contracts; these arc means for monitoring programs, management and finances. Conducts compctitive/cost-elTectivcness analysis of programs and .sc.'viccs. Helps fund the Office of Information and Support from planning moneys. PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED JANUARY 1998 REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 02/04/98 PERMIT TYPE Building SOL FAMILY-MEN SP-ADD/REMODEL SP-ACC STRUCTURE OEMO/PRINCIPAL INST-ADD/REMODEL DEMO-ACCESSORY Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS WOOD STOVE/FLUE FIREPLACE VENTILATION GAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK ONLY Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES HATER METER Sub-total Sewer fc Nater SENER CONNECTION NEW SEPTIC SYSTE SAC ONLY Sub-total Sign TEMPORARY Sub-total Uaer Defined LAND ALTERATION Sub-total Grand-total QTY 3 13 1 0 1 1 19* ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO PAGE: REQUESTER: -- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/98 - 01/31/98 COUNC/IL •-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/97 - 01/31/97 BASE FEE 7,481.75 3,868.25 662.25 0.00 0.00 30.00 12,042.25* VALUATION 1,263,160.00 362,575.00 64,000.00 0.00 19,480.00 0.00 1,709,215.00* PLAN REVIEW 4,863.13 1,952.92 430.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,246.51* 2 3 i'i^E FEE CflfYO? OROSO032.25 13 0 1 0 1 16* 579.25 0.00 50.00 0.00 30.00 6,691.50* VALUATION 328,805.46 465,428.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 794,234.41* PLAN REVIEW 1,320.96 2,562.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.883.90* 6 542.50 39,200.00 0.00 11 1,228.88 91,310.00 0.00 1 35.00 2,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 338.75 19,000.00 0.00 9 323.11 13,494.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 350.00 0.00 1 35.00 150.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 4,600.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 0.00 19*1,021.25*64,950.00*0.00*22*1,621.99*106,154.00*0.00* 13 1,183.49 83,729.00 0.00 18 1,134.01 68,967.72 0.00 1 191.00 0.00 0.00 3 632.99 0.00 0.00 14*1,374.49*83,729.00*0.00*21*1,767.00*68,967.72*0.00* 5 175.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 100.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10*3,275.00*0.00*0.00*1*0.00*0.00*0.00* 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 0*C.OO*0.00*0.00*1*30.00*0.00*0.00* 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 75.00 0.00 0.00 0*0.00*0.00*0.00*1*75.00*0.00*0.00* 62**17,712.99**1,857,894.00**7,246.51**62**10,185.49**969,356.13**3,883.90* PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED JANUARY 1998 REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 02/04/98 * • * * *PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/98 TO 01/31/98 * * * « * REPORT NBR. BPEERPTl-1 DATE OP RUN 02/04/98 * * * * *PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/98 TO 01/31/98 * * * * * REPORT TOTAL 17,712.99 7,246.51 933.50 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 30.914.on * j PAGE: REQUESTER: BUILDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SEWER €t WATER USER SIGN FIRE BASE PEE 12,042.25 1,021.25 1,374.49 3,275.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PLAN REVIEW 7,246.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 855.11 32.90 42.49 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH PEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAIL IN 10.50 10.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 20,143.87 1,064.65 1,427.48 8,278.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE: REQUESTER: PAGE 1 WED, FEB 4, 1998, 3:06 PM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OP JANUARY PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET 1998 ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 01 01 01 02 02 02 06 09 10 10 11 17 20 24 24 29 29 29 29 395 75 3011 1900 985 1815 1005 500 300 845 870 3235 2700 1850 1384 627 3300 575 1025 FERNDALB RD N CRYSTAL CREEK RD SUSSEX RD FOX RIDGE RD EDGEHOOD HILLS RD FAGERNESS POINT RD HERITAGE LA TONKAHA RD CRESTVIEW AVE WILLOW DR S WINDJAMMER LA CASCO CIR KELLEY PKWY FOX RIDGE RD BALDUR PARK RD FERNDALE RD N NAVARRE LA SUSSEX CIR TONKAWA RD 19C 19C MB 01 500 TONKAHA RD 01 2625 NORTH SHORE DR 01 1399 PARK DR 01 2460 THOROUGHBRED LA 01 801 FERNDALB RD N 01 2460 THOROUGHBRED LA 01 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD 01 3115 NORTH SHORE DR 01 2405 DUNWOODY AVE 01 465 HUNTER PASS 01 1525 6TH AVE N 01 2106 SUGARWOOD DR 01 3877 SHORELINE DR 01 465 HUNTER PASS 02 2340 FOX ST 02 3300 BAYSIDE RD 24 2135 6TH AVE N 24 627 FERNDALE RD N 29 755 FERNDALE RD N 19C 19C PL 01 774 TONKAHA RD 01 2975 SOMERSET LA 01 2460 THOROUGHBRED LA 01 1950 CONCORDIA ST 01 100 BIO ISLAND 01 100 BIG ISLAND 02 3300 BAYSIDB RD 02 3845 NORTH SHORE DR 02 627 FERNDALE RD N 20 2180 NORTH SHORE DR 24 265 HOLLANDER RD 24 2178 SHADYHOOD RD 98/01/07 98/01/05 98/01/23 98/01/12 98/01/12 98/01/26 98/01/29 98/01/13 98/01/13 98/01/22 98/01/05 98/01/09 98/01/21 98/01/02 98/01/09 98/01/06 98/01/05 98/01/15 98/01/29 OR-009850 OR-009858 OR-009892 OR-009820 OR-009873 OR-009900 OR-009879 OR-009877 OR-009878 OR-009898 OR-009856 OR-009872 OR-009890 OR-009851 OR-009875 OR-009847 OR-009857 OR-009880 OR-009909 98/01/02 98/01/02 98/01/02 98/01/06 98/01/06 98/01/07 98/01/09 98/01/20 98/01/22 98/01/22 98/01/22 98/01/27 98/01/27 98/01/29 98/01/12 98/01/28 98/01/07 98/01/07 98/01/06 OR-009843 OR-009854 OR-009855 OR-009859 OR-009862 OR-009869 OR-009871 OR-009891 OR-009893 OR-009895 OR-009896 OR-009902 OR-009903 OR-009908 OR-009876 OR-009907 OR-009866 OR-009868 OR-009863 98/01/02 98/01/02 98/01/07 98/01/09 98/01/22 98/01/22 98/01/14 98/01/22 98/01/30 98/01/08 98/01/14 98/01/14 OR-009852 OR-009853 OR-009867 OR-009874 OR-009894 OR-009894 OR-009884 OR-009897 OR-009910 OR-009870 OR-009881 OR-009882 14750918 19449499 15590251 14710532 14722724 19208888 19205088 14691331 14734954 17216628 14726539 14791107 15409404 14834614 00000000 14742376 00000000 00000000 14710532 34705342 35453797 38819000 35463777 36332561 34283677 35712525 36332561 00000000 35453797 35453797 34405620 35453797 39414211 34972661 29723401 33386606 34432819 36332561 28274033 28947600 24432921 24341984 28353810 28353810 29723401 27863951 24701208 28904068 29319676 28274033 BRUCE BREN HOMES LECY CONST INC EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC DANBERRY COMPANY ANDERSON-LINDQUIST WESTERN CONSTRUCTION CO HAUCK assoc INC MINNESOTA POOLS BETZ BUILDERS INC PANELCRAFT OF MINNESOTA SMITH WF ROOFING GREEN ACRES TREE SERVICE FLAG BUILDERS INC BRANSON BLDRS & CONTRACTOR PATRICK HANILY U ASSOC INC DANBERRY COMPANY TOPOUSIS SUMMERS EIDEN POLANSKY BOWEN MCKEE LARSON NELSON BETZ ANDERSON MILLER SILUS HEADRICK VERSTEEG JOHNSON SWANSON POST SMITH ALPINE HEATING & COOLING FIREPLACE CENTER SEDGWICK HTG t AC CO BUILDERS EXPRESS FIRESIDE CORNER HEATING & COOLING TWO AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO FIRESIDE CORNER FIREPLACE CENTER FIREPLACE CENTER VIERECK FIREPLACE SALES FIREPLACE CENTER KLEVE HTG & AC DJ'S HTG U AC GENERAL PLUMBING fc HEATING WOODLAND STOVEStFIREPLACES NARKIE HTG it AC INC FIRESIDE CORNER NORBLOM PLUMBING CO LAKESIDE PLBG fc HTG INC SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG PARAGON PLUMBING U HEATING GILBERT MECHANICAL GILBERT MECHANICAL GENERAL PLUMBING 6 HEATING GRABOW PLUMBING INC STEINKRAUS PLBG INC KLAMM MECHANICAL CONT MCGUIRE t SONS PLBG fc HTG NORBLOM PLUMBING CO 500, 500, 263, 60, 175, 20, 34, 64, 1, 9, 5, 19, 18, 6, 15, 3, 10, 5, 000.00 000.00 160.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 200.00 500.00 875.00 .00 480.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 NELSON 4,500.00 HOODHOUSE 1,000.00 SIGEL 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,100.00 EIDEN 7.000. 00 2,400.00 1.000. 00 HALTON 1.500.00 3,000.00 4.500.00 2.600.00 LARSON 1,000.00 23,500.00 ROBERTS 2,600.00 HUMPHREY 150.00 VALITON 2,000.00 JOHNSON 2,000.00 1,100.00 FISHER 1,000.00 16.829.00 12.150.00 .00 RIVER 3,500.00 RIVER 3,500.00 HUMPHREY 750.00 FRITZ 8,900.00 JOHNSON 600.00 3,000.00 DOEPKE 1,600.00 ANDERSON 400.00 WED, FEB 4, 1998, 3:06 PM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1998 PAGE 2 PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION PL 14C 24 24 14C 253 315 CYGNET PL WOOOHILL RD 98/01/15 OR-009887 98/01/26 OR-009901 24738403 28272871 SW 01 1480 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/06 OR-009860»54734300 01 1480 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/06 OR-009861 54734300 01 1300 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/07 OR-009864 54734300 01 1300 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/07 OR-009865*'54734300 01 1280 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/14 OR-009883-54734300 01 1200 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/15 OR-009885 54734300 01 1200 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/15 OR-009886*54734300 01 1400 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/01/16 OR-009888 54734300 IOC 62C 01 01 IOC 1400 3011 BRACKETTS SUSSEX RD POINT RD 98/01/16 OR-009889^ 98/01/27 OR-009904 54734300 57237155 DAY EARL W k SONS AQUA CITY PLBG SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC ST. LAWRENCE 1,500.00 MCGUIRE 30,000.00 SERVICE HEADRICK .00 SERVICE HEADRICK .00 SERVICE PILLSBURY .00 SERVICE PILLSBURY .00 SERVICE PILLSBURY .00 SERVICE PILLSBURY .00 SERVICE PILLSBURY .00 SERVICE JUNDT .00 SERVICE JUNDT .00 ^ INC .00 1,857,894.00* r i % 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 99 9999 WORK TYPE CODE Residence Addition Garage/Attached Garage/Detached .. Porch Deck Fence Gazebo Pool Re-side Re-roof Tennis Court Sign Dock Shed Demo-Principal Structure Demo-Accessory Structure Move Commercial Institutional Storm Damage Repair 1-100 Cubic Yards 101 Cubic Yards or More Undefined 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 LOCAL USE CODES Undefined Replacing Existing Lifting Principal Residence Well Abandonment Foundation Only Temporary Trailer Renovate/Remodel Accessory Structure Stairway to Lake Retaining Wall Entrance Monuments Tree Removal I ZONING PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED REPC^T NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 02/04/98 ***♦♦ PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO ** « * *PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: P2VKir:p- - - - - - - -........... PERMIT TYPE QTY 01/01/98 - BASE FEE - -- - - 01/31/98 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/97 - BASE FEB 01/31/97 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW User Defined . .. SUBDIVISION 3 2,837.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 4 1,070.00 0.00 0.00 3 660.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 2 800.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 REZONING 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 8*4,157.50^0.00*0.00*7*1,710.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 8**4,157.50^*0.00**0.00**7**1,710.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BFBERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 02/04/98 '•* PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/98 TO 01/31/98 * * * * *PAGE: REQUESTER: USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 4,157.50 4,157.50 PLAN REVIBN 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 BSCRON 0.00 0.00 PBRNIT TOTAL 4,157.50 4,157.50 IPWP, ? 1998 RECAP OF CONTRACT CITIES January February March April June July August Septenber October Hoveirber Decentoer YTD Totals Spring Park Plan Review Inspections Retainer TOTAL No. Plan Reviews No. Inspections 0.00 15.00 25.00 40.00 0 1 Minnetonka Beach Plan Review Inspections Retainer TOTAL No. Plan Reviews No. Insnections 1.291.23 225.00 25.00 1.541.23 4 15 % k t fr. I : - t'. GITYof ORONO imot Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: rni ^ f/c-2Ti;6r|fstal Bay. MN 55323-0066 2 3 1998 CITY C,~ O.i^lO^'o NOTICE OF A MEETING OF ORONO'S HIGHWAY 12 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEES 5:00 P.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1998 A meeting involving Orono’s East and West Highway 12 Neighborhood Committees, the City’s Highway 12 Design Review Committee members, and representatives of Mn/DOT will be held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 26, 1998 in the Orono City Council Chambers, 2750 Kelley Parkway. The Mn/DOT representatives will provide updated information and respond to questions regarding the preliminary design of new Highway 12. ■*1 Tdcphonc (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510