Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketCITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ------ --------------------------------- APPLICATION# --------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION -7 /� �`rt rk p Z Site Address nwy 12 and brown Road, Orono, MN ' Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 34 11823210001 Please check one - Property x abstract or torrens? 1 Attach legal description to application. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPL=CA" Phone ( home ) 471-9375 Name RoPirt Kost Phone (work) 370-0700 u. NI d -," Addresss-1oo �t'i, ��. ;, �, i City: WarsaLa Zip: 66891 ---------------------------------------------- ------------- Oil (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Sidney Rebers Phone (work) 920-6996 Address: 3525 Webster Avenue City: St -Louis Park_Zip. 55416 (attach list if more t an one ---. -------------------------------------------------------------=s------ NXiL l.j.= LAND 089 Number of Tax Parcels 1 Development Size 32.6 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land --�3'2.�6 Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check) Residential; no. of units vacant Other (specify)_ Present Zoning District B-1 and RR1-B ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- lRXWOGAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) x Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Densitys Minimum Lot lines Proposed Uses (check) Existing Units �35New Units -�35Total Units .76 Units per 1 Acres 35,000 Sq Peet Dry buildable Land X Residential Other (specify) 4� MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLE'L'4'. PRBLIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (i10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list o° any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES x Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $150.Op Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III anJ all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/ Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) 150.00* *(Plug any legal or engineering charges) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineet, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature ��v_ Date 7[22/88 4 Owner's Signature � --- Date 7122i88 Applicant must have all ubmittals into the City offi7es 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend i scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized Agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r f IAN - 8 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED December 29, 1987 Mr. Randy Kinny Q. Petroleum 8148 Pillsbury Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420 Re: Petroleum Storage 'ank R(,lPase Investigation a,,d Action Site: Little Oak Food Market, Orono, Minnesota Site ID 0: LEAK00000147 Dear Mr, Kinny: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MDCA) has reason to believe- that a release of petroleum has occurred from storage tank facilities for which you are responsible. The first report of the release was mAIP tC MDCA staff on April 1, 1987. The tank facilities are located at: 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Orono, Minnesota federal and State laws require that persona responsible for stor:3�e tank releases notify the MDCA o` the release, it 'stigate the extent cf the threat to public health, welfare or the environment caused by the release and take actions needed to ensure tnat the release is cleaned up and the public health, welfa-P or the environment 7rotected. We are aware that an initial investigation has occurred, however, the results have not been submitted to us. The MPCA needs a commitment from vou, in the form of a Letter of Intent to Proceed with the necessary corrective action, to rP:olve the problem at your fac:lity. In adilition, the Petroleum Tank. Release owning or oo,rating a tank at any time MPCA Commissioner any information that that is relevant to the release. C,.leanuu Act requires that d person during or after a rp'1(jse furnish to the person rjay have cr may reasonably ottain SM Lafayette PAINO 51 Paw. wnrMS044 "sitfi'j i1� cjil„•,�= colices 9 INAUlhie., mill LEI t1Ma�d+A+�'Ar� h0*01" Mr. Randy Kinny Page Two You are asked to sign the enclosed Letter of Intent to Procr-ed and return it to me by January 18, 1988. If you do sign the letter and remain in compliance with its terms: - your willingness to proceed will be documented. - tho MPCA will not issue a formal order to you to undertake the required investigation. - the MPCA will not take the required investigation itself, and will not seek to recover its investigative costs from you by legal action. - the MPCA will review your plans and reports and will comment on your recormended investigations. We may suggest or require changes to ensure adequate investigation and corrective action. If you do not sign the et!(-lused Letter of intent to Proceed: - the Commissioner of the MPCA may formally order you to take the required actions. Failure to comely with a formal order is a violation of Federal and State law. the MPCA may take the required actions itself and recover the costs from you through legal action commenced by the Attorney General. the MPCA may request the Attorney General to commence a legal action to compel you to take the required actions. As you review the Letter of Intent to Proceed with your attorney and consultant you may w'.;h to propose minor modifications to the MPCA. A.,y such modifications shall not oe effective until accepted by the MPCA Project Leader. Nothing prohibits you from. takiig investigative or corrective actions more quickly than is required by the Letter of Intent to Proceed as long as you are in compliance wito the notification requiremNnts of paragraph VIII of the Letter. In addition, nothing prohihit< you from exceeding the requirerwnts for investigations and corrective actions described by the enclosed. The MPCA may require additional investigation, corrections or information regarding the site, if the information generated by the Remedial Investigation or new information from another source indicates that additional work is needed, If, during the course of your investigation, you determine that the release in question is not from your tank(s) and that your tanks are not 1PAking, the W-r A maY authorize you to stop the investigation. i am the assigned project leader for this site. P1PasP feel fr�P# to COntart me at 612/296-7322 if you need to discuss !his r_jcP. P Pa5e Address all Mr. Randy Kinny Page Three correspondence as follows: Kenneth C . LeVu i r Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division 520 Lafayette Road �lort.h St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 A similar letter regarding this situation has been sent to: Mr. William 'near If there are other, parties who may be responsible for the releas', please provide their names and current addresses and relevant information to mt,.. Thank you. Sincerely, / J Kenneth C. LeVoir Project Leader Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division KCL/pfp Enclosures: Letter of Intent to Proceed Contents of Investigation Peport Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Act cc: Mary Wurzer, City of Long Lake Arlo Van DeveSte, City of Long '_ake Alark Berhardson, City of Orono lam Jacobs, City of Orono Letter of Intent to Proceed with Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Site Name Little yak Food 'tarket Ddte December 29, 1987 Address 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Site I.D. # LEAKOOOOO147 City Orono, Minnesota I. Intent to Proceed The Undersigned, by signing this Letter of Intent to Proceed, agree to conduLt remedial investigations which will provide the information outlined in the attached "Contents of Petroleum Tank Release Investigation Rpoort" (PTR). P,y 'igning this IettPr of Intent to Proceed the Undersigned neither admit nor deny that they are responsible for the release of aptroleum, from a tank. II. Facility Information The Undersigned agre- to submit the informatik -equired by Part I of the PTR by .January 18, 1988 unless the MPCA Project Leader agrees that the information 's unnecessary. 11I. Remedial Investigation Plan By January 25, 1988 the Undersigred agree to submit a work plan which details the activities proposed in the Remedial Investigation (RI) as required by Part It of the PT:1. 4 -2- IV. Free Product Investigation The Undersigned agree to determine whether free cetroleum products exist floating on the surface of ground water beneath the site by the procedures described in Part II of the PTP. V. Free Product Removal Report The Undersigned agree to notify the Mn�A Project i_eador within 24 hours ind submit a Free Product Removal Report to the MPCA Project Leader within 30 days of the discovery of any tree petroleum product floating on the surface of the ground water beneath the site. This report will contain at least the following: 1. The name of the person(s) responsible for implementing the plan; 2. The estimated quantity and type of product on site and the product thickness in wells, boreholes, and excavations; 3 Details of the �,roduct recovery system; 4. Whether any discharge will take place on or off site during the recovery operation; 5. The type of treatment and expected effluent quality from any discharge; and 6. The disposition of the recovered product. Yi. free Product Removal The Undersigned agree t„ �, ntnva'ree floatinu petroleum product from the surface of the oround wAtpr to the maximum extent practicable while -3- continuing the RI. In meeting the requirements of this, paragraph the Undersigned agree to conduct free product removal in such a manner that such actions do not spread contamination into previously uncontaminated areas through untreated discharge or improper disposal techniques and to handle any flamm6ble or ignitable products in a legal, safe, and competent manner- to prevent fires or explosions. VII. Remedial Invpstigation Report fly April 1, 1988 the udersioned agree to submit a RI report containing tke RI informatic,n and corrective action plan as described in Parts II and III of the PIR. VIII. Notification of Key Events The Undersigned agree to notify Kenneth L.(,Voir, the PICA P,oject Leader, via telephone of key events relating to the RI. Notice shoulO bP given as soon as possible after an event is scheduled or rescheduled. Key events may include, but are not limited to: - T3nk and line integrity testinrl - Soil borings and/or sampling - Monitoring well installation - Monitoring well sampling Product recovery - Tank repair, removal, or lining - Soil ea avation -4- The undersigned agree to notify the MPCA Project Leader and the local fire marshal at least three (3) full working days prior to tank repair, removal or lining. IX. New Release Notifications The Undersigned agree to notify the MPCA staff within one working da) of discovery of: new releases; previously unknown releases; or previously unknown environmental or health and safety threats arising from releases at the site. The notifications shall be made via telephone call to the MPCA Project Leader at 612/296-7322 and followed within fiwo '"1 working days by written notification to the Project Leader: Kenneth C. LeVoir Minns -^'A Pollution Control Agency .s and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division 520 Lafayette Road `forth St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 X. *#porting In addition to the sutwittals described above the undersigned agree to suit progress reports to the "?CA staff at iitervals agreed upon by r` staff and undersigned. -5- !'hese progress reports will describe the invfstigative and corrective actions taken in the preceding reporting period and describp actions planned for the next reporting period. Thp progress reports may by in a letter, report, or other written format and shall include data generated during the reporting period. XI. Corrective Actions , If necessary, the undersigned will br- required to implement the Corrpct4ve Action Plan described in Part 'II of tho PTIQ or he subject to thr, statutory penalties for non-complianci, X I I Cessation of Remedial Investigation If during the RI, it becomes Pvident that the releasr, in question did not -riginate ` r Lhp responsible pirty's sitp, the evidence should be submitted to the MPCA Project l.Pader who may authorize a cessation of the RI and suspension of agreement. The MPCA may use the information to continue the investigati^r or to identify the actual responsible party. XIII. Signatures 1) Signature Naw Typed/Printed Date rllat:onshiV to the Site, leg owner. operator. DW Ow"4%?, etC. ?) Signature relationship to the site 3) Signatu re relationship to the site Ac.cpwted by MPCA Project Leader �ignature -6- Name Typed/Printed Name Typed/Printed ALP Accepted Ud i.r Oa to P.-111 r. TRANSPO TAnO ENGIMERM ARCHITECTUnE $NOETT 9"3FXW VK)LWEID ;Airs nGt1 NE.q •d. ••M:fv �• -IAW P"W 612'370-OMO July 21, 1988 Jeanne Mabutsh Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne, Attached is our sketch plan submittal for rezoning and subdividing the 41-acre site owned by Rebers Homes at Brown Road and Highway 12. Based on conversations with City Administrator Mark Burnhardson and Consulting Planner John Shardlow, it is our understanding that subseque„t follow-up zoning submissions may by pro- cessed under your forthcoming Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Th proposed prelim nary develoment consists of two separate residential neigh- borhoods labeled <. and B or, th? plan. Neighborhood A is proposed to be a 32.4-acre luxury ..ingle-family subdivision consisting of 25 3/4- to 1-1/4-acre lots served by pua'ic sewer dod r!dter. This neighborhood also includes approximately 8.4 acres of privately rontrolled open space with a crushed gravel walking trail. The pl?n for this neighborhood calls for an aggressive Woodland Preservation zone in which building and site grading would not to allowed. We are requesting that the current RR 1-8 zoning be changed to RI -A to allow for the development of this neighborhood. Area 8 is proposed to be a 7.1-acre neighborhood consisting of 44 apartment homes. These homes are situated in a two-story building served by underground parking. As depicted in the enclosed sketch, the building would be constructed of both wood and masonry and is covered by a 1�-,w-pitched hip roof to enhance its resi- dential character. The site has been laid out to utilize the natural screening provided by the existing vegetation and steep slopes along Highway 12 and Brown Road. The neighborhood is also served by a separate building to store boats and other recreational equipment. This t,u;l;+inq would be constructed of the same materials as the apartment horses. We are requesting the current RRI-B and B-1 zoning he changed to PRD to accommodate thIs Neighborhood. LOAN 1 io `*d TT '-MALc W 404w( Si. #AC►rtlp• WA We ". R1in ` A%QN? - .M.-* Ct , .GAW-►o r"Oh 16 i .. ^gwjL;_ `-''WG • "009W * SchoAlf i NLW MINK O W 00+J. A >4k & mt+_Awv W. m , r 0 AtdMb 06MMA 7►: E N N C*M*A*4 7Efton i whow pwa� Jeanne Mabutsh July 21, 1988 Page 2 We look forward to meeting with you and the members of the Orono Planning Commission on August 15. If you have any questions or if I may be of further assistance, please call me. Sincerely, WBENNETT-RINGR-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. BK/sml Attachment cc: Mr. Sidney Rebers A. PRESENTER E)eter Jarvis, BRW, Inc. ITEM Sketch Plan Review, Proposed Re^oning, 32.6 acre parcel, Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of T.H. 12 and Brown Road, From RR-lB to R-lA (PRD); Preliminary Plat for 25 Single Family Lots & Related Outlots. BACKGROUND This item is a Sketch Plan review, and therefore, no formal action is required of the Planning Commission. Since this application will, in all liklihood, be the first that the City will act upon following the lifting of the development moratorium that has covered this area, as well as the first to he judged as to its consistency with the new zoning standards for this area, staff felt that 3n informal review would be beneficial. The land contained in this application is owned by Sid Rebers and is proposed for development by Rebers Homes. The 32.6 acres contained in this prelimina r Mat includes all but a narrow rip of the portion of Mr Reber's land holdings that is currently zoned rLsidential. you will note in reviewing the Preliminary Development Plan, le remaining land (southern tier) is currently zoned B-1 Corm vial. As noted at e,this p, -i:y is located within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area. ....,ice that study was adopted by the City Council as a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission should refer to that document for a review of pertinent comprehensive planning issues. Although there are several goals and cbjectives and general issues that are addressed throughout the report, this property and its immediate area are specifically referred to on pages 4') through 52. Three alternatives are presented for the development of this site and the recommended alternative is presented on page 52. Throughout the hearing process, every altern,,tive plan prepared by the land owner's representatives, as well as the City's consulta-^ts assumed the retention of the business/commercial zoning along Highway 12. There has been some recent discussion with the applicants about the development of that portion of the property for multiple residential use. You will notice that portion is not included in the application that is before you. The recommended alternative states that the property north of the commercial area should be developed for single family lo,.., served by public water and sewer. This section also states that the allowed density should not exceed that which is presented on Alternate 3, on page 51. Since Alternate 3 shows 25 lots and the proposed preliminary plat contains 25 lots, it is consistent with the intent of the Plan in this area. As you will note in reviewinq this portion ri the Study, the remainder of the discussion centers on tte need to improve the road system in this area. The satisfaction of the remaining Comprehensive Plan directives will occur at the ti:ae that formal plans are prepared for the southern portion of this land. It is in this area that the final alignment of the frontage road will be determined, the specific improvements to the Brown Road, T.H. 12 intersection, and the specific location and design of the storm water pond will all be decided. At this point in the review process, the applicant has indicated a willingness to negotiate reasonable commitments to comply with these planning requirements. The details of these future improvements, and in particular the timing and financiii implications of those off -site improvements, as they relate to this application, will be reviewed in greater detail later in the process. Since this application covers a parcel that is within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, it will be subject to revie.: under the new zoning standards tc be adopted to implement the plan in this area. When they are finalized, the proposed Special Minimum Requirements For Rezoning In The Highway i< Corridor Study Area, along with the standards and requirements of the underlying zoning district would govern the development of this area. The following paragraphs summarize those requirements and the manner in which they may be satisfied as this proposal advances. Special Requirements, Highway 12 Corridor: A. Minimum Area As currently drafted, the special requirements for rezoning in the corridor area call for a minimum of five acres. There has been some discussion about the increase of this minimum to ten acres. However, since the subject application includes 32.6 acres, it is well in excess of the minimum area requirements. B. Access and Circulation Plan As noted above, key access and circulation issues will be resolved when the specific alignment of the proposed frontage road is determined. The section on the recorimended alternative for this area states that the residential area would be served by a cul-Os-sac or circular road off Brown Road with no connection to the west, if the frontage road is installed. Consequently, the proposed design would meet this standard, provided that appropriate commitments can be negotiated for the location and construction of the proposed frontage road. Some comments regarding the design of the proposed residential street are included in a later section of this report. C. Sanitary Sewer Availability The City's engineering consultant has reviewed this application and states in his report that the site can be served with sanitary sewer through Long Lake (joint pcwers agreement) or by constructing a new interceptor line as described in the Trunk Highway 12 Corridor Sanitary Sewer Study prepared by his office. D. Stormwater Management The City Engineer indi,.ates that a storm drainage plan will need to be developed to serve the area. The proposed ponding area will be located near the intersection of Brown Road and Trunk Highway 12. The applicants are aware of the need for the stormwater pond and the City's concern about the quality of runoff to area lakes, and have agreed to predare detailed plans to meet these standards. E. Available Zoning Districts This proposal is for a rezoning to R-1.A, One Family Residential District through the PRD, Planne.3 Residential Development process. Both of these zoning districtL; are listed among the available zoning districts for rezoning within the Highway 12 Corridor Area. F. Building Design and Construction These standards are intended to control the development of multifamily residential, commercial and industrial uses, and are not intended tj apply to single family residential development. G. Requirement of Development Agreement It is anticipated that a development agreement will be drafted and executed prior to the completion of the approval process. QEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Site Area: Sq. Ft. 32.6 Acres Single Family Lots: 25 Homes per acre: .76 Private (shared) open space: 8.4 acres Average Lot Size: 35,000 sq. ft. (0.8 ac.) Area in Private Roadway: 2.2 ac. DUX-LOPMENT ANALYSIS Although it appears that with the continue' refinement of the proposed plans and the completion of cont ued analysis, negotiations, and agreements, that the required findings for colsistency with the Special Min4.mum Requirements For Rezoning in t'".a Highway 12 Corridor Study Area can be met. There are, however, some design details that should be discussed and resolved through the review and approval process. Th-a first issue relates to the location of the access onto Brown Road. The City Engineer recommends that this access should either be moved north to the top of the hill, or south, approximately 50 ft. This second issue is a length of the proposed cul-de-sac. The proposed length is 2100 feet. While the City does not have a standard for private streets, it does limit the extent of public cul-de-sacs to 1000 ft. All of the alternatives priapared by the City's consultant showed the roadway in this subdivision connecting to Pine Ridge Lane. The adopted Plan does not require this connection and specifically states that either a cul-de-sac, or a looped street would be acceptable. We recognize that the adjacent neighbors do not want the connection and Mr. Rebers doesn't wan:. the connection, but there are some good public safety reasons for the limitation of the length or such streets. Frankly, it is debatai)le whether the fact that the proposed street is to be privately owned is enough to waive this standard, we would need to review this issue in more detail before commenting on that. What concerns us about the case in point is that, if it i:; processed as a straight rezoning and the street remains a 2100 ft. cul-de-sac, a variance may be required. The granting of a variance requires the finding of a hardship_ and we do not beli.eve that such a finding could be made.. If the proposed plan was processed as a PUD, the opportunity to save additional trees, or similar 'benefits could be cited Ln justify the departure from th strict interp etation of the rules. When the actions that cities take are boiled down to their essence, they should be reasonable. if the only justification for this cul-de-sac length is to achieve exclusivity in this neighborhood, one has to ask when the same argument could not be used. The danger lies when the City wants to require some needed future connection and the applicants in those cases can point to examples in the past when the City has not followed its own rules with insuffivienik". justification. Barrinq compelling reasons to t:i*; contr t:y, we recommend the loopin( this street. The proposed plans include provision for ignificant trails and "woodland preserve". V ese plans should be reviewed by the Parks Commission to insLre that the necessary community wide connections can be accomplished. As you know, the cite is heavily wooded. The developer proposes to grade n the private street and install utilities, but to leave the its alone until a specific house plan is approved. Such lot plans will be reviewed by an architectural review committee and particular scrutiny will be paid to maxim--ing the preservation of existing trees. In our experience, this approach to the development of heavily wooderi sites yields the best results. That concludes a basic overview of the proposed plan. A copy of the City Engineer's memo ha, been attached for yr)ur review because it includes some additional information that you may find helpful. we will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any additional questions, or assist you in your deliberations regarding this matter. we will also send a copy of this report to the applicants in hope that they can respond to some of these questions and concerns in their presentation. MEMORANDUM DATE: 28 July 1988 TO Planning Commission and Staff, City of Orono FROM: John Shardlow, Dahlvien, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. RE: Transmittal of Revi: ed Drafts- Special Minimum Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor S!udy Area, the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and the B-6 Highway Commercial Distrir )rdinance Revised copies of the above noted ordinances are attached for your review. I have summarized below the changes that have been made in each of these drafts following our discussion. This memo concludes with some general comments and concerns for your consideration. Special Minimum Requirements for Rezoning in the ii'h%Na 12 Corridor Stu& Area This stction remains essentially as presented and discussed at the previous meeting. However, 1 have added some additional language under "D. Stormwater Management" to address the concerr for protecting the quality of runoff from development sites. as well as quantity of storniw ;�:rr storage capacity. Y,.►Qyllopment Ordinance Revisions and/or changes in Section 10-E have been slightly modified. 'There was concern about the need for a definition of the term "minor changes" expressed at the meeting. I offer the following draft language for your review and consideration: Minor Changes - Requests for administrative approval of changes to approved development plans shall be allowed only if the Zoning Administrator finds that said changes are limited to slight adjustments that are deemed necessary due to detailed engineering or surveying analysis, not available at the time of plan approval. Under no circumstances shall such changes be approved if they would result in any material effect on adjacent properties or the City of Orono. '1'ransmittal ul Revised Drafts Page A Subdivision A has been adder{ to Section 10.1= - Phasing and Guarantee of Performance. This section specifically identifies the requirement of a performance bond or letter of credit to guarantee the performance of the developer. At our previous meeting, Ed Cohen had also expressed some concern about the need to requir-, financial disclosure by applicants for a major development projects. I have discussed this issue with the City Attorney and he agrees that it is within the City's right to request some general information about the financing plan for a proposed development. However, he is concerned about the prospect of basing a zoning decision on an interpretation of an applicant's financial capability, or laA thereof. Ed's concern is, none the less, a legitimate one. I suggest that the City take three steps to protect against the concern that Ed's comments point out. The first change would be to require application review fees that are realistically aligned with the costs that the City actually incurs in reviewing development proposals. Secondly, I would suggest that you add to the application form a provision indicating that the City intends to bill the applicant for any costs that it incurs in the review of their proposal. In the case of large development proposals, you may in fact require a deposit to cover anticipated consultant's fees, traffic engineers, etc. Finally, the fact that all of these d,:velopments will be subject to a development agreement provides the opportunity to carefully draft detailed requirements and performance guarantees and to negotiate these agreements with the applicant. In each case, we would recommend that the City Attorney draft the document and that they be constructed to liberally protect the City's interest. B-5 District As you will note in reviewing the revised crafts, both the list of permitted and conditions uses have; been greatly reduced. A new section has been added the relationship between the Planned Unit Development chapter and this district, and specifically providing that any request for development of a Planned Unit Development to include commercial uses within this area shall assume the B-6 Commercial District as its underlying zoning district. Please review the revised list to see if any of then: uses still concern you. Our discussion at the pr-vious meeting focused at some length on the fact that several members of the Planning Commission's vision for the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area was different than at lea4t a liberal interpretation of some of the alternatives that are included in the adopted plan. Since the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to effectuate the plan, I expressed some concerns about the development and adoption of zoning ordinances that were inconsistent with the adopted plan. After some considerable discussion, we agreed that tc- satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns, we would greatly limit the' st of permitted uses within the district and provide the opportunity for the approval of additional commercial uses only through the Planned Unit Development process. I have discu4ed this approach with the City Tran;i•tittal of ReNised Drafts I'age i Attorney and while he shares many of my general concerns about intentionally crcAtin_2. a situation where the Zoning Ordinance differs from the adopted plan, he heiiev,,•, th, o this approach could he deferded. I do feel that is is my responsibility to carefully explain my concerns abou. 'hi, arrangement. First of all. those of you who have worked with me in the past know that I have some philosophical reservations about communities that insist upon perpetuating inconsistencies between their zoning ordinance and :ornprehensive plan. If an applicant were to come to the City of Orono after these ordinances were adopted and apply for a Planned Unit Development to include a commercial center twit met of exceeded all of the standards set forth in these ordinances, it should he approved. In other words, you should not feel that you will have the discretion to deny rezoning applications because they are "too dense" or "too urban", prcvided that they are reasonably consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan alternatives. To deny such an applicant you would need to cite specific findings of inconsistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. If the City really feels that a commercial center should not be developed in this area, even if the developer follows the procedure correctly and the plans meet or exceed all of the new standards, then the Comprehensive Plan really sliould he amended. SEC. 10 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT FOR REZONING IN THE HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA. A. Minimum Area To insure consistency with the goals and objectives cf the Highway 12 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum of five acres. The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. B. Access and Circulation Plan The plans submitted along with the application must propose access to tr- orcposed development which is consistent with the Ansportation Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corri-ir Study. C. Sanitary Sewer Availability The available sanitary sewer capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very limited. Therefore, any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilizing current sewer allocations or they must include improvements to increase the capacity of the systems serving this area. If sanitary sewer system improvements are proposed as part of the application, then the feasibility of providing this service will also be scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to insure that the costs associated with providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development. D. Storm Water, Management Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure consistency with the storm water management objectives -:-)f the Highway 11 Corridor Study. Plans will be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed storm water pondi.ng areas contain sufficient storage capacity and wiatever additional measures are necessary to guarantee that the quality of runoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards. E. Available Zoning Districts Due to the unique set of constraints and opportunities that effect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development approach, outlined in Sec. 10. of the Orono Zoning Ordinance. However, applications will be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning districts within tae City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with ali of the additional requirements established in this section: HC Highway Commercial District PRD Planned Residentiai Development R1A One Family Residential District R1B One Family Residential District M6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District F. Building Design and Construction In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the follow i standards: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or (b) Natural stone, or (c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative materials or texture, or (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the pant-1 materials be of any of those nc.ted in items a, b and c above, or gla3s. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the "ouncii. Comtinations of such materials ,hail be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuilding 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 criaracter, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. G. Requirement of Development Agreement All development permits authorized within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area small be subject to the execution of a development agreement. Said development agreement shall clearly identify the timing of all of the public imprcvements associated with the development and the developers' financial commitments related to these ii::provements. The agreement shall also include any and all other conditions of approval deemed necessary to insure compliance with the Special Minimum Requirements for Rezoning the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, as well as the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. SEC. 10. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOrri6NT (PUD) SECTION: 10. .A: Authorization .0..B: Allowed Uses 10..C: Required Standards 10. .D: Coordination With Subdivision Regulations 10. �.E: Revisions and/or Changes 10.�.F: Phasing and Guarantee of Performance 10._.G: Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion 10. .H: Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development SECTION 10._ .A AUTHORIZATION: Planned unit development authorization may allow: Subd. 1. Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types nd densities. Subd. 2. nsitivity: Through the departure from the strict a. _-ation of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards �-sociated with traditional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while remaininc, sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. Subd. 3. Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. Subd. 4. Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. Subd. 5. District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning districts s"ch as: A. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied within the project. B. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulaticn provides increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized. C. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. SECTION 10. B ALLOWED USES Subd. 1. Used within the PUD may include only those uses generally considered associated with the general land use category shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the development plan will be considereu an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Section 10 . F of this 'title. SECTION 10. .0 REQUIRED STANDARDS Subd. 1. The City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodlands and wetlands, the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other fe—ures with respect tc the topography of the area and existl.ig natural features such as streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. SECTION 10. D COORDINATION WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Subd. 1. subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the 'D. The plans required under this Chapter shall be submi�_ed in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. SFCTIGN 10. .E REVISIONS AND/OR CHANGES Subd. 1. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with t1he Zoning Administrator. Subd. 2. Changes in uses, significant changes in the location, size, or height of structures, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hoaring conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. Subd. 3. All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district within which the Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD Distr..ct except as otherwise provided in approval cf the final. plan. Subd. 4. Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable time after approval of the PUD Zoning District, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the City Council to find trit the rezoning was in error. SECTION 10. .F PHASING AND GUARANTEE. Of PERFORMANCE Subd. 1. The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule. Subd. 2. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule. Subd. 3. The construction and provision of all of tha common open space and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development plan must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Review Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to the Council for action. Subd. 4. k performance bond or letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the developer. The amount of this bond or letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement. SECTION 10. G CONTROL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING COMPLETION Subd. 1. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. Subd. 2. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development pJ:,.n except upon application as provided below: Any minor exr:ensions, alterations )r modifications o existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are cc-is;t-tent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of any building or structure by more than ten percent (10%). B. Any L)uilding or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless and amendment to the final development plan is approved under Section 10._.F. C. Changes in the use of the common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the final development plan under Section 10.r F. D. Any other changes in the final develcr.ment plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10. —.F. SECTION 10. H PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Subd. 1. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for FUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the pre;: ar:-atioo of plans, surveys and other data. Subd. 2. General Concept Plan A r:rpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant *o submit a plan to the City showing his basic in`--nt and the general ature of the entire developm,.r.t without incurring substantial cost. The plan sh.:1!.1 include the following: 1. Overall maximum PUD dens;+.y range. 2. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. 3. General location and extent of public and common open sp=ace . 4. General location of residential and nonresidential land uses -.pith approximate type and intensities of development. 5. Staging and time schedule of development. 6. Other special criteria for de.•elooment. B. Sched--le: ]. Developer meets with the 2,oning Administratoz to discuss the proposed developments. 2. rho applicant shall file the concept stage application and preliminary plat, together ;t'h all supporting data. 3. Within t;drty (30) days atter verification by the 2rninu Atwinistrator that the required plan and s-:pport•ing data is adequate, the Planning Cz)u-ruds-,�ion shall holf.-1 a public hearing. 4. The Planrdng Conan>ssion shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recot.:aendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal p-oper'.-,{ deacription, description of request, r_nd be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (3500) of the boundary of the property in question. 5. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. 6. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plen and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four -fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. C. Development Stage: Foll.owi.ny general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and the acted upon in accordance with Section 10. ,.F for zoning district changes. If appropriate because )f the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. D. Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be submitted to the City: General Concept Stage: 1. Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title. 2. General Information: (a) The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject prope ry. (b) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (c) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer ana surveyor. (d) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate t-he proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may reruire to show the status of title or control of the subject property. 3. Present Status: (a) The address and legal description of the property. (b) The existing zoning classification and present 'lsr-- of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,o00') of the Property. (c) A map depicting the existing development of the property and a'_1 land within one thousand feet (1,000') thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with inrert elevations on and within one hun,Ired feet (100') of the property. (d) A written statement general describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (e) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" s 200'). (1) Contours; minimum two foot (211) intervals. (2) Location, type and extent of tree cover. (3) Slope analysis. (4) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (3001) of the property. (5) Significant rock outcroppings. (6) Existing drainage patterns. (7) Vistas and significant views. (8) Soil conditions as they affect development. All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use cf overlays is recommended for clear reference. (f) Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. (g) A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the FUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of lan.i use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: (1) Area devoted to residential uses. (2) Area devoted to residential use by building type. (3) Area devoted to common open space. (4) Area devoted to public open space. () Approximate area devoted to streets. (6) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. (7) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (8) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use. (h) when the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construct -on season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such staz-e and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. (i) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. (j) Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. (k) Schematic utilitieF Tans indicating placemen,. of water unitary and storm sewers. (1) The City may excuse an applicant from sub,nitting any specific item of information or document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal. (m) The '._ity may require the submission of any adiitional information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. 4. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The devel.cpment stage submissions shall include Lat not be limited t c-): (a) A final plat and information required by the City subdivision Title. (b) Teri (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1"=1001) (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information): (1) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the :ounty where the subject property is situated). (2) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significart topographical or physical features of the property. (3) The location, size use and arrangement includir-heiaht in stories and feet an.' atal square feet of ground a -ea coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, >>cluding mobile homes, and existing buildings which will remain, if any. (4) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (5) Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (6) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. (7) Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. (8) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent p.•operties. (9) Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping. (10) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (11) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. (d) <► tabulatic indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected population. (e) A tabulation indicating the dross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.q. drug stogie, dry cleaning, supermarket). (f) Preliminary architectural ':ypical" plans indicating use, floor, plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobilA homes. (g) h detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structure, inr.luding mobile homes, and uses. (h) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topog"-t', ind natural site vegetation. The Plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conf•rmance with the approved concept plan. A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. (jN A soil erosion crol plan acceptahle to watershed dia\:ri.cts, Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent mea-,ores. SEC. 10.45 B-6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the HC Highway Commercial District is to provide a commercial district specifically tailored to accomp> the commercial development objectives of the Hi Ay 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Application. All applicants for a building permit in any "B-6" Highway Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the T ning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-6" H,_ghway Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Cou •il. A. Offices (business and protessional). B. Banks and financial institutio;is. C. Libraries. D. Motels, and hotels. E. Restaurants (Class I). Subd. 4. Relationship with Chapter 10. Planned Unit Development. Other types of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned uric development process. Applications that include crmmarcial uses within the Hic;hway 12 Corridor shall assume the B-6 District as the underlying zoning district. Subd. 4. Conditional Use A. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the fcllowing uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Any business that includes a drive-L`iru function. Subd. S. Accessory Uses. hin piny 11B-6" Highway Business District, the fol. .ling ..ses sha l L be permuted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulates in the "B--1" Business District. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Widtr, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. Th,. following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements and exceptions contained in Section —of this Title. A. Lot Area one ac•i e B. Lot Width 100 ft. C. Setback - Principal Structure Front Yard 30 (35)* ft. Side Interior 10 (35) ft. Side Street 30 (35) ft. Rear Yard 30 (35) ft. D. Setback - Accessory Structure Front Yard 30 (35)* ft. Side Interior. 10 (35) ft. Side Street 30 (35) ft. Rear Yard 30 (35) ft. E. Setback - Parking Front 15 (20) ft. Side Interior 5 (10) ft. Street Side 10 (15) ft. Rear Yard 10 (10) ft. Setbacks in parentheses apply adjacent to all residential districts. *30 feet or 1 1/2 times the building height whichever is greater. F. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage pans 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 Coi.acil for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly cranneled into a natural water course, pondirg area, storm G. 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. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. H. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. The following minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting: overstory Deciduous Trees -rnamental Trees Coniferous Tree Major Shrub Plantings 2-1/2 inches in diameter 1-1/2 inches in diameter 6 feet tall 5 gallons I. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within, the principal structure, or totally screened from eye -.level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accessory structures are proposed, they shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily served through swinging doors. J. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. K. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible wi h the architectural treatment of the principal st:.4�-ture. L. External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. M. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows. Bones t roo �-� Rosene Anderiik & Associates Ers�rx hrs b Architects August 8, 1988 Dahlgren, Shardlov, Ub.,n, etc. 300 1st Avenue North Suite 210 Minneapolis, Mn 55401 Attnt Mr. John Shardlov Otto G &Ww+troo. PE Kenn A Gordon. Pf Thous/! W Flterson, /E Charfn A I"Ck OFt Robert W Rome. PE RKhard W FMter PE MKhM C Lynch. /t. Leo M ►tweffky ro%jo C AndeM, ►E Do: alb C Buryardt. PE R MBLWW, ►E KNIW M OHM Bradford A Le?4*f% PE xrry A Bourdon PE ...T PE Sumn M Effecter RKhard f Amer. PE Mark A Nanfbn. PE ^ A SM jams C Otto. PE &d K Fed, PE Gtenn R Cook, ►E W hae T X&A ann. ►E Thm"af f Woyn. PE Robert it ►fette w. ►E [ Anqus, ►E Robert G knun tnt PE Oov d O Loskcxa. PE A jo. /E Marvm L Sonata Pf u Riot File No. 139-1322 Meyer's Woods Dear John, We have reviewed the preliminary plan submittal fot the Rebers property on Brorn Road and T.H. 12. There are several engineering items that should be discussed before apprcval of the plan. 1. Brown Road Access - The access point for the residential subdivision should be moved north to the top of the hill or south approximately 50 feet. 2e Cul-de-sac - The cul-de-sac length is 2100 feet. The city does not have a maximum length for private roads but does have a maximum length of 1000 feet for public roads. It would be desirable if the street were construc- ted as a loop rather than a cul-de-sac. 3. Frontage Road - The plan should provide for an east -vest frontage road from T.H. 12 to Willow Drive. This right of way could be provided adjaent to T.H. 12 or between the commercial industrial property. 4. Traffic. Volumes - The projected traffic voluesm Lrom the residential prop- erty would be 200 to 250 vehicles per day. We would expect about a 50-50 spl —me -he intersection problem at T.H. 12. 5. St� •. The developer should provide a storm drainage plan for the area. you.:_., .ill be required near the intersection of Brown Road and T.B. 12. 6. Sanitary Sever - The site can be served with sanitary sewer through Long Lake (Joint Powerra Agreement) or by constructing a new interceptor line (see T.B. 12 corridor sanitsr- sewer study). Page 1. 24 233S West Highway 16 0 it ^ if, Mirw %ota SS113 0 612,.636.4600 06 Shardlow Uban, Etc. Rat File No. 139 August 8, 1988 7. Water Main - The site can be served with private wells, public mains through Long Lake (Joint Powers Agreement) or by Orono independent system. 8. Streets - The street alignment does not meet the 30 MPH design speed. The speed limit would have to be reduced to 20 MPa if the proposed alignment is approved. The typical section should be provided on the plan. If you have any questiuns, please contact this office. Yours very truly, 80NESTR00, ROSENE, A.NDERL.IK i ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRCt1i cct Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono 24 Page 2. ! P-"7 .171 4..P( X-11 - /Vf,.AU? ftoo.19- e/ire t& 6�(� d,14" r� �PGP MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CojL_41SSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZONING PILE #1320 CONTINUED Bellows stated that she was concerned about the fact that applicant was actually building a 3-season porch, rather than a screened -in porch, as indicated in the application. Gaffron staced that there had ne�•er been any distinction made between a screened porch and a 3-season porch prior to this meeting. If the Planning Commission intended to continue to separately classify the porches, he wanted to know the criteria for each classification. Bellows stated that the 3-season porch changed the type of hardcover, especially in cases going from a deck to a porch. Gaffron stated that in the past they have treatad screen porches that had a roof exactly the same as 3-season porches with regard to hardcover. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of #1320, provided the hardcover percentage remain the same in the 75-250' zone. Due to prof essiona 1 association with applicant's agent, Johnson abstained from the vote. Motion, •s•9, nays-0, Motion passed. �1322 SII WH PLAN REVIEW SID ANSMS 715 BROWN ROAD NORTH REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SUBDIVISIONS ��''licant was Present for this matter. Mr. Peter Jarvis introduc,,d hiM861f as the spokesman presenting this matter on behalf of Mr. Rebers. Mr. Robert Kost and Mr. Steven Pf laum were also present, as was Mr. John Shardlow, who represented the City Staff. Mr. Jarvis explained that the Rebers proposal was strictly for review and preliminary feedback. He was hopeful that the matter could be sche sled for a Public Ieari.ng for rezoning and preliminary plat by September 19th. The proposal originated back in May, 1987 and the presentation would include the history of the plan so the Planning Commission could see how the plan developed to its current state. He wanted the Commission to focus only on the northerly portion of the parcel, which will be devoted to single family lots. Mr. Jarvis showed the location of the parcel. rhere is currently a large stand of mature maple trees on the property. on the easterly boundary, there are semi -mature pine trees that Mr. Rebers panted 16 years ago. The soil on the property is predominately clay and loamy soils. The site slopes 60' back to the northwest and about 50' to the northeast. and 60' to the southeast. The present zoning is RR-1B, with B-1, commercial soninq, all along the frontage. Steep slopes are a relative measure for the prnperty. They are going to lay a .roadway syste►;. that would require no grading, except the minimum amount beyond the edge of the street. There are access limitations along the easterly boundary due to the high point on Brown Road. There are locations that would be very inappropriate due to sight distance. 18 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 REBHRS SUBDWISION PROPOSAL CONTINUED Access could take place off of Brown Road or Pine Ridge Road, which is dedicated and paved right to the westerly property line. There is no public right-of-way on the north, but considerable access opportunity along Wayzata Boulevard where there is currently 3 curb cuts to the commercial area and one that services the farm house. Brown Road would be the major access opportunity to the site, back to Wayzata Boulevard and County Road 6. ` A single family, detached sub -division, clustered around one cul de sac, with a design character unlike anything else in Orono is what Mr Jarvis is currently sugg,!sting. They are proposing cul de sac A th large islands, allowing the vegetation to remain undisturbed. There would be a large buffer area around the perimeter of the project to guarantee inperpetuity that there will be no disturbance within a minimum of 50' of the4.r residence, which is over and above and anaddition to any setback standards that would be self-imposed or required in terms of. Orono's standard setbacks as part of the zoning. They have ^ussed and concluded that they wanted to put in a Class 2, cr wood chip, path that would link every single lot. It tie a jogging or walking trail. They would also like to put 1 id system that would range from 24'to 26' wide with trees es a to the back of the curb as possible to maintain the eP tent. ..It looking at design alternatives for the single family detached, they were very concerned about the frontage. It was recommended that they abandon any commercial or retail development, due to the degree of slope along Wayzata Boulevard and the character of the land adjacent to it. As an alternative, they would nestle a small multi -family structure in the woods. He showed the proposed 44-unit, two story structure. There would be an underground parking facility that could alsc accommodate guest parking and rental storage for boats to avoid any outside -~ornge. There would be d requirement for sanitary sewer and water avai' ility would be necessary regardless of whether the land was u-llized as commercial/retail or a multi -family structure. The Rite plan showed two outlines for proposals for Sanitary sewer. One showed the code setbacks for the requested rezoning, which at this time is 351 in front, 35' in back, 10' on tte two sides. They purposely wanted to be more limiting than that and stay with the larger 50' in the front, 50' in the back and 30' on either s.'is. They wanted to investigate the impact of doing a raditional non-sewer.ed, residential 2-acre lot development. He showed a typical 2-acre lot without sewer with the same setback standards. The bottom line is that on 25 lots with City !ewer the entir.c area of disturbance is approximately 175,000 s.f. However, 15 lots with septic systems and the same average house :size and driveway length, would create an additional $3,000 s.f. 19 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 RSBERS SJBDIVISION PROPOSAL CONTINUED of land disturbed. The reason why this proposal was not presented earlier was due to the fact that they were waiting for the Highway 12 Corridor Study to be completed. However, in light of the fact that Mr. Rebers hoped to be building by winter, they have brought forth the proposal dealing with only the northern portion of the parcel. Then when the zoning is completed along Highway 12, and there is a final resolution on both water and sanitary sewer, then they would request that the Planning Cvliimission recommend approval of the proposed concept, -rezoning and preliv'nary plat to the City Council conditioned upon a sanitary sewer system that would either be built and paid For by Si,i Rebers as part of an extension through Orono, or purchased in terms of a capacity -rade-off from Long Lake. The project is not conditioned upon water; they would prefer city water, but it is not a requirement. Cohen inquired as to the size of the lots. Mr. Jarvis replied that. each lot wou.'d be approximately 1 1/4 acres and would sell for $90,000.00 Co $150,000.00 each. The houses will retail frotr $300,000.00 to $800,000.0t_ . Kelley stated that he had been waiting for the calculations showing the difference between land usage of city sewer vs. mound systems. He pointed out that the land use for the mound system did not include a secondary mound system should the fit t one fail. Pine Ridge was his other concern. Bellows stated that she w-is expecting a different presentation in terms of the degree of restrictions placed upon each building pad. She felt that unless there were specific covenants, future owners could cut down the trees. She is in favor of the development as it is being proposed, but is afraid that it will not remain as proposed unless restrictions are placed on each lot. She is also concerned with the right-of-way problem for the road. She has consistently felt that Orono has too many dead-end roads. She stated that sae could not approve the props -led development unless there is a loop road. Mr. Steve Pflaum addressed the concerns that Planning Commission member Bellows has' with regard to establishing covenants for the protection of the existing trees. He stated that there would be development agreements. They would contract between the developer and the City of Orono. Those agreements would contain the requirements that would impose the protective covenants on the entire site. The covenants would require, at a minimum, maintenance of not only the perimeter trees tut everything beyond the building pad. More discussion is needed in this regard. Bel lows asked whether Mr. Rebers would be the only developer allowed to t>u ld i.o the a,ea. Mr. Pf laum stated that the :° O MINUTES OF THY PLANNING CCMMISSION MEETING HLLD AUGUST 15, 1988 REBERS SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL CONTINUED potential homeowner would need to get their house plans approved by an archirectura 1 centro 1 committee. This would as Sure that •11 houses, whether built by Mr. Rebers or another developer, met rtain standards required for building in that development. Kelley asked whether the homeowner's association would be the enforcing body of the covenants, and what the penalties would be for the homeowner who violated any of the covenants. Mr. Pflaum st.ted that the immediate homeowner was the most concerned party. They would nctify the adjacent homeowner or builder of any potential v )lation. The homeowner has tli right of injunctive relief, which would interfere with hi 'ding and financing. The second level of enforcement would be City of Orono, which would have separate, legal authority Lc enforce the provisions set forth there in the contract entered into with the developer. Mr. Kelley asked about a specific situation whe-e an adjacent neighbor would have no objections to a homeowner adding a tennis court outside the buildi - pad. Mr. Pflaum replied that the City should not issue a perm cor the tennis court because it would violate the provisions of the contract. Kelley asked about the individual who would cut down a tree within the protective easement location. Mr. Pflaum stated that. the individual would be in violation of the covenants and would be breaking the contract with the homeowner's association and the City. Generally the red flag would come from a neica,hor who would report toe it dent. The City could then der the violator '-o cease a.... desist. Cohen asked if it would be possible to mark the trees that are not to be removed. Pflaum answered affirmatively. Mr. Jarvis stated that in lieu of marking each tree, a snow fence or taping would be done to mark the protective area. Kelley stated that there were some bi13 i,sues involved w;th *his pro jec*_. He wanted ' o get the ela.,,-.inq commission's yeedba ck 00-1 L e col lowing key isc, Continuation of Pine lii1le Lane: +on thought thi ,Ian worked very nicely. Ring rya Woo'Ss ig :c-si.cally the same, axcept for the extension of Pine Ridge Lane. lie thought the plan would innt require through traffic. Bellow was not absolutely positive t it pin* RiJSe would need to be the connecting road. Kelley would he satisfied if they could find something that :uld work with the 3.3 &(.ues or the total 45 with,-)ut connection to Pine Ridge, he would not object t deadending Pine Ridge, and having the association to the west vacated and divided up amongst the property owners to tie west. Cohen d'sasreed wit! Kelley aad was e-r--cdrn#d about entering or exiting the locat' n should th, cniy •e be blockee due to an accident or ether reason. Brrn+n was it in favor of .,onnecting Pine Ridge, bur, liked the aspect of keeping the parcel separate. Moob felt that the connection was not Necessary, but wanted to have a loop. In summary, the Planning Cosy 1, ton felt that connection with Pine Ridge would 21 llZWMS Gc THE Pi JMNJ NG CONlIISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST L i , 198 f REBERS SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL CONTINUED not be ne:-essary. Sewer: Kelley stated that they would need to show hov many trees would be saved using cit- ter to justify hookup with t_i,. Orono/Long Lake intercept Gaffron stated that due to the excess4ve si-pes in the arc:, there would be problems ` mound systems were used. Johnson inquirgd as to what the states of the sewer is at this time. Mr. John Shardlow referenr a letter frow City Engineer, Glenn Cook, wherein it was stat at there were *.wo options for sewer hookup. ')ne would be i eking up through Long Lake (Joint Powe_.s Agreement) or by constructing a new interceptor line along Trunk Highway 12. More detailed information would L,- available once the feasibilty study comes back for a public Dearing. He said that at this time, it would be safe to assume that the Rebers subdivision could be nerved by sanitary sewer. Whatever action is taken, should be � ject to the types of cond-t4ons mentioned under the Specia.L Minimum Requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 Cori •.. Bellows and Ke1ltr-, f; It that sanitary sewer was the way to go. Be? lows stated that she had a concern invol ring the a•,^ess paint of of Brown Road. Bob Kost stated that af'_er they bri submitted t1he original plan he and several City staff p-t&..,ns inspe: .ne cite and determi ned thl at tt,� access should a relocated 50 f -,outh. Kelley st',,`j that another major -t -ern had been the east/west servi i road. The current --e.:ommendation for the 8ubdivis+on is to move the B-1 zone parallel to the top of the north zone of the L e Oa'. Deve'-�pment. This would almost prohibit an east/west _. .itag,� road along Highway 12. Mr Jarvis ,stated that they were iot chah41ng the zoni - n that arf, at al. 1. right now. Kelley ask,:d how many feet th �r.e from :.:ha )-, k or no ''^ side of Tittle "1-1k Store to tije_ u_oposed PU11. X- Jarvis indicated it w, % 3Q' to the _ UD a -id 125' *.a trir lot. Kell, sk4d if t a 50, -aid allow for a frontaq,,- rLad t bps insta. Ytwetn a lot ltrm and a building- Mabu th state r at 50' wot. meet zcad nutlot width requir ints. 11ey • sc'. feedback from the Pla.aninq Coaa«issicn as whethuer they it necessary to allow for the frontage go in beh: .uf Little Oek Store. Johrson aq,.-Ped the wculd be the: 'est lscation, rather than 'n front. '...-,^ s st,a,-ed that she ag.etd with that also. Kelley stated that )*,.ind Littl- Oak Store wou?, be the best. Cohen agreed, as did Brown. Mr. Shard l ow ; t*. ! *d than" comMunities on the =eiue of i,ow maxim! -so t-er nraservr;tion. qn appro,ech to He stxong :- airs of than roadway to a m i n �:acss inside the iirg enve frob 1eo w, 11 as be : dre3s*eed- vi ":see, orking with to ; ..n rol a si,iAiv - ion to 7nbex., A-,lr'iVJP,on is 'Seat pertea t•,- idea of Ke�ap-&nci the n!! ''hat th., iss o%