HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2001 Council Packet"NOTE EARLYSTART TIME"
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001, 6:30 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 items are available in the
Public Packet - loca,ed on the counter near the sign in sheet.
ROLL CALL - 6:30 P.M. co"'
1. Planning Commission Interviews FEB 1 2 2WO
CONSENT AGENDA o11 Y w U""o
2. Approve/Amend
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• 3. Regular Council Meeting of January 22, 2001
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sherokee Ilse
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit S Minutes Per Person)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
4. #2631 City of Orono - Zoning Code Amendment - RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development
District - Ordinance Adoption
5. #2639 City of Orono - Zoning Code Amendment - B-6 District Landscaping and Architectural
Standards - Ordinance Adoption
6. #2639 City of Orono - Zoning Code Amendment - Section 10.52, Section 10.52: Add RPUD to list
of Allowable Zoning Districts in Highway 12 Corridor Study Area
7. #26402641 Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard - Highway 12 PUD General Concept
Plan Review
• 8. #2649 Peter/Nicole Thomas, 1385 Orono Lane - Variances/CUP - Resolution
9. #2649 Charles Leekley, having an interest in 1525 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances - Resolution
10. #2650 Kirsten & Patrick Burton, 2601 Rainey Road - Variance/CUP - Resolution
11. #2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue - Variances
• 12. #2652 Ron Lauer/ for Dennis Anderson, 1720 Bohn's Point Road - Variances - Resolution
• 13. #2655 Robert/Nancy Lux, 1209 French Creek Drive - Variance - Resolution
14. #2657 Clifford Otter, 2350 Wayzata Boulevard - Easement Vacation - Resolution
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
I5. Scheduling of Work Session
"NOTE EARLY START TIME"
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001, 6:30 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
• 16. LICENSES
Gambling - Resolution
Special Event
Cigarette
• 17. BILLS
UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS
M
02/12 -Council Meeting, 6:30 p.m
02/19 -HOLIDAY, Presidents' Day
02/21 -Planning Commission, Wednesday, 6:30 p.m.
02/26 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
03/05 -Park Commission, 7:15 p.m.
03/12 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
03/19 -Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m.
03126 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEE'rl£(; DATE
Q COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
vk1r1
ts.
;'.uRR�WMp1Y�NNOfi'RORfIS W RI Il..1 T!
rrti'airn MHETINa
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 1 2 2000
DATE: CIU u 8ti•ONO
Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Administrator
Item Description: Planning
ITEM NO: /
Reviewed: Agenda Section:
City Administrators
Report
Interviews
The City has received applications from nine candidates for the vacancy on the Planning
Commission. The applications are attached. The interviews are scheduled to begin at 6:30 p m. The
Council normally spends between five and ten minutes with each candidate. To assist the Council
in preparing for the interviews, I have attached an interview form kith potential topics to explore
with the candidates.
The council has discussed that it would be helpful to have an opportunity to have a discussion
regarding the various candidates in a worksession prior to making an appointment decision.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
No action required at this time. The Council may want to schedule a worksession to provide an
opportunity to have a discussion regarding the various candidates prior to making an appointment
decision.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT INTERVIEW
Criteria
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Interest in serving on the Planning Commission
Knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience
Familiarity with the tuilowing item:
a. The City's undated Community Management
Plan
b. The City's rural development philosophy
c. Protection of Lake Minnetonka
d. Highway 12
--
—
Support of current Programs/Policies and Philosophy
of City
_
Perspective on Council/Planning Commission
responsibilities and relationship
Perspective on ways to develop or maintain good
Planning Commission/applicant/staff relations
Perspective on key issues facing the Planning
Commission
�3o
1PPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Olncee
street Address: MallinA Address:
2750 Kelley ParAeay P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323,0066
Commission Applying For: ❑ Parks Commission Planning Commission
El Community Task Force (Name)
Name Iwle_ UA tt0.v�wa�nrci nn r��
Address 1-oz4tis I?6a.C+ tcdt
Post Office&Zip Code Orov o VAN ss'341
Telephone (H) U;k. 473 Of77 (W) 6oL 3vi 081
Resident of Orono -J.
years.
Work Experience:
11 Jlai�orw\u� �u�pp.�c-tL1981 �`p �.n1.�A.A
t•IpAnw0.70'� r l�0.lTle S a A �ri a is L5 PA U &U-'2"
r. •
and Volunteer Activities (past and
Ma M &Gw-amr AArtae� Coy,,Att-Xt , S;t. Pa,,..Q , i5is- - 9B
Telepisone (612) 473-73S7 a FAX 473-0510
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet If necessary./ 1 n
(� www�.�I.�sp 0 nnn:�4rr
cY O.n `alAel t U h7- Ch'U.A.LI. �.�A ie /iti. O't"
GlwtnxLAA q n ntinMr 0 0. �w 2 i�
�VD
a ibn ., ci — sr
Se,, a ,bath, Vf, ,, A Ctl4„t�W-44, 41AS Me.
What is your view of the role of the Commission?
TO nlnrv�nr tit„ Lt!"/+ cure �7' ^tn,
ol� nn�d.%-Q� /Lt.U/r�uwJn�IX.A.UAi��+ ro AAti�•.c
0:4— A...... n. 0 A. .._._ n...'.✓u� n�.. Le rA w..A.._D
Other Comments: (Use this space to Include any further Information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel Is relevant to the appointment You are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you wouldlike the Council to consider.)
I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting.
hdnn.,•ol j4\k e16 7 001
sipn�mn Dm
"NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number
will become public Information.
wall
l k" i e- ^ PA— i rv.-- uv�tl,tA,At/..
�'.3o
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
3v CITY of ORONO
1•fudclpal O(tica
es} Yyo 6 G i
"Str�el Address: Malliny Addrtss:
K$gg04 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323.0066
Commission Applying For: ❑ Parks Commission Planning Commission
❑ omm ity Task F rce (Na re)
Name o�ta(d lips
Address . 31!7e �fil .lw
Post Office &ZipCCssd { • %�✓9✓� / (y
Telephone IH); ✓ r _` VO (W) �j�-r,5(-2
Resident of Orono /�/ years.
Work Experience:
r
Education:�� ijy��:����,/,�q!�'� G����Q' ,cll®,•/
Civic and Volunteer rvities (past and ent res/S LPL
-��-
1 no/a� r-/LIES taM lffe� a�- Ate/� o�so�ra t. Ah`
tyovet�xnfe�Ja(v�j$ir!`la«udr tfer✓, a�dK a
.. Telephot a 612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as
spa ,fic a-;,Poss.ble. Uadditional beatj'!necessa .1. I �r p
Q� o �rth,�t Rio e�oi� �ti�
�fe CdrrT�r ,ram ail/ Ale C�
inr '
�� at is your iew of the role of the Co)nmi;eion'r,� G6
�•11i t7 �O�N/ � /H
nra�✓ �rj°y»��ie
iun hiiQ
oe- G1Qoe,
M/ L
Other Comments: (Use this space to include any further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are
seekin ou may o attach other Tater is yoaytvouldlikk the Cyugc%l to consider.)
�Ktrar 74 h �r7iWy ut f+z+�
fva•�' dr Q Gl /e., - frrpia.�
�i'74w9
I underst is app ' rqe ay br ,',isc ssed at a public meeti g.
o.,
--NOTE: Volunteer commission me er's name, address and phone number
will become public information.
c r�
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
g'�Av_
u4luirl)
"CITY of ORONO
�nt�antetpat om<e:Street Address: Mallin[ Addrtss:
, P.O. Boa 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 65323g0e6
Commission Applying For: ❑ Parks Commission a -Planning Commission
❑ Community Task Force (Name)
PostOffice&Zip Code
Telephone (H) &� / ZZ Yf ;323 (IN) �7&2 &'71
Resident of Orono /`, years.
Volunteer Activities (past and
)C
R-�/y/LY r 'U
n Seleploone (612) 473.7357 y FAX 1 �
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as
soecific as possible. Use additional,sheet if nr9ossary.)
Other Comments: (UsVfhis space to include any further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment You are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.)
1 understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting.
/ Lc
r' ou.
"NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number
will become public information.
w.uu
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
O 44 - - CITY of ORONO
?3�
111uddpalomcee
a4Q, street Address: Mailing Address:
ess:
gO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55355 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 O066
Commission Applying For: G Parks Commission ® Planning Commission
❑ Community Task Force (Name) _
Name Rd -IL A Cam/ i i 6
Address 7,2 O G b�2
Post Office &ZIP Code elXav?c,TG
Telephone IN) l /02 - ;? 72 — I-00-M w"1.z -a Za -022�
Resident of Orono years.
Work Experience:
i
Civic and Volunteer Activities ;past and present):
w Ttlepleone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 073-0i10
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet If necessary.)
%o /7-IQA< r'cliE //aoT r ✓ ovc'Qdef /s m4,:, ru •:,Ec!
f the aif anti O17GAC PS &IjfS rv/// /1oi
r ,
�Ck rIlE ifso of th- el, i2177 ae Z2;k
Y/tE m��yfi/ErrT ACfc%r% ra A_ern a 6 Cl,;).
c
�i Pc--/iGr iYs Gra wn
What is your view of the role of the Commission?
dj'Sr uSS &n sG Me- (' :., c%.u/ e'.
Other Comments: (Use this space to Include any further Information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you wouldlike the Council to consider.)
'� «✓S n l'on sr c crri 1- /(/ � r- c-.S /o 'F�
;rl,e, owl, o o c« ry -eneli a cc yr gW Z -6 y!
u i �
I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting.
sipn.mr. �•
-*NOTE: Volunteer commisson member's name, address and phone number
will become public Information.
W...I
DEC-19-00 TUE 10:13 AM W.Ish 952 4725663 P.01
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
CITY of ORONO
Mwdcipsal Offices
Street Address: Mailing Address:
2750 Kelley PaAway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323a66
Commission Applying For: ❑ Parks Commission 1>61anning Commission
❑ Communit'y Task Force (Name)
Name_ GO.;Y Aj !A e /S
Address Z/-'?.'/�- `✓wLts�
Post Office& Zip Code XOIIA/OI ss 6J
Telephone (H) P S' 2-- ` 7 1 - 67 ss (W)
Resident of Orono y— years.
Work Experience:
G vJ'J FN7 C vJ Par- y Too-,? PIPP
POS f! Gr'VeA-41 / i1 l eFA-4.9/ "' C01j'Abrr4 10A,1
T�r.r• 4,,oUAl St)(3G/a./(s�
Education: S_ ,afj 1 q/(jy 144ep-4r//,✓v
/ti/UN%'S77v n S� %�aNUaa
Civic and Volunteer
zS/-J„
/p�Js �rydf la/f=/�
Tdopbm (611) 6757357 a FAX 4734510
7eM
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
0
CITY of ORONO
Afunlelpal offices
�•��''(},'+'�a�4,6 Street Address: Mailing Address:
xE88li` 27501E+1ley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323.0066
Commission Applying For: ❑ Parks Commission 19 Planning Commission
❑ Community Task Force (Name)
Name r, F¢ Tz- -i2
Address ti3$9-Cr/ rvarr.-.n 4—
post Office &Zip Code IY%MOsoP&r W s6-3S1
CA srt/D�)
Telephone (H) `fsz N73- 7YU �- (W) /z 7Sr -//rZ
Ps,- a/z
Resident of Orono /`d years.
Work Experience:
Q vn reeaA Oyo o �a e-a+n �PFac.is2 � L r � /r79 •9w //
Ste( �W IVY D Aly,mw-ett,rt /` WN � ��=II�K I ✓(O IYAUDZ
Education:
/1' S Ba m2 / /a rr,c em6/. us&( N %s�+s c=.m n / a G� /Nsrr r•
Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present):
/-/nBrr^jz Foa 14. n. r'r (cfgers,)T & s �osr/frnn/Sn..arv�
Telepbone (6t2) 473-7357 • FAX C73-O 10
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet i1 necessary.)
r w�G� �f KR� iSfet 5 Gre �o
What is your view of the role ylf the Commission?
Csc. � (� o//w �LSe�s srs�c as nu..� 5hticM.t.c Corn iue.c<m/�� �iM.Qc.f{
Other Comments: (Use this space to include any further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel Is relevant to the appointment you are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you wouldlike the Council to consider.)
I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting.
sipn�mr� Deb
--NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number
will become public information.
0408,41
7-111-1
1PPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
CITY of ORONO
Munlcipel O(Lees
street Address: Malllnt Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Owe. MN 55356 Crystal Bay. MN 55323"0066
Commission Applying For: ❑ parks Commission �Olanning Commission
❑ Community Task Force (Name)_
Name f/i's%/D �/RFr/1ri /
Address l3 9 S re B> f Po r n)i o/SCA
Post Offrce&Zip Code Ss3�//
Telephone (H)9sz-L/7z-S79S (Wt 9Sz 939 �z�3
Resident of Orono z 6 years.
Work Experience:
/Ln beer✓ Br^ -a l aic/ AS A �✓ !Ci/ �� Ti., S,OC� 7 �� /
.jSL�)7�� �1-�J /tee �1/� o -l" i/ �.r i.J/rr•Ofr �-afr �rJ Al oL"+��
/ !�✓. 1-C,.sJC. �I.ON� Gp�C RIv CI"/ CJ(�t/AiJC25 /eJf FPS�r�Q,
Education:
e r Pos t ��� o�/gip r/ l �N / l s At &e ✓w,;P ,J.,
/f'G(1 '2 I // 1. `J' [J✓ Nil/✓ Cf CrJ / �,C♦+Lr 61AIg5C5 A/Lrfl1
Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): J
Telephone (632) 47173s7 • FAX 473-WIO
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet it necessary.)
A' !A/lJil�� A, Ail tq
/On-n-.iSS�niJ �}NC� fJrON�� IZ1N_S/!.%N�l/. Tii�1S L./�II .f�Sy
/Yles AQ O�OffVA0Lj Ib !�,vt OA4k 'fo My
Uf'+'+/'� ✓W � �L7 7
What is your view of the role of
the Commission?
,L
,1L//wlw•i -ztAe— re,Iei Ori' /t PAN!//:.2L4 'i 7 /•.�is6i c..t/0
ql il�t% %��n rc ziPa v� -6 -/'h rove Li �'/�L �IANN i+9 PoCP t
,Q` !v-.�vl•%/.) AS�oS,T6� l-�r i••ri �- f ra'� T`SS�e� .vr/�CoNCBrNS
-AA.4- in.,_ A/I e.✓a rives/. AwYJr-fu Ar<i2dP_ 4it. AW1,,A4,o.j iS
fNa TuNea'R-,.,- i-o re-AG/t,. g e,fl 60', C/. .
Other Comments: (Use this space to in ude ank further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.)
-Ie AALCt AMAI`f WAr t LPT urd l i.JhrLog L.•rtl, 02c,eyvfs
o.j AA.,e A,Oro✓eN-YfA!-�=
�( Aflt��o/NS L •;� - /'6 )OhZ ii%, Zy/lJyl e�[r A,� A
hTo✓r!/rd
fG G lair[ AS A fyAr,� lN.r �e e! er< hur 166A
ANiA<= (b lL of/AN.�i,�q SUM M,SSi nWGr
may be discussed at a public meeti g.
siyuwr• o•e.
**NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number
will become public information.
WWI
M/M/199+ 10:M- FROM TO 2494616 P.02
11 7P," ...
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COI MUNII M
Street Mdreu:
..P, r
Commission Applying For: ❑ Parks Comniroyion Ild
❑ Community Tas Force (Naihe)
Address i J A r 7 'ti cro L7 �«
'
PoatOfiroe &Zip Cade 5-S3 L�j
Telephone (H) . L i -r7 / 9 1 , 2 (W). �12 Y7L 077
Resident of Orono, years..
C J ^' a„ ;- S`- v✓r
Education: Z 1/Pw^ `UL —
ic/and Volunteer Activities (past and present):(U�crev-
C
,� 7eleyLooe (612) 473-7357 • TAX 473-Ma
101/28/199+ 10:33 FROM TO 2494616 P.03
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. Onsehe as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.)
;���'/'c. i'Ir[�. AS F, �5✓C��r. W./-�G .UtlCl1
your view of the
Other Comments: (Use this space to Include any further Infoiniation you would Ike
the City Council to consider, or that you feel Is relevant to ft appolnbnort you are
seeking. you may also sitach other materials you would liko the Coune ft4considei )
d understapd this appointment may be discussed at a Public meeting.
,-NOTE: Volunteer commission membees name, ed&ws and Phone number
will become public Information.
weHu
01/2B/199+ 10:34 FROM
fewpadlaraoa +955-195:
Owner
aaJ'
•,.• • NFl ii99.
Arbertson Engineeft
TO 2494616 P.04
Minnespich, MN
• Ovmed too. and di! and rn del shop.
• Oosgned a^d developed products for major manutacturars.
1960-1969 Zeal Products Incorporated Minneapolis, MN
Vice President, Sales Manager, Part Owner
• Increased sales fiom $0 million to $34 million.
• Developed and manufactured a vide variety of service station equipment
• US Miltary vas z major oAtomer.
• SubseauenNy sold manuhdudng and product rights to various companies.
1959-1973 Albertson's Sales tnc. Minneapolis, MN
Equipment Distributor and Retail Store Owner
• Largest outdoor power equipment dealer in five state area.
• Sold Snewme1)45, lawn tractors, motorcycles, lavn mowers and snow blowers.
• Created a sales organbstion with sales of $10 million hough 4 stores.
• Gascrunchruinedmarket-soldout.
"97$-1995 Albertson Industries, Inc. MirureapoGs, MN
Inventor and Marketing Entrepreneur
3ev'e!oped numerous products and licensed to, manufacturers.
Odds over 490 patents in the field of mechanical and electronic products.
Major successes:
• Fresh brew coffee vending machine.
• Ice making equipment.
• Mastic Injection molding machine.
• Co -inventor and developer of cassette tape recorder. (Marketed by Fond and GMI.
• Orginal developer of the Pulsating Shower Massage.
•Original developer of Weed -Eater grass trimmer.
• cmergenci kill svitrh and sld stock absorbers used on all snowmobiles.
• Autorrwtive pars cleaners.
•Hydraulic test equipment.
:eveloped and r.,anufautlured a car chassis dynamometer which was ctowparAad into
y:o Aibertson's 17ym Tune-up Centers as wall as other automoth a W." ar%es.
P-oduct rights were subsequent/ sold to Harrel ManuFactudng.
:evelcped and manutMured an industrial waste of furnace. Product sold heavity for
several years. Prldlad rights were subsequently, sold.
Developed and manufactured an automotive chemical line endorsed by Race Car Driver
Bobby Unser. Product rights were sold to Vealar Corporation.
'995-?'eserl All-Tenainer Recreedonel. Inc Minneapolis. MN
irvertor and Mediating Entrepreneur
• Co-lnventor d the: All•Terrtiner Trak-Tour amphibious trainsporter
•,y�,e• of'Ai,netata Inventors Congress 19%Top Product Award.
01/20i199+ 10:34 FROM
TO 2494616 v.05
INVENTOM1$ & INVFPIIION$ _ ..
After 200 patent,.
he's earned some
Wisdom to share
7.
AM"'.n a - •.• uu�MvaYL-A�1<"ul'fV'i6n'[ nr[[
L:v.v.l Ilalv'•: �..• � e Yrt a0 W Mi {,ti IiM1A=^L .
Nti ti .n:.+eny+L
x5[I[IR .� •-•,-.•o Ye=SmVa P�'d An'w LL[a GS•[L v^en
Fy +im .A•'^r .1.4 y FN wda b�NiN "[ry
V[+[
xnf x1:v
xA. 4 nF . -e.. vs+[wMal Y xlx
a'µn• ".5waF[ .. P.0 � :M-O p11�r�wn
Architect creates
"Lego$ a for h0me-
1 impravement .. ...
11 .,f'.M Y.YY..wd IP:Gs':eam
~'. .4'Y�''aM1R+v +�nWSYtw1
b •'L
MjWwwwn4rant
wimi-Wenceto
.ate
ne„naa.L.n•e
01/28/199+ 10:35 FROM TO 2494616 P.06
WHO ARE
FIRMS
B16 YEAR
PAY PHONES. i
bermon wins a9.
Inventor took on Bell firm and won
turx be often am
am
DOWN. Ddkled
Wee dare d fY !ra dF
dsm — aH Tu**%m
After three deader as an
H15 company. Tank -a-
pay phone:
Inventor. Robert V. Albert,
Phone Inc. had 1983 sales of
Tbree Ye
son Is back whip' vebdLB
s05 million. Nor, he h.as so
western Hal
,hi.m
nllthon worth of ordem on
4ar1�
nim yea.; a{n. tha t>n•
the baoin with nSa Salts are
the
ke er was a 17•yezad em
"Peered to top vo ataaon
byIn
mach se m��ftdthe�•
fillog War Alibo"oo is
Ail
proud poscaor or his AM
inapopdoa toelbhaorithe
dtspbte to
paten an Iced -drink dls•
bwleodn private pay tole-
Public UIG
pe I whiC is tf9 in pro,
phone thdm ry. He wu the
whim lolw
dutslon.
first to OW to the mat with a
the Am to
Today, in a plant a^ the
See company over in pay
compoudin
more of Izte Mine: t
phone mottopoty, and win
ft
II&M AIDWWWS 70 em•
In Im. what russaw a
wbm be
"a are fewsbhb' �k•
thrivinj service station
ins new Po
'
er,Wpmmt business. Aihen-
oft me
asomf r aiephoas
son waned tlelterin with
cos to fib
— Soft Anraa
01/2B/199+ 10:36 FROM
TO 2494616 P.07
Robert V. Albertson
Biography
March 1, 1999
Robe:+. V. Aliertson. age 6Z"is the Director of United Gambling Association. Mr.
AR main was t.' c president and founder of TONK-A-PHONE, INC., a mamdacturer of
pay tcicahores and related accessories. his inventiveness and originality helped to pioneer
the enure private pay telepbom industry. Since the inception of TONK-A-PHONIE,INC.
in the early 90's, Mr. Albertson has been considered to be one of"the most important
telecom entrepreneurs in the nation". His driving ambition forced the Federal
Cotw. unications Commission (FCC) to constantly address the issues of the entire
custoner-ownod :elccorunuaications industry. Bob was dubbed "The fatbr/pioneer of
the private pay phones" with good reason. His pioneering efforts have been featmod
many tms (in national television as well as in major publications such as The Wall Street
Joumal (14 tits), USA Today (13 times), The New York Times, Fortune Magazine,
Inc.. and Venture MugaAne just to name a few. Due to Bob's telecommunicefion
experience, was latter appointed by the State of Minnesota as an other side adviser to the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and serve for 4 years.
Robert Albertson's career it. electronics began with his employment by Control Data
Corporation vbc- after three years, he left to join forces with his father (retired chief
eng +ocr of Mlinncawli3 Moline Corporation) to start his own company known as Zeal
Products. Inc. in 1960.
Since then_ Mr. Albertson has held more than 180 patents in the field of meebamcal and
electronic products. Some of his major successes have been the dcniopment of the Fresh
Breve' Coffee vending machine. Ice -making equipment, co-i vemor and developer of the
eassdte tape recorders still being marketed by Ford Motor Company and General Motors,
original developer of the Weed -Eater grams trimmer, and Pulsating Shower Massage.
emergency go-crMors for tow trucks, gasoline pumps as well as innumerable
tclecommuna",tions croducts.
The I;nited Gambling Association was rounded to obtain favorable legislation for certain
private businesses and Charitable Non Profit Groups that wish to provide gambling in Licit
establishments.
Mr. Albertson attended the University of Minnesota as well as Augsburg College and the
Minnesota School of Business where his major emphasis was marked and engiomrins
ire has also taught saks and marketing classes for Dale Carnegie in the Mamrapol'e/St.
PC -al area
•...:a;'i ,. ;v.: S? FROM TO 2494616 P•99
TRY TO PICT'2 yE Tl4r SCf V C..." mocth's Mimlaoa
Inventor Cunt•`•.n Kedwn•.J' u:a. and you'll probably con -
run: ap an old-��`���•' .^`a'K •'r"+I6u(t yvya in hb coati atd
ILaoav b... nc��: 4m bi�,ci...rrd'ua cxpcdmante E.nt awry.
IlatdAb.,n-n•1:: Bob Plh.:•n:^many
.�amupk. ;h; .•• •, e.aa .h.: •rd-ii(e
nn�nnon .hr- a.^L r',". cabal?_
d.... k .al...l..... ..
.All ........
... : . _.. a:u•e as
..... " .. - -- ...
nrylld.u.,,. ..... 1 , unkltkc
•chJ. .. hl. `• I' n.bc uw .... .a••.I and warn. won
AIMnv.n rwp � . o •hc y:'r' :. n. a..o r
4.h�. .r.. m�w.l.a..l -::, Altr-rw.. and hitwn DaWd
adl .vh:l•n .•. . �rlv:9 ..c-GnyJedlaew-
.Inv, A...n.In1,: a. 111'-4ac ... _. a. o(•:,. dlBuulr eo pmh
tune, his new toolcoma wuh s tide ba dle dm agowa the rota
to apply mote downwaldpmstue. Mtmdmwo Wotwthink
n, adapt an otditmy object in ehu —Y, and da+t'a a big «xon
we're not ilrvcomn. "A lot of out Uwww — an doles+ dye are
tight in fwmofymu - Bob AOe.noo lays
•-Poupic always look a not m>ff and ray.
Its w sbnplc. why didn't I d,mlt ofthn?-
PerhapstheAlbivoorsatebetterIt dsit
of thing W.i;w it', in aheir blood.
Z'a 6ehm w., an iovmtor. nd Bob
amadhofrrnpotem xd,,.r.fli. David
has a hmd(W ofpa:rm. including arc for
a new -and -improved rxeMt wrench dw
.on op pltae at the 1994 MIC and wen
,11 be cued by amamw on spa¢.Jlutde Bidro.
But thu s only the bop .... g of ebe Albatwn dan's ilin"-
n.. Tnerbowtnmt worlohopbahyperacnvTtmit—',PIXY
-
:wund.lioemdwithspace.agev mofthe co&e fdn T-W
:k can.vmlel, and dot mwhinr.'11tex't alwa nok•+luk mmc-
�.iu.. byre the Albernom disp6y pttNo- fareuen, re. pp1G
1yNa 1Twl • MINNl1nTn MnNT11t. : a
7�M
in I f V r �'ryUN0
Dear Ron,
I've enclosed my application for the Planning Commission. I will be out of
town through February 11's and will be available to attend the regular
meetings of the Council for the month. Hope to see you soon.
Jeanne Mabusth
Jeanne Mabusth
740 Brown Rd. North
Long Lake, MN. 55356
Tel. (952) 476-0578
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
CITY of ORONO
'c'-. hduuiclpal Omces
street Address: Milling Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Commission Applying For: ❑ Parks Commission 2/planning Commission
❑ Community Task Force (Name)
Name a a.. 14, lit A c
Address 7 ilD A Yc*kwt. +.dt- /V.
Post Office&Zip Code Lolz�'� i/%�v S33SG• — �1.35//
Telephone I1-11)�9S 417/ O S 7& (W) &_r4) S/73
Resident of Orono cZy years.
Work Experience:
S a. A*ta r L P I
Education: �(
Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present):
rr
^ TdeP6oae (613) 473.7337 • FAX 473-0310
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet If necessary.)
What Is your view of the role of the Commission?
S .-0 Q yT�A 111
Other Comments: (Use this space to Include any further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.)
I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting.
sion•mn i •r•
••NOTE: J Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number
will become public information.
aa+u.+
Page Three
Work Experience
Bloomindales, NY, management trainee, Appleton Century Crofts, Administrative
Assistant to Editor of Fiction Dept., Aetna Ins., Mpls., manager Policy Writing Dept.,
City of Medina, Planning & Zoning Administrator, City of Orono, Administrator of
Buildg. & Zoning Dept.
Education
Hunter College, NY, B. A. Degree — Major Political Science, minors Economics and
Philosophy
Columbia Univ. NY, Graduate school
Civic and Volunteer Activities
Junior Great Books leader, library aide Orono Schools, volunteer tutor for elementary
students experiencing reading difficulties, volunteer fund drives (cancer & heart), citizen
study group when resident of Medina, Elm Creek Watershed District, delegate City of
Medina, City of Orono, substitute P. C. member when quorum is needed.
My Reason for wanting to serve on the Planning Commission
For the 20 years that I was employed by both the cities of Medina and Orono, I refrained
from participating at public meetings because now 1 represented the City and had to
maintain complete objectivity. Prior to local government service I had volunteered to
assist on various ad hoc committees and worked on local and state campaigns (political or
issue driven). Sitting in as a substitute Planning Commission member these past three
years has given me the opportunity to once again enjoy and remember that old freedom
yet tempered by the responsibilities of a recommending body to the Council. I would
come to the Planning Commission with a slightly above average knowledge of Orono's
land use regulations. I've kept track of the City's actions with copies of the Council and
P. C. agendas along with the reports in our local newspapers. I am proud of the
leadership role our City has taken in spite of some disappointments and want very much
to help and encourage the City to continue in that path.
What is your view of the role of the Planning Commission?
To ensure that Council receives recommendations and guidance from commission
members that support the written regulations and the intent of those regulations and may
at times suggest the need for innovation and/or modification based on the years of
experience of its members.
MINUTES OF THE 3
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001 nni "n ssGETING
ROLL Cl I Y Ue UMONO j
The City Council met on the above -mentioned date with the following members present:
Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Jay Nygard and Jim White. Council Members
Richard Flint and Bob Sansevere were absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator
Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning
Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer
Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappe, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m
PRESENTATION
(N1) LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT - CHIEF STEVE PERSIAN
Steve Persian, Fire Chief, introduced the newest officers of the Fire Department to the
City Council. Persian thanked the Council for their support of the Department.
Mayor Peterson thanked the Fire Department on behalf of the City of Orono for the
countless hours they spend protecting the residents of the community.
CONSENT AGENDA
(M2) APPROVE./AMEND
Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 were added to the Consent Agenda.
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
(Items 4 through 7 following Item No. 10)
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
(M9) RESIGNATION OF POLICE CHIEF GARY CHESWICK
White moved, Nygard seconded, to accept the resignation of Gary Cheswick from his
position as Police Chief effective January 31, 2001. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
(MIO) RECOGNITION OF POLICE CHIEF GARY CHESWICK - RESOLUTION
NO. 45"
Mayor Peterson thanked Gary Cheswick for his 32 years of loyal service to the City of Orono
in his various capacities with the Police Department.
Page I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001
(Recognition of Police Chief Gary Cheswick, Continued)
Mayor Peterson presented Cheswick with a plaque acknowledging his dedicated service to
the City of Orono.
Cheswick stated he has enjoyed working with the City of Orono.
Gabriel Jabbour, Fortner Mayor, thanked Cheswick for his service to the community
Mayor Peterson noted a reception will be held in Chief Cheswick's honor on Wednesday,
January 31 2001 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
White moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO.4599,
a Resolution Recognizing Chief Gary Cheswick for his Thirty-two Years of Dedicated
Service to the City as a Member of the Orono Police Department.
VOTE: Ayes J, Nays 0.
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debora Halvorson
Halvorson commented the Park Commission is continuing to review the lake access points
around Lake Minnetonka, with an updated presentation to be given at either the April or May
meeting of the Park Commission. Halvorson suggested a work session with the Council be
scheduled to discuss this matter.
Halvorson stated the Park Commissioners will be reviewing their assigned parks this spring,
and welcomed any comments the City Council members and local residents may have regarding
improvements to the various parks.
Halvorson, on behalf of the Park Commission, thanked the residents of Orono for their generous
donations of land to the City over the past year.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
None
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Mayor Peterson stated the meeting with the Fire Department's Building Committee has been
postponed due to the information to be reviewed not being available and has been rescheduled
for February 5' .
Peterson welcomed the City's new on -site septic system manager Matthew Bolterman.
Peterson thanked Heidi Sturman for the time she spent with the City as Administrative
Support Assistant.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001
(Mayor/Council, Continued)
White commented that the Public Works Department has done a fine job of maintaining the
ice at the ice skating rink at Casco Point. White stated the rink has been well used tki, winter.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
"(#4) #2646 CLEA ALTMAN, 4245 CHIPPEWA LANE - VARIANCE -
RESOLUTION NO.4600
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4600,
John Adams and Cleo Altman, 4245 Chippewa Lane, a Resolution granting of a lot area
variance to construct a new residence. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
'(#5) #2647 ROBERT ZAUN, 1337 REST POINT CIRCLE - VARIANCE -
RESOLUTION NO.4601
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4601,
Robert Zoun, 1337 Rest Point Circle, a Resolution granting of a side yard adjacent street
setback variance to permit construction of an addition to the existing residence.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
(46) #2658 TIM LANDON, 1360 VINE PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION
NO. 4602
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO.4602,
Tim Landon, 1360 Vine Place, a Resolution granting of a lot width variance and a variance to
an accessory building to permit construction of a new residence on the lot.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
'(#7) 001-2659 JIM JOHNSON, 2240 FOX STREET - FINAL PLAT -
RESOLUTION NO.4603
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4603,
Jim Johnson, 2240 Fox Street, a Resolution approving the Plat of Bill Kelleys Land,
Third Addition. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
Page
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001
PUBLIC SI RVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT, CONTINUED
•(08) RENEWAL OF POLICE SERVICE AGREEMENTS
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the renewal of the Police Service
Agreements with Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park for 2001, and to approve the
Police Service Agreement with Long Lake for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nuys 0.
*(till) RESIGNATION OF HEIDI STURMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
ASSISTANT
White moved, Nygard seconded, to accept the resignation of Heidi Sturman from her
position sus Administrative Support Assistant effective January 19, 2001.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
e(N12) APPOINTMENT OF ON -SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM MANAGER
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the appointment of Matthew Bolterman to
the position of On -Site Septic System Manager at a salary of 537,300, which is Step I
of Level 1 of the Supervisory/Administrative Pay Schedule, effective
February 12, 2001. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
Moorse stated he has included a copy of a letter in the City Council packet which was sent to
the Fire Chief which addresses the issues to be discussed and the cost sharing between the
two cities for the new fire station at the upcoming meeting on February 5a.
Moorse stated he will be tentatively scheduling a Council work session on February 8s to
discuss issues relating to possible TIF assistance on the proposed senior housing project.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Tom Barrett requested an executive session with the Council to discuss
threatened litigation.
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001
•(813) LICENSES
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the following licenses:
Cigarette License
1. James Anderst
Narrows Saloon
3380 Shoreline Drive
2. Richard Bloomquisl
Rick's Super Vain
3333 Shoreline Drive
3. Steven Corl
Navarre Liquors, Inc
3421 Shoreline Drive
4. John O'Sullivan
O'Sullivan I (Convenience Store)
2420 Shadywood Road
5. John O'Sullivan
O'Sullivans II
(Convenience Store- Culvers)
3340 Shoreline Drive
6. William Wear
12-Hi Liquor
2160 West Wayzata Boulevard
SPECIAL EVENT
1. Orono PTO
Mid Winter Fun Fest Carnival - Orono Middle School
Saturday, February 3,2000
Noon - 4:00 p.m.
2. Pro Events International
Bike Ride - Tour de Lake Minnetonka
Roads around Lake Minnetonka as designated on maps
Sunday, May 20, 2001
7:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001
•(N14) BILLS
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
n1TU1119adt8:rY
White moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Barbara Peterson, Mayor
Page 6
0�
ileI
t
�
1—
1
— J FN
••A"OPEEARcys" rxm--
AGENDA FORC(R�MARETLYG SET FORM WAY,FEBRUARYI;2001,6:MPAL
ORONO COUNCIL CRA518ER5, 27M ULLEY PARAWAY, ORONO. hiRNNE90TA
(')Avvisk isms m tt_:-esed m be m:6ha itrms u be enaned upon by ane motim by O City Cowoi)
cadet the Consev l:m.•;_she age_a Memas segaNing exM1 of she AgeWaism:s ase asv661e in lM1e
Public Pe 1n - IocntN <-.'1 mw.v vmr the d®: in Shen.
ROLL CALL -6:30 P.SL
1. �2
CONSENT AGENDA ��ry%
2. APpt dAv
APPROVAL OF bMlTE$
3. Reguly Cowci: 5'advg v:!�sury 22, 2001
PARK CONLNR5510N COSDIENTS-Siva Ilse
PLANNING CONDIISSION CONDIENPS
PUBLIC COMMENTS. fL vll5 Nfimm. Pa Pesmn)
ZONING ADNDINIMkTOR'S REPORT
4. ANSI Ciry of&:__-Zo 6Cade A¢mdvev- RPM Residential Pla UnitD cld ¢ml
Dubin - C-d'.nmce Adoption
5. Q63S City of C,. - 20 :e Cade Am cat - BA Di d L^-Msrepiae and A.thiu<tanl
Stmdads-0:&mcm Adoptior
6. N2639 CiryafR Zn-_BCodeAmcndmmt-Sectiw 10.S2,Seniw 10S3: Add RPW to In
ofAllos•�� a ZoWnp D:sbiru in Highway 12 Conidas SSW, Ana
,. 82640R641 0::-.: Avbv, LLC,2060 WOYaa Wesard - Rlgbw Y 12 PUO CsmnN Cavnpt
PW Rmis-
•8. 02648 Pnv/,::::: iho¢1. 13830mm Lme-VvinnadCUP-R 1.60.
9. 92649 Chvles_::,.har_8 mmasatin 1525 Lon L cBadew- Vviam'na- kaolution
10. M650 F,dsua is _—ick B_-_q 2WI Rn M Rmd- VwiencdCUP-Rmludm
11. Q651 Robin v::esmy B"_;p•�Cas Lw Avmae-V..
• 12. Q652 Ron Lnce::_:Dea-:s Andawn.ITlO Bohv'a Point Rand-Vedmcet-Rmluuon
• 13. R655 RobenNc _; L:v. l_09 Fte AC:ak Oriw-Vviexe-Remlusion
14. R2651 CliRaN C-:v, 2330Vt.yaa Boule-FAsevent Vawsim- Rmlaim
MAYOR(COUNCR. REPORT
PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
15.
16.
CEPYAD,% IMSPMTORS REPORT
R.
it.
CRY ATTORNEV'S REPORT
• 19. LICENSES
Csevblissg - Rese:_-vn
Ciga¢ne
Special Ermt
20. MIA
UPCOliUNG 155UE5 AND EVENTS
Bey,
Z9P1
OLOtl-CouocB Woh 6«::v
-Council
Pmi
-NOI.6:30p.sn.
0209Y. _ Dad'
Wig
tom —
02R1-miM Cavwi:ss::a atavdq, 6:30Ps.
GUMGmdl MeaaoO,:{0 p.m.
u`ar
r rn.a
i� Rmi
•
03N3-PakC
ntim,::15Pm
B3R2-c�d136aN�F, ::coven
03O9-Plr®B Commisrm 6:30 Cm
03R6-Low til Meedo,.?:CO Pm
cnrmrn esFETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 12 2000
DatePIT. Jatnuc':'99WQ2001
Item No.: 4
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Zoning
Name: Michael P. Gatlron' 6
Title: Planning Director
Item Description: #2631 Zoning Code Amendment -
Add "Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) District'
List of Exhibits
A - Proposed Ordinance for Adoption
B - Summary Ordinance for Publication
C - Staff Memo to PC 1-10-01
D - Ordinance Heading Outline
E - 51h Draft Version with Editorial Notes
F - Zoning Districts Overview Table
Review Process
The review process for the RPUD ordinance is summarized in Exhibit C. Review has been ongoing
since the initial public hearing in October 2000, and m many as 5 drafts have resulted, each draft
reflecting comments of Planning Commission and Council. The final (5'^) draft was reviewed by
the Planning Commission on January 17.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On January 17, 2001 the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the 50 draft as
presented, noting that futu : amendments might be considered after the amendment is put into use.
One such future item for consideration may be whether the RPUD District should be allowed in
Shorcland areas (it is not, under the proposed ordinance).
Brief Summary of Ordinance
The proposed ordinance creates the RPUD District as a zoning district that will accommodate a
variety of residential housing types. The RPUD will allow all of the -?emitted Uses of the R-1 A
basic resilential zoning district (this merely includes one -family dwellings, public owned parks and
playgrounds, and municipal buildings) and multi -family attached dwellings when located in the
Urban Area and only where consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The RPUD is not a mixed use
district, and is intended for residential use only.
RPUD Ordinance
January 24, 2001
Page 2
The ordinance establishes a minimum site area of 5 acres for rezoning to RPUD, with standards for
when the 5-acre minimum can be waived. Performance standards incorporated in the ordinance
address sewer availability; development density (must be consistent with CMP, but commercial
zones can be rezoned to RPUD with higher densities); incentives for meeting City housing goals;
site coveragn limitations; separate site development standards forsingle-andmulti-family buildings;
height limit of 2-1/2 stories or NY, except on RPUD sites currently zoned/guided for commercial use
can be up 13 3 stdries; private recreation area requirement (10% of site must be devoted to private
rec area; in addition to standard park dedication requirement; and detailed
landscaping/buffering/screening and architectural requirements.
Because the procedural requirements of Orono's existing PUD ordinance apply only to properties
in the Highway 12 corridor defined in 1989, and because the RPUD is anticipated to be useful in
areas outside the Highway 12 corridor, the RPUD ordinance also contains aprocedural element. The
procedural element detailsthe required submittals, defining a2-stage reviewprocess (a Concept Plan
stage and a Master Development Plan and Rezoning stage), establishing standards for granting
approval and determining substantial compliance. Requirements fora Development Agreement and
financial guzraatees are included.
Where Does RPUD Fit In Orono's Regulatory Scheme?
Please refer to Exhibit F, an overview of Orono's zoning and overlay districts. The RPUD District
provides a district to accoru.,odate the higherdemity housing intended by the 2000-2020 CMP. The
only other residential district that could allow these densities is the M-6 Multiple Family Planned
Residential District. Since it wss added to the zoning code in 1976, no property in Omno has ever
been rezoned to M-6, and M-6 is geared primarily toward townhome development (2-4 units per
building) with very restrictive design standards and a maximum potential density (determined after
lots of algebra) of 6-7 units per acre. The RPUD allows rn%; a greater flexibility for housing types
while providing performance standards for uses not addressed elsewhere in the zoning code.
The RPUD does not replace the Highway 12 PUD code sections, which are geared towards
commercial or mixed residential/commercial uses. The RPUD may, however, ultimately be
determined to be an adequate replacement for the M-6 district. It is also contemplated that Orono's
PRD procedures may eventually be dropped in favor of rezoning to RPUD. These potential future
code changes will be looked at more closely as time permits.
RPUD Ordinance
January 24, 2001
Page 3
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the RPUD ordinance as presented in Exhibit A as Zoning Code
Section 10.33, creating the RPUD District as a residential zone, establishing authority and standards
for rezoning to and development within the Residential Planned Unit Development District. Because
the ordinance is 22 pages in length, staff also recommends adoption of the Summary Ordinance for
Publication per Exhibit B.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt or amend the attached Ordinance and Summary Ordinance. A 4/5 vote of the Council is
required for approval because this is a zoning ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 10 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 10.33,
RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by adding Section 10.33,
RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District, to read as follows:
"SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Subd.l. Purpose. The purpose ofthe Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)
district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential
housing goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan ('CMP' or
'Comprehensive Plan'). The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and
types of residential development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of
the Planned Unit Development concept. The RPUD District will encourage the following:
A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize
new techniques of building design, construction and land development;
B. provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate
cost housing needs;
C. energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs
and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses;
D. preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and
protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes,
poor soils and trees;
E. high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land
uses, including both existing and planned;
F. sensitive development in transitional areas located between different
Ind uses and along significant corridors within the city; and
G. development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the RPUD District, no land or structures shall be
used except for one or more of the following uses:
Page t of 22
A. Any 'Permitted Use' as regulated in the R-IA District.
B. Multi -family attached dwellings only when consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and only within the areas of the City designated
as Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the RPUD district, no land or structure shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
A. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not
limited to electric transmission lines, buildings suO as telephone
exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and
plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power
substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any
lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such
permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service
structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located
and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures as
defined above that have been approved by the City at required public
hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a
conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other
appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved
plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require
written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior
to the adoption ofthe amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless
services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not he
considered public service structures. Uses allowed by conditional use
permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the PUD master
development plan and with the applicable conditional use permit
standards of this ordinance. Uses allowed by conditional use permit
shall also be subject to site and building plan review pursuant to this
ordinance.
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within the RPUD District the following uses shall be a
permitted accessory use:
A. Any accessory use except for "Roads;de Stands" as regulated in the R-
lA District.
Page 2 of 22
B. Privately owned buildings to be used for recreation or social purposes,
or for use w storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish.
Subd. 5. Development Standards. Within the RPUD District all development shall
be in compliance with the following:
A. Minimum Area; Shoreland District Prohibition. Each site proposed
for rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres,
excluding areas within a designated wetland, floodplain or shoreland
district or right-of-way, unless the Council finds the existence of one
of the following:
I. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the
surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD
will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance
to the neighborhood or community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way
from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD
or planned residential development and will be perceived as
and will function as an extension of that previously approved
development;
3. The property is located in an area where the proposed
development provides a transition between a commercial or
industrial area and an existing residential area or on an
intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the
comprehensive pion;
4. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of
significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering
of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed
by the existing zoning district.
No site located within the defined Shoreland Overlay District (areas
within 1000' of designated lakes and within 300' of designated
tributaries) shall be rezoned to RPUD.
B. Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use
or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan,
except that the city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated
for commercial use if the City Council finds that such use is in the best
Page 3 of 22
interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this
section. If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may
forward a copy of the request to the Metropolitan Council for review.
C. Sewer Availability. A site proposed to be rezoned to RPUD with
proposed density greater than 1 unit per 2 acres must be in the MUSA
and must be. serviced by municipal sewer.
D. Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density
within the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the specific
site. If the site is not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the City
based upon the City Council's finding that such density is consistent
with the intent of this ordinance and of the Comprehensive Plan.
Developments with proposed densities in excess of the densities
contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan shall be allowed only on
properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use,
in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas zoned and
guided for residential use.
E. Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the
construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing
goals. Incentives may include modification of density (only for
properties currently zoned and guided for commercial use) and floor
area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing
and affordable and moderate cost housing. Incentives for affordable
and moderate cost housing may be approved by the city only after the
developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the
low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and
moderate income for aspecific period of time.
F. Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages and floor area ratios (FAR's)
shall be limited per the following table:
Page 4 of 22
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Maximum
Maximum
Hardsurface
Floor Area
Coverage I%)
Ratio•
Low or medium density residential
50
0.5
(up to and including 6.0 units per acre)
High density residential
70
1.0
(in excess of 6.0 units per acre)
-FAR - Total Building Floor Area / Total Lot Area
Individual lots within a development in the RPUD district may exceed
these standards as long as the average meets these standards.
G. Development Standards for Attached and Multi -Family Dwelling
Structures. Each site rezoned to RPUD and developed for attached or
multiple family dwelling uses shall be subject to the following
standards:
Setbacks and Separation of Uses. Within the RPUD district the
setback for all attached and multi -family dwelling buildings
and their accessory buildings from any bordering or abutting
street line shall be 35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from
railroad lines or collector or arterial streets, as designated in the
comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be
less than the height of the building. The setback for all
buildings from exterior RPUD site lot lines not abutting a
public street shall be 35 feet except that in no case shall the
setback be less than the height of the building. Building
setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the
city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Parking
lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all
exterior lot lines of a RPUD site. The setback for parking
structures including decks and ramps shall be 35 feet from
local streets and 50 feet from all other street classifications
except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height
of the structure. Parking suucmre setbacks from external lot
lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure, whichever
is greater when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet when
adjacent to non-residential properties. Parking structure
Page 5 of 22
setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be
determined by the city based or. characteristics of the specific
RPUD site. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted
single family lots outside the RPUD site, greater exterior
building and parking setbacks may be required in order to
provide effective screening. The City Council shall make a
determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by
the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural
topography or earth berthing, existing and proposed plantings
and other features such as roadways and wetlands which
provide separation of uses.
Property rezoned to RPUD sha be considered a residential
district for purposes of determining building and parking
setback requirements on adjacent high density residential,
commercial and industrial property outside the RPUD.
2. Heieht Limitations. For propert`es guided for residential use in
the Comprehensive Plan, a building height limit of2-1 /2 stories
or 30 feet shall apply. For proper ties currently zoned or guided
in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use, height may not
exceed 3 stories (not including t derground parking level) and
shall maintain a residential character by incorporating pitched
or hipped roof structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple
family buildings will be allowe-a.
Outside Storage Limitations. Outside storage of building
materials, recreational vehicles,'.oats, R V's, snowmobiles, and
other items of personal propen' shall not be stored outside
within any site used for a tachrd or multi -family uses.
H. k Development Standards for Single -Family Detached Dwellings in
the RPUD District. Each RPUD sit_ developed for single family
detached dwellings at medium densin (i.e. densities ranging from 1
unit per acre to 6 units per acre) shay. be subject to the following
standards:
Page 6 of 22
1. Permitted locations: Itrareas of the City where smaller single
family detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to
preserve significant natural features, or in areas where a
mixture of higher density attached dwellings and lower density
detached single family dwellings will result in a development
that does not exceed the overall guided density.
2. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 s.f.
3. Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet.
4. Minimum lot depth: 125 feet.
5. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within
the RPUD site. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35
feet must be provided on local streets and 50 foot setback on
collector or arterial streets as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
6. Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet along interior lot lines; 15
feet on lot lines along the exterior of the RPUDsite. Side yards
abutting streets most meet the minimum front yard setbacks as
noted above.
7. Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the
depth of the lot, whichever is less.
8. B Iding height: maximum of 30 feet or 2-1/2 stories.
9. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have
a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width.
All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have
a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth.
10. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in
conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code.
Page 7 of 22
11. Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established
for principal structures, except as follows:
A. all accessory structures located more than 10 feet from
a principal structure may be for ated a minimum of 10
feet from a rear or side lot line, when that line does not
abut a street right-of-way.
B. no accessory structure ..tall be located closer to the
front lot line than the principal structure, regardless of
the principal structure setback.
12. No accessory structure shall occupy more than 30 percent of the
side or new yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1,000 square
feet in area, nor exceed 12 feet in height.
13. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for
each single family dwelling. A suitable locatir :.<lr a garage
measuring at least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall be
provided and indicated as such on a survey or site plan to be
submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a
new dwelling or alter an existing garage.
I. More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be
placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD site.
J. Single Housing Type Permitted. Any RPUD development which
involves a -ingle housing type shall be permitted provided that it is
otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the
comprehensive plan.
K. Private Recreational Area. Each RPUD development shall provide
a minimum of 10 percent of the gross project area in private
recreational rues for project residents. Such area shall be for active or
passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the
project, including swimming pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot
lots and saunas. Private recreational area requirements are in addition
to the standard park dedication requirements.
Page 8 of 22
L. Ownership. All property to be included within a RPUD development
shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal
restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance
with the approved master development plan and final site and building
plan.
M. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign
plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent
covenants.
N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering.
Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be
prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person
acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch
equals 50 feet and shall show the following:
a) boundary lines of the property with accurate
dimensions;
a) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking
lots, roads and other improvements;
b) proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals;
c) location, approximate size and common name of
existing trees and shrubs:
d) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities,
common and botanical names, size of plant materials,
root condition and special planting instructions;
e) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all
new plant material;
f) locations and details of other landscape features
including berms, fences and planter boxes;
g) details of restoration of disturbed areas inchlding areas
to be sodded and seeded;
h) location and details of irrigation systems; and
i) details and cross sections of all required screening.
Page 9 of 22
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
al All open areas of a let which are not used or improved
for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be
landscaped with a combination of deciduous and
coniferous species including overstory trees, understory
trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The
plan for landscaping shall include ground cover,
bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations,
decorative walks or other similar site design features or
materials in a quantity having a minimum value in
conformance with the following table:
Project Value
I
Minimum Landscape Value
(Including building construction, site preparation,
and site improvements)
Below $1,000,000
2.0 %of Project Value
$1,000,000 - $2.000,000
$20,000 _ 1 J0/u of Project Value in excess of
$1,000,000
$2,000,001 - $3,000,000
$30,000 - COS% of Project Value in excess
of $2,000.000
$3,000,001 - $4,000.000
$37,500 - 0.25% of Project Value in excess
of $3,000.000
Over $4,000,000
1.0 %of Project Value
In instances where healthy plant materi vls ofacceptable
species exist on a site prior to its development, the
application of the standards in this section may be
adjusted by the Cir+ to allow credit for such material,
provided that such adjustment is consistent with the
intent of this ordina :ce.
b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many
existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them
into the site plan.
Page. 10 of L2
c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or
moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous
trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'/1 inches.
Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in
height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper
of 1 %a inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks,
parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsurface
materials shall be covered with sod or = equivalent
ground cover approved by the city. This requirement
shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state.
e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of
landscaped areas, anundergro and sprinkler system shall
be provided as part of each new development, except
one and two family dwellings and additions to existing
structures which do not at least equal the floor area of
the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be
provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be
preserved in a natural state.
f) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of
trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall
maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be
used for landscaping.
Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
a) All parking lots containing over I50 stalls shall be
designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in
number and dimension as required by the City. All
landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180
square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the
safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to
the"150 stall" standard and shall be required by the city
when warranted.
Page 1 I of 22
b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape
islands, shall be reasonably distnbuted throughout the
parking lot area so as to break up expanses of caved
areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided
with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen
trees, plus ground cover. mulch and/or shrubbery as
determined appropriate by the Planning Commission.
Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate
of one tree for each 15 surfe a parking spaces provided,
or major fraction thereof Parking lot landscaping shall
be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised
concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning
Commission.
4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their
respective agents shall bejointl, and severally responsible for
the maintenance of all landscapwg in a condition presenting a
healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and
debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an
approved site or landscape plan. and which have died shall be
replaced within three months of notification by the city. .
However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine
months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather
conditions.
5. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in
height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in
height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in
accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or
landscape architect.
6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When
screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to
property are required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be
supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and
one-halftimes the value of such screening, landscaping or other
improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon
reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for
Page 12 of 22
engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with
making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit
shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit
and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one two full
growing season§ after the date of installation of the
landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security
in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such
conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the
event that construction of the project is not completed within
the time prescribed by building permits and otherapprovals, the
city may, at its option, complete the work required at the
expense of the awner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion
of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are
reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions
which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to
seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted,
the city shall require such additional security as it deems
appropriate.
Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened cr buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
Principal buildings and structures and any
building or structure accessory thereto used for
residential uses at a density of greater than 4
units per acre shall be buffered from residential
lots located in any "R" district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or
more spaces shall be buffered from streets
located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be
buffered with landscape zones.
Page 13 of 22
3. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot
lines and public roads.
4. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from
all lot lines and public roads.
5. Access roads serving multi -family buildings
shall be screened as necessary to eliminate the
impact of vehicle headlights shining toward
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape
materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally
harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms
shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be
designed to employ materials which provide an
effective visual barrier during all seasons.
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on
the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or
structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall
be located on any public right-rf--way or within eight
feet of the traveled portion of a.:y street or highway.
d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be
of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this
section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over
storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from
higher adjacent properties orbuildings may be requierd.
Height of plantings required under this section shall be
measured at the time of installation.
O. Architectural Standards.
It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly
when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site
and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City
Page 14 of 22
to promote high standards of architectural design and
compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods.
Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other
qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the
following for all structures other than single family detached
dwellings:
a) elevations of all sides of the building;
b) type and color of exterior building materials;
c) a typical floor plan;
d) dimensions of all structures;
e) the location of trash and recycling containers and of
heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
2. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and
unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for
residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction
shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory
buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally
enhanced block or concrete panels.
3. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with
principal structures.
4. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be ful iy enclosed
or screened so as to be not visible with materials compatible
with the principal structure.
5. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and
substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shal I
mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre -renovation
value of the structure).
Page 15 of 22
P. Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications
and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions
may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily
governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets,
utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in
compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it
finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not
required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety
or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area or the
city as a whole.
Q. Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared
by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential
traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of
roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved
only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately
mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand
management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate
measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to
road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all
necessary road system improvements.
R. Building Permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any
work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD
development nor shall any work occur unless such work is in
compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD development.
S. General Regulations Applicability. The requirements contained in
this ordinance pertaining to general regulations for residential districts
and performance standards shall apply to a RPUD development as
deemed appropriate by the city.
Subd. 6. Review of Application; Procedures.
A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a
RPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may
submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning
Page 16 of 22
commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional
but is highly recommended for large RPUDs. In order for the review
to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain
such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this
information should include the following:
1) approximate building and road locations;
2) height, bulk and square footage of buildings;
3) type and square footage of specific land uses;
4) number of dwelling units;
5) generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled
and preserved; and
6) staging and timing of the development.
The comments of the planning commission and city council shall
address the consistency of the concept plan with this section. The
comments of the planning commission and city council shall be for
guidance only and, ifpositive, shall not be considered binding upon the
planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal
RPUD application when submitted.
B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to
RPUD and approval of a master development plan shall Lie subject to
the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning map
amendment. The masterdevelopment plan shall contain the following:
1) building location, height, bulk and square footage;
2) type and square footage of specific land uses;
3) number of dwelling units;
4) detailed street and utility locations and sizes;
5) parking layout;
6) drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and
water storage areas;
7) grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot
contours;
8) generalized landscape plan;
9) generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting;
10) plan for timing and phasing of the development;
11) covenants or other restrictions proposed for the
regulation of the development; and
12) renderings or elevations of all sides of buildings to be
constructed in the first phase of the development.
Pnge 17 of 22
Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the
previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of
the property to RPUD. After rezoning of the property to RPUD,
nothing shall be constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance
with the approved plans and this section. The procedure for
notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall
be the same as required for a zoning map amendment by this ordinance.
Development AgreementrFinancial Guarantee. Following the approval
of the Master Development Plan but prior to final plan approval, the
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City relating to the
terms of the RPUD development, and shall also provide such financial
guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. Such agreement
may take the form of: 1) a development contract; and/or 2) a Site
Improvement Performance Agreement; and/or 3) another form of
binding instrument as may be required by the City.
C. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of final site and building plan
for the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject
to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building
plan shall contain information as required by the city, including the
following:
1) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans;
2) detailed building elevations end floor plans; and
3) detailed landscaping, sigr and lighting plans.
D. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved master devclopment plan.
Substantial compliance shall mean;
1) buildings, parking areas and roads are in substantially
the same location as previously approved;
2) the number of residential living units has not increased
or decreased from that approved in the master
development plan;
3) the gross floor area of any individual building has not
been increased from that approved in the master
development plan;
Page 18 of 22
4) there has been no increase in the number of stories in
any building;
5) open space has t,ot been decrtased or altered to change
its original design or intended use; a,td
6) all special conditions required on the master
development plan by the city have been incorporated
into the final site mid building plan.
Approw I of a final site and building plan shall signify approval of all
plans necessary prior to application for a building permit, subject to
conformance with any conditions on the approval and subject to other
necessary approvals by the city.
E. Simultaneous Review. Applicants may combine the final site and
building plan review with the master development plan review by
submitting all information required for both stages simultaneously.
F. Basis For Approval; Conditions. In v. aluating a site and building plan,
the planning commission and lily council shall base their
recommendations and actions regarding approval of a RPIJD on a
consideration of the following:
1) compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and
consistency with the goals. policies, and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water
Management Plan;
2) preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest
extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal
and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general character and appearance of neighboring
properties;
3) creation of compatible relationships between buildin^s
and open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it,
incorporating natural site features and with existing and
future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development, giving special attention to:
Page 19 of 22
a) an internal sense of order for the buildings mid
uses on the site and provision of a desirable
environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community;
b) the amount and location of open space and
landscaping;
c) materials, textures, colors and details of
construction as at, expression of the design
concept and the compatibility of the samc with
the adjacent and ne ghboring structures and
uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation,
including walkways, interiordrives and parking
in terms of location and number access points to
the public streets, width of interior drives and
access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
and arrangement and amount of parking.
4) promotion of energy conservation through design,
location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use
and location of glass in structures and the use of
landscape materials and site grading;
5) protection of adjacent and neighboring properties
through reasonable provisions for surface water
drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
views, light and air and those aspects of design not
adequately covered by other regulations which may
have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.; and
6) such other factors w the planning commission or city
council deem relevant.
The planning commission and city council may attach such conditions
to their actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to
better accomplish the purposes of this section.
Page 20 of 22
Subd. 7. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a fin I site and
building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of
the property within a RPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the
RPUD zoning map amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of tine
has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification
at the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the
comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved
master development plan shall remain the legal control governing development ofthe property
included within the RPUD.
If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not
started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building
plan was approved or if building construction in a phase of a RPUD approved to be built in
phases has not started within this period or if within that period no extension of the time has
been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at
the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the
comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of rezoning, the approved
master development plan and final site and building plan shall remain the legal control
governing development of the property included within the RPUD.
Subd.8. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan
may be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The
notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for
approval of the original RPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
a) substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads;
b) increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units;
c) increases the gross floor area of any individual building ;
d) increases the number of stories of any building;
e) decreases the amour. of open space or alters it in such a way as to
change its original design or intended use; or
t) creates non-compliance with any special condition attached to the
approval of the master development plan.
.My other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote
of the Council.
Page 21 of 22
Subd. 9. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any residential PUD or PRD
which has received preliminary or final approval by the city council prior to the effective date
of this ordinance unless such is requested by the property owner and approved by the city
council."
Section 2. Adoption and Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in The
Pioneer and The Laker newspapers, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 12th day of February, 2001 by a
vote of _ayes and _nays.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
Page 22 of 22
im
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES
ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 10 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 10.33,
RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The following is the official summary of Ordinance No.__, Second Series approved by the City
Council of the City of Orono on February 12, 2001.
Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10 is amended by adding Section 10.33, RPUD Residential Planned
Unit Development District, to read as follows:
-SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Subd.l. Purpose. The purpose ofthe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential
housing goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan ('CMP' or
'Comprehensive Plan'). The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and
types of residential development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of
the Planned Unit Development concept. The RPUD District will encourage the following:
A. Flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize
new techniquesofbuilding design, construction and land development;
B. provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate
cost housing needs;
C. energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs
and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses;
D. preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and
protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes,
poor soils and trees;
E. high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land
uses, including both existing and planned;
F. sensitive development in transitional areas located between different
land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and
G. development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 1 of 5
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the RPUD District, no land or structures shall be
used except for one or more of the following uses:
A. Any'Permitted Use' as regulated in the R-IA District.
B. Multi -family attached dwellings only when consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and only within the areas of the Cin. designated
as Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the RPUD district, no land or structure shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
A. Public Service Structures.
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within the RPUD District the following uses shall be a
permitted accessory use:
A. Any accessory use except for "Roadside Stands" as regulated in the R-
lA District.
B. Privately owned buildings to be used for recreation or social purposes,
or for use as storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish.
Subd. S.
Development Standards. Within the RPUD District all development shall
be in compliance
with the following standards which are detailed in the ordinance:
A.
Minimum Site Area; Shoreland District Prohibition.
B.
Specified Uses Per Comprehensive Plan.
C.
Sewer Availability.
D.
Density.
E.
Incentives for Consistency with Comprehensive Plan.
F.
Site Coverage.
G.
Development Standards for Attached and Multi -Family Dwelling
Structures.
H.
Development Standards for Single -Family Detached Dwellings in the
RPUD District.
1.
Mom Than One Building Allowed.
J.
Single Housing Type Permitted.
K.
Private Recreational Area.
L.
Ownership.
M.
Signage.
N.
Landscaping, Screening and Buffering.
O.
Architectural Standards
P.
Flexibility.
Page 2 of 5
Q. Traffic Studies
R. Building Permits.
S. General Regulations Applicability.
Subd. 6. Review of Application; Procedures.
A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a
RPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may
submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning
commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional
but is highly recommended for large RPUDs. In order for the review
to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain
such specific information as listed in this ordinance. The comments of
the planning commissionand city council shall address the consistency
ofthe concept plan with this section, but shall be for guidance only and
shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city
council.
B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to
RPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to
the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning map
amendment. The master development plan shall contain detailed site
design plans per the list of submittals appearing in this ordinance.
Approval of the masterdevelopment plan shall indicate approval of the
listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the
property to RPUD. After rezoning of the property to RPUD, nothing
shall be constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance with the
approved plans and this section. Following the approval of the Master
Development Plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall
enter into an agreement with the City relating to the terms of the RPUD
development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees m the
City requires or deems necessary.
C. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of final site and building plan
for the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject
to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building
plan shall contain information as required by the city, as specified in
this ordinance.
Page 3 of 5
D. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved masterdevelopment plan per
the standards for substantial compliance as enumerated in the
ordinance. Approval of a final site and building plan shall signify
approval of all plans necessay prior to application for a building
permit, subject to conformance with any conditions on the approval
and subject to other necessary approvals by the city.
E. Simultaneous Review. Applicants may combine the final site and
building plan review with the master development plan review b%
submitting all information required for both stages simultaneously.
F. Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan,
the planning commission and city council shall base their
recommendations and actions regarding approval of a RPUD on a
consideration of compatibility of the proposed plan with this section
and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water
Management Plan; preservation of the site in its natural state to the
greatest extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and
designing grade changes to be compatible with surroundings; creation
ofcompatible relationships between buildings and open spaces both on
the site and adjacent to it, incorporating natural site features and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development, giving special attention to specified characteristics;
promotion ofenergy conservation through design, location, orientation
and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures
and the use of landscape materials and site grading; protection of
adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views,
light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by
other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.; and such other factors as the planning commission or ciq
council deem relevant. The planning commission and city council may
attach such conditions to their actions as they shall determine necessary.'
or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section.
Page 4 of 5
Subd. 7. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a final site and
building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of
the property within a RPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the
RPUD zoning map amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of time
has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification
at the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the
c� mprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved
master development plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property
included within the RPUD.
Subd. g. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan
may be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The
notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for
approval of th , original RPUD.
Subd. 9. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any residential PUD or PRO
which has received preliminary or final approval by the city council prior to the effective date
of this ordinance unless such is requested by the property owner and approved by the city
council."
A printed copy of Ordinance No. , Second Series in its entirety is available for
inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours.
This ordinance becomes effective immediately upon publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 12th day of February, 2001 by a
vote of _ayes and _nays.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
Page 5 of
C
To: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
Date: January 10, 2001
Subject: 92631 Zoning Code Amendment -
Add "Residential Plumed Unit Development (RPUD) District"
List of Exhibits
A - RPUD Ordinance 5" Draft (1/9/01)
Review Process Summary
The first draft of the RPUD ordinance was briefly reviewed by Planning Commission at the October
16 meeting at which a public hearing was held; no public comments were forthcoming, and the item
was tabled to the Commission's October I8'" work session.
On October 18 Planning Commission discussed the amendment in general terms and after a brief
review, concluded that each member should review the draft and forward comments to staff.
The V draft was reviewed at the November 20" PC meeting, a number of concerns were raised and
suggestions made for revisions, and the item was tabled for further review at an upcoming work
session. It was further reviewed at the PC work session of December 4, where additional suggested
revisions were made. The V draft was further reviewed by the joint Planning Commission and
Council on December 7 after discussions with Frank Dunbar regarding his proposed development.
A 3i0 draft was created December 8, incorporating all comments and suggestions to date. This was
not on the Council's agenda for December 11; however, discussions on December I 1 related to the
Dunbar development resulted in a staff incorporating some additional minor revisions.
The 4ih draft was reviewed by Planning Commission at a work session on January 5, resulting in
additional suggested language changes and clarifications.
Review of 5" Draft
The 5 ° (and perhaps final?) draft is attached as Exhibit A. All revisions since the 4" draft are in
underline/sti keeut format. The most recent revisions include:
(Subd. 5A, Page 3) Prohibition of RPUD in Shoreland District, with clarification of the
extent of the District and an editorial note regarding potential applicability of RPUD in
certain Shoreland areas.
RPUD Ordinance
January 10, 2001
Page 2
(Subd. 5G, Page 6) Height limitation of 2-1/2 stories or 30' for residentially guided
properties, 3 story maximum for residential building in commercially guided areas, and an
editorial note regarding Council's total discretion to deny a rezoning and/or attach conditions
to approvals.
(Subd. 5K, Page 9) Significant revision to intent of Park Dedication requirements. This
section is re -titled as "Private Recreational Area". The language requiring 8% of gross lot
area dedicated to private recreational areas is changed to 10%, primarily to ?:,tinguish it
from the Park Fee, which should be considered as a separate concept. 'i ne editorial note
suggesting the private recreational area is in lieu of park fee is dropped, and code language
indicating the private rec area is in addition to the standard Park Dedication requirement, is
added. An editorial note is also added, noting that in Minnetonka's code (which was used as
a template for the RPUD ordinance) the Park Dedication requirements we in addition to the
private rec area, but the dollar amounts for park fees in Minnetonka are significantly less
than Orono's. A note is also added suggesting some revisions to Orono's Park Dedication
requirements: 1) to allow council to waive park dedication for City -assisted projects or
projects with a public purpose; and 2) to cap the park fee at 8% of land fair market value for
higher density residential projects where the park fee per unit may greatly exceed 8% of the
per unit land value.
• (Subd. 5N, Page 11) The Minimum Landscape Value rates have been revised to result in a
pro -rated value throughout each range, so that the project value to landscape value scale is
more linear.
• (Subd. SN Item 70, Page 14) Added language clarifying that parking facilitie; shall be
buffered with landscape zones.
• (Subd. 6B, Page 18) Language has been added to require Development Agreement and
Financial Gu-rantee.
• (Subd. 61), Page 19) Revised language regarding 'substantial compliance' to omit the 5%
and 10% revision allowances.
• (Subd.8, Page 21) Revised language regarding'major amendments' to omit the 5%and 10%
allowances.
RPUD Ordinance
January 10, 2001
Page 3
Staff Recommendation
This 5' draft of the RPUD ordinance has been reviewed on a number of occasions, and revised in
response to the comments and concerns indicated by the Planning Commission. The proposed
ordinance provides a zoning district that allows for the types of higher density residential
development that is intended in the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. A future amendment to the
ordinance could be considered if Planning Commission and Council would wish to have the
ordinance applicable to Shoreland properties under certain circumstances, such as clustering under
currently zoned/planned densities.
If the current draft meets the Planning Commission's goals and objectives, a recommendation to the
Council for approval would be appropriate.
l7
RPUD OUTLINE
January 24, 2001
SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPAfENT DISTRICT.
Subd.
1.
Purpose.
Subd.
2.
Permitted Uses.
Subd.
3.
Conditional Uses.
Subd.
4.
Accessory Uses.
Subd.
5.
Development Standards.
A. Minimum Area; Shoreland District Prohibition.
B. Uses.
C. Sewer Availability.
D. Density.
E. Incentives.
F. Site Coverage.
G. Development Standards for Attached and Multi -Family Dwelling Structures.
H. Development Standards for Single -Family Detached Dwellings in the RPUD District
I. More Than One Building Allowed.
J. Single Housing Type Permitted.
K. Private Recreation Area.
L. Ownership.
M. Signage.
N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering.
O. Architectural Standards.
P. Flexibility.
Q. Traffic Studies.
R. Building Permits.
S. General Regulations Applicability,
Subd.
6.
Review of Application; Procedures.
A. Concept Plan Review,
B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning.
C. Final Site and Building Plan.
D. Substantial Compliance.
E. Simultaneous Review.
F. Basis For Approval; Conditions.
Subd.
7.
Term of Approval.
Subd.
8.
Amendments.
Subd.
9.
Exceptions.
RPUD Ordinance - 5'4 Draft January 9, 2001 Page 1
Note: Underlined language reflects additions since the 4th Draft dated 12-18-00
SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential housing
goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan ('CMP' or'Comprehensive
Plan'). The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and types of residentiai
development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of the Planned Unit
Development concept. The RPUD District will encourage the following:
A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new
techniques of building design, construction and land development;
B. provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost
housing needs;
C. energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and
sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses;
D. preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection
of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and
trees;
E. high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses,
including both existing and planned;
F. sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land
uses and along significant corridors within the city; and
G. development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the RPUD District, no land or structures shall be used
except for one or more of the following uses:
A. Any 'Permitted Use' as regulated in the R-IA District.
Ed. Note: this Includes one -family single dwellings; public ownedparks and playgrounds; and municipal
B. Multi -family attached dwellings only when consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and only within the areas of the City designated as
Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
RPUD Ordinance - 5'" Draft January 9, 2001 Page 2
Subd.3. Conditional Uses. Within the RPUD district, no land or structure shall be used for
the following uses except by conditional use permit:
(Ed Note. Conditional User listed in the R-IA District nclude Schools; Churches; Clubs, Camps, etc.; Public
ServiceStruclures; Greenhouses; PrirateRecteallonAreas; Guest Houses & GuarApartmems; PRD's; Duplex
credit; Farm, Animals; Stables and Barns; Riding Academy; Plumbing In Accessory Buildings None of the
wnditionalusalWedin tlicR-IADbMctconcepnmllyf itnto d,eRPUDDistriey escepiperhaps PublieService
Structures).
A. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited
to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations,
boosterorpressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated
tanks, lift stations and electrical powersubstations, provided no building shall
be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District.
Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of
service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be
located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures
as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public
hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use
permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards
set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design
and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to
all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended
plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial
broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service
structures. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall be reviewed for
compliance with the PUD master development plan and with the applicable
conditional use permit standards of this ordinance. Uses allowed by
conditional use permit shall also be subject to site and building plan review
pursuant to this ordinance.
Subd.4. Accessory Uses. Within the RPUD District the following uses shall be a permitted
accessory use:
A. Any accessory use except for "Roadside Stands' as regulated in the R-1A
Distr,.
B. Privately owned buildings to be used for recreation or social purposes, or for
use as storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9,2001 Page 3
Subd. 5. Development Standards. Within the RPUD District all development shall be in
compliance with the following:
A. Minimum Area; Shoreland District Prohibition. Each site proposed for
rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas
within a designated wetland, floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way,
unless the Council finds the existence of one of the following:
1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding
neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a
physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or
community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from
property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned
residential development and will be perceived as and will function as
an extension of that previously approved development;
3. The property is located in an area where the proposed development
provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an
existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as
defined in the comprehensive plan;
4. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of
significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of
buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the
existing zoning district.
No site located within the defined Shoreland Overlay District (areas within
1 mm0' of designated lakes and within 300' of designated tributaries l shall be
rezoned to RPUD.
Ed Note. There may be specific arm within the Shoreland District where RPUD zoning world be
appropriate and result In a better development lean could be allowed under standard zoning. For example,
clustering ofshrgfe fam* homesfurther from rise laheshore than might occur under standard zoning, and at
up, overall density marching the underlying zoning. Planning Commission and Council may wish to re-vslt
this Prohibition /n the fulum..
B. Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses
for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the
city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated for commercial use
i''the City Council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and
is consistent with the requirements of this section.
RPUD Ordinance - V Draft January 9, 2001 Pace 4
If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may forward a copy
of the request to the Metropolitan Council for review.
(Ed. Note. Many ofthe uses allowed as conditional uses In residential Zoning districts, cannot be placed In
areas of the City whlth are designated residential In the CAM; for Instance, only properties currently
containing schools or churches are designated In the CMP as Institutional rather than residential. The result
Is that anv esbting site that is designated Residential In rile CAIP cannot be converted to an Institutional Use
inch as a church or school use, without a CMP amendment-)
C. Sewer Availability. A site proposed to be rezoned to RPUD with proposed
density greater than 1 unit per 2 acres must be in the MUSA and must be
serviced by municipal sewer.
D. Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within
the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the specific site. If the site
is not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for residential use, the
appropriate density shall be determined by the City based upon the City
Council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of this
ordinance and of the Comprehensive Plan. Developments with proposed
densities in excess of the densities contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan
shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for
commercial use, in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas
zoned and guided for residential use.
E. Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of
projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may
include modification of density (only for properties currently zoned and
guided for commercial use) and floor area ratio requirements for
developments providing lifecycle housing and affordable and moderate cost
housing. Incentives for affordable and moderate cost housing may be
approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an
agreement to ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available to
persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of time.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft Januan 9, 2001 Page 5
Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages and floor area ratios (FAA's) shall be
limited as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Maximum
Maximum
Hardsurface
Floor Area
Coverage (%)
Ratio•
Low or medium density residential
50
0.5
(up to and including 6.0 units per acre)
High density residential
70
1.0
(in excess of 6.0 units per acre)
-FAR a Total Building Floor Area I Total Lot Area
Individual lots within a development in the RPUD district ma}exceed these
standards as long as the average meets these standards.
G. Development Standards for Attached and Multi -Family Dwelling
Structures. Each site rezoned to RPUD and developed for attached or
multiple family dwelling uses shall be subject to the foilowing standards:
Setbacks and Separation of Uses. R ithin the RPUD district the
setback for all attached and multi -family dwelling buildings and their
accessory buildings from any bordering or abutting street line shall be
35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines or collector or
arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan. except that
in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building.
The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD site lot lines not
abutting a public street shall be 35 feet except that in no case shall the
setback be less than the height of the building. Building setbacks
from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on
characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Parking lots and driving
lanes shall he set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a
RPUD site. The setback for parking structures including decks and
ramps shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other
street classifications except that in no case shall the setback be less
than the height of the structure. Parking stmcture setbacks from
external lot lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure,
whichever is greater when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet
when adjacent to non-residential properties. Parking structure
RPLTD Ordinance - Sa Draft January 9, 2001 Pape 6
setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by
the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Where
industrial uses abut developed or platted single family lots outside the
RPUD site, greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be
required in order to provide effective screening. The City Council
shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening
proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural
topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and
other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide
separation of uses.
Property rezoned to RPUD shall be considered a residential district
for purposes of determining building and parking setback
requirements on adjacent high density residential, commercial and
industrial property outside the RPUD.
2. Height Limitations. For properties guided for residential use in the
Comprehensive Plan, a building height limit of 2-1/2 stories or 30
feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided in the
Comprehensive Plan for commercial use, height may not exceed 3
stories (not including underground parking level) and shall maintain
a residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof
structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple family buildings will
be allowed.
U.. Non: With regards to building height and other performance standards, remember that because
drWepment We the RPUD standards It a retuning and* Planned Unit Dn-elopment process, the Council has
total discretion to dany the nroning for any proposal that the Councll frets is Inappropriate, and can attach to
ltr approeai whatever conditions It feels are appropriate...
}, Outside Storage Limitations. Outside storage of building materials,
recreational vehicles, boats, RV's. snowmobiles, and other items of
personal property shall not be stored outside within any site used for
attached or multi -family uses.
RPUD Ordinance - S" Draft Januan 9 2001 Page 7
C. Development Standards for Single -Family Detached Dwellings in the
RPUD District. Each RPUD site developed for single family detached
dwellings at medium density (i.e. densities ranging from I unit per acre to 6
units per acre) shall be subject to the following standards:
Permitted locations: In areas of the City where smaller single family
detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to preserve significant
natural features, or in areas where a mixture of higher density
attached dwellings and lower density detached single family
dwellings will result in a development that does not exceed the
overall guided density.
(Ed. Note - Example 1: A 10-acre area guided for I -acre SFR could have 10 individual 113 acre lots
clustered at one corner, leaving 213 of the site in its natural state for open space. E.campl. 1: A 10-
acre area guided for up to 0 units per acre could have a mix of SFR and townhome lots, for
instance - 20 SFR units at 15,000 s f. per lot (6.9 acres total) and 20 townhomes on 2,000 s f.
individual ownership pads with 2.2 acres commons area)
2. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 s.f.
3. Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet.
4. Minimum lot depth: 125 feet.
5. Minimum front vard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within the
RPUD site. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35 feet must
be provided on local streets and 50 foot setback on collector or
arterial streets as defined in the Comprehensive Pian.
6. Minimum side)wdsetback: 10 feetalong interior lot lines; 15 feeton
lot lines along the exterior of the RPUD site. Side yards abutting
streets must meet the minimum front yard setbacks as noted above.
7. Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the depth of
the lot, whichever is less.
8. Building height: maximum of 30 feet or 2-1/2 stories.
RPUD Ordinance - 51° Draft January 9, 2001 Page 8
9. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depth
of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwelling
units, including manufactured homes, shall have a width of at least 20
feet for at least 50 percent of their depth.
10. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with
the Minnesota State Building Code.
11. Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established for
principal structures, except as follows:
A. all accessory structures located more than 10 feet from a
principal structure may be located a minimum of 10 feet from
a rear or side lot line, when that line does not abut a street
right-of-way.
B. no accessory structure shall be located closer to the front lot
line than the principal structure, regardless of the principal
structure setback.
12. No accessory structure shall occupy more than 30 percent of the side
or rear yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1,000 square feet in
area, nor exceed 12 feet in height.
13. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for each
single family dwelling. A suitable location for a garage measuring at
least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall be provided and
indicated as such on a survey or site plan to be submitted when
applying fora building permit to construct anew dwelling or alter an
existing garage.
More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be placed
on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD site.
J. Single Housing Type Permitted. Any RPUD development which involves
a single housing type shall be permitted provided that it is otherwise
consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Paae 9
K. Pat It Private Recreational Area. Each RPUD development
shall provide a minimum of 10 percent of the gross project area in private
recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or
passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the resident.: of the project,
including swimming pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots and
saunas. Private recreational area requirements are in addition to the standard
nark dedication requirements.
Ed. Note 1-9-1001: Planning Commission has suggested that the required private recreation areas should
not be credited toward the Park Dedication requirements. The Private Recreation Area language is from the
Minnetonka Zoning Code, and is In addition to their Park Dedication requirement of 10% of lite land area or
(at Council option) a park fee. Minnetonka's park fees are unrelated to the value of the land, and compare
with Orono's park fret as follows:
Single dwelling
Townhome, duplex or multi -unit building
Otlict/Indmtrial
Commercial
Orono
Minnetonka
$3,100-S,300
S550
53JWS,300/unit
S500/unit
$7,750-13,250/acre $3,000/acre
S7,750-13,250/acre S2,400/acre
Orono may wish to consider amending Its park dedication ordinance to include a park fee waiver for certain
types alprojects, .similar to this section of Minnetonka's ordinance:
•4n0.030.7 The city council, at its discretion, may waive or reduce the requirements of this section
s, hen the subdivision includes a city -assisted development or redevelopment area or achieves some
other public purpose and the requirements would create a financial hardship for the project."
A second suggested amendment to thepark dedication requirements B Intended to keep park fees from
getting unreasonably high for higher density rerldential pro/ecn. The City should consider capping the per-
onli park fet at 8% of the per -unit land cost for all development where the minimum pork fee of $3100 per
unit exceeds 8%oflheper-unit land rots. Although an argument can be made that higher density
development has similar park needs and impacts as lower density, the relationship of park Impact feu to land
value gets very disproportionate under higher density development.
For example, a /0-acre site with, an approved density of 6 units per acre or 60 total units may have a land
value of, say, $3. 50 per square foot, or S/.3 million. At 8%, the park fee wouldbe about SI20,000 or S2000
per wilt. But wilt, Orono's SHOO minimum per unit. One park fees would amount to $186,000 or about 11%
of tine land value. It can generally be assumed that In Orono, development of single family 1-acre and 5-acre
lots will have land costs high enough that rite maximum park fee of S5300 per unit almost always kicks In
and developers will be paying less than 8% In park fees. The balance between land cost and unit density will
determine One actual percentage In each case (see Table "Park Fee Analysis: Density es Land Cml 1
RPUD Ordinance - 5's Draft January 9, 2001 Page 10
L. Ownership. All property to be included within a RPUD development shall
be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or
covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved
master development plan and final site and building plan.
M. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan
approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants.
N. Landscaping, Screening and Buttering.
Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared
by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the
City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and
shall show the following:
a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
a) locations of existing oral proposed buildings, parking lots,
roads and other improvements;
b) proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals;
c) location, approximate size and common time of existing
trees and shrubs;
d) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common
and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition
and special planting instructions;
e) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new
plant material;
f) locations and details of other landscape features including
berms, fences and planter boxes;
g) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be
sodded and seeded;
h) location and details of iri¢ation systems and
i) details and cross sections of all required screening.
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of a lot wbich arc not used or improved for
required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped
with a combination of deciduous and conifero� stxcies
including overstery trees. understory trees, shrubs, flowers
and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall
include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture,
RPUD Ordinance - Sa Draft January 9, 2001 Pace 11
foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design
features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in
conformance with the following table:
Project Value
(Including building construction, site preparation,
and site Improvements)
iinimam Landscape Value
Below $1,000,000
2.0 % of Project Value
SI,000,000 - S2,000,000
I.? %S20.000 + 1 % of Project Value in
excess of S 1.000. 000
$2,000,001-$3,000,000
}:4%S30.000+0,75%of Project Value in
excess of S2.000.000
S3,000,001 - S4,000,000
1.151 $37.500+0.25% of Project Value in
excess of S3,000,000
Over S4,000,000
1.0 % of Project Value
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable
species exist on a sitepriorto its development, the application
of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to
allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment
is consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many
existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into
the site plan.
c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or
moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees
shall have a minimum caliper of 2'Fi inches. Coniferous trees
shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees
shall have a minimum caliper of I Y. inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking
lots, driveways, patios, or similar herdsurface materials shall
be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved
by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas
retained in a natural state.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Page 12
e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped
areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as
part of each new development, except one and two family
dwellin¢s and additions to existing structures which do not at
least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler
system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas
to be preserved in a natural state.
Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees
shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a
list of prohibited species which shall not be used for
landscaping.
EdNole: Keep a separate schedule ofprohlbited species such as this:
No required tree shall be one of the following:
1) a species of the genus (Amur (elm), except those ehns bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease:
1) box elder;
3) a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or
Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed
to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and
dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall
contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are
necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic
shall not be subject to the "ISO stall' standard and shall be
required by the city when warranted. ,
b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall
be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as
to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape
areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees,
ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch
and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning
Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at
the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces
provided, or major fraction thereof Parking lot landscaping
RPITD Ordinance - S" Draft January 9, 2001 Page 13
shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised
concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning
Commission.
4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their
respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,
neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants
and ground coverwhich are required by an approved site or landscape
plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of
notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be
extended up to nine months l _ the city in order to allow for seasonal
or weather conditions.
5. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and
staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve
more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect.
6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening,
landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required
by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in
an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such
screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit
shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by
the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection
with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit
shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and
shall be valid for a period of time equal to one tva full growing
season] after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may
accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an
amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be
appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not
completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other
approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at
the expense of the awner and the surrty.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all
landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Page 14
beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not
exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather
conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such
additional security as it deems appropriate.
7. Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
1. Principal buildings and structures and my building or
structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at
a density of greater than 4 units per acre shall be
buffered from residential lots located in any "R"
district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more
spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50
feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with
landscape zones.
3. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and
public roads.
4. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot
lines and public roads.
5. Access roads serving multi -family buildings shall be
screened as necessary to eliminate the impact of
vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences,
walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All
walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the
principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of
3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which
provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Page 15
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be
screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any
public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion
of any street or highway.
d) Screening or buffering required b'y this section shall be of a
height needed to accomplish the goals of this section.
Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage, trash or
mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties
or buildings may be requierd. Height of plantings required
under this section shall be measured at the time of
installation.
O. Architectural Standards.
It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when
reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building
plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high
standards of architectural design and compatibiliq' with surrounding
structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared
by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and
shall show the following for all structures other than single family
detached dwellings:
a) elevations of all sides of the building;
b) type and color of exterior building materials;
c) a typical floor plan;
d) dimensions of allsttuctu:es;
e) the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
RPUD Ordinance - S° Draft January 9, 2001 Page 16
2. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished
metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential
principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all
principal structures and to all accessory buildings. The city may, at
its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete
panels.
3. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal
structures.
4. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior
hash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed or screened
so as to be not visible with materials compatible with the principal
structure.
Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially
renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the
renovations exceed 30%of the pre -renovation value of the structure).
P. Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and
standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be
subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them.
The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and
land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or
ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or
requirements is not required to meet the intent of Otis section or to protect the
health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area
or the city as a whole.
Q. Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a
registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic
impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways attd
intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent
upon atraffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The
play may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit
facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and
necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the
responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Pace 17
R. Building Permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work
on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD development nor
shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or
approved RPUD development.
S. General Regulations Applicability. The requirements contained in this
ordinance pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and
performance standards shall apply to a RPUD development as deemed
appropriate by the city.
Subd. 6. Review of Application; Procedures.
A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a RPUD
prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a
concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city
council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended
for large RPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant,
the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by
the city. Generally. this information should include the following:
I) approximate building and road locations;
2) height, bulk and square footage of buildings;
3) type and square footage of specific land uses;
4) number of dwelling units;
5) generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and
preserved; and
6) staging and timing of the development.
The comments of the planning commission and city council shall address the
consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the
planning commission and city council shall be for guidance only and, if
positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or
city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when
submitted.
B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to RPUD
and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures
outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning map amendment. The master
development plan shall contain the following:
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Paae 18
l) building location, height, bulk and square footage;
2) type and square footage of specific land uses;
3) number of dwelling units;
4) detailed street and utility locations and sizes;
5) parking layout;
6) drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water
storage areas;
7) grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot contours;
8) generalized landscape plan;
9) generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting;
10) plan for timing and phasing of the development;
11) covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of
the development; and
12) renderings or elevations of all sides of buildings to be
constructed in the first phase of the development.
Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the
previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the
property to RPUD. After rezoning of the property to RPUD, nothing shall he
constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans
and Uris section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the
master development plan shall be the some as required for a zoning map
amendment by this ordinance.
VLY 1 •II I :1• 11, l: J° 1 1
i'A1.11i i1im1.1� 11l .I `1 1` 1' ! 1-11- Il•
J �
C. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for
the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject to the
procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall
contain information as required by the city, including the following:
1) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans;
2) detailed building elevations and floor plans; and
3) detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Page 19
D. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved master development plan.
Substantial compliance shall mean:
1) buildings, parking areas and roads are in substantially the
same location as previously approved;
2) the number of residential living units has not increased or
decreased bymm, thin, 3percen from that approved in the
master development plan;
3) the gross floor area of any individual building has not been
increased by niore thm 10 increcii from that approved in the
master development plan;
4) there has been no increase in the number of stories in any
building;
5) open space has not been decreased or altered to change its
original design or intended use; and
6) all special conditions required on the master development
plan by the city have been incorporated into the final site and
building plan.
Approval of a final site and building plan shall signify approval of all plans
necessary prior to application for a building permit, subject to conformance
with any conditions on the approval and subject to other necessary approvals
by the city.
E. Simultaneous Review. Applicants may combine the final site and building
plan review with the master development plan review by submitting all
information required for both stages simultaneously.
Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the
planning commission and city council shall base their recommendations and
actions regarding approval of a RPUD on a consideration of the following:
1) compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and
consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan;
2) preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest
extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and
designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
character and appearance of neighboring properties;
RPUD Ordinance - 51° Draft January 9, 2001 Paste 20
3) creation of compatible relationships between buildings and
open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating
natural site features and with existing and future buildings
having a visual relationship to the development, giving
special attention to:
a) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses
on the site and provision of a desirable environment
for occupants, visitors and the general community;
b) the amount and location of open space and
landscaping;
c) materials, textures, colors and details of construction
as an expression of the design concept and the
compatibility of the same with the adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior
drives and parking in terms of location and number
access points to the public streets, width of interior
drives and access points, general interior circulation.
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
arrangement and amount of parking.
4) promotion of energy conservation through design, location.
orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of
glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site
grading;
5) protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and
sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.:
and
6) such other factors as the planning commission or city council
deem relevant.
The planning commission and city council may attach such conditions to their
actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish
the purposes of this section.
RPUD Ordinance - 5" Draft January 9, 2001 Page 21
Subd. 7. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a final site and building
plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the property
within a RPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the RPUD zoning map
amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of time has been granted, the city
council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD
application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the
property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved master development plan shall remain the legal
control governing development of the property included within the RPUD.
If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not
started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was
approved or if building construction in a phase of a RPUD approved to be built in phases has not
started within this period or if within that period no extension of the time has been granted, the city
council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD
applicarion or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the
property. In the absence of rezoning, the approved master development plan and final site and
building plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within
the RPUD.
Subd. 8. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan may
be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The notification and
public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original
RPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
a) substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads;
b) increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units bri rorethan
Spercen;
c) increases the gross Floor area of any individual building by— 01C th= 10
1eteent;
d) increases the number of stories of any building;
e) decreases the amount of open space by —OLCHIOU1511erce11t or alters it in such
a way as to change its original design or intended use; or
f) creates non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval
of the master development plan.
Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the
ptarmirtgcemmisaion Council.
RPUD Ordinance - S " Draft January 9, 2001 Page 22
Subd. 9. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any residential PUD or PRD which has
received preliminary or final approval by the city council prior to the effective date of this ordinance
unless such is requested by the property owner and approved by the city council.
F
Orono'ZoningDis'tncItsOverview -
Zone
Use Type(s)
SF Single Family (detached)
MF - ;,!ulti-family (attached)
Minimum Lot
Size
Maximum
Densiq'
Rural or
Urban
1. Residential Districts
R-IA One -Family Residential
SF
I acre
I unit acre
Urban
R-IB
SF
1/2 acre
2 units/acre
Urban
LR-IA Lakeshore Residential
SF
2 acres
0.5 units/acre
Rural
LR-IB
SF
I acre
I unit/acre
Urban
LR-IC
SF
1/2 acre
2 units/acre
Urban
LR-IC-1
SF
MF (limited)
1/2 acre
113 acre
2units/ acre
3 units/acre
Urban
Urban
RR -IA Rural Residential
SF
5 acres
0.2 units/acre
Rural
RR-IB
SF
2acres
0.5 units/acre
Rural
RS Seasonal Recreational
SF
5 acres
0.2 units/,crc
Rural
M-6 Multiple Family
Planned Residential
MF (max 4 units per building)
(5 acre site)
6-0 units/acre
Urban
RPUD Residential PUD
(allows SF, MF, or
a mix of SF & MF)
SF (Urban)
SF (Rural)
MF
SF/MF Mix
1/3 acre
2 acres
(5 acre site)
(5 acre site)
3 uniWecre
0.5 uniWacre
--Per CMP—
—Per CMP--
Urban
Rum]
Urban
Urban
U. Commercial Districts
B-I
Retail Sales
20,OOD sT
•-
Urban
B-2
Marinas
2 acres
---
Urban
B-3
Shopping Centers
2 acres
---
Urban
B-a
Office & Professional
20,000 sT
---
Urban
B-5
Limited Neighborhood
20,000 s.f.
--
Urban
B 6
Highway 12 Commercial
2 acres
•--
Urban
I
Indust
2 acress
---
Urban
PID
Planrial
ned Industrial
5 acre site)
Urban
IUD] . Orerlay Districts
10.52 HieMvav l2 Corridor
10.55 Flood Plain and Wetlands Consen'ation Area
10.56 Shoreland Overlay District
Development Procedural Options
Eanderd Development
Per Zoning District Standards
Per Zoning Dist
Per Zoning Dist.
UrbarJRural
10.32 PRD
Planned Residential -via CUP
(No minimum)
Per Zoning Dist.
Urban Rural
10.53 PL'D(H,vy 12 corridor only)
B-6PRD/R-IA/R-IB/M-6
Planned Unit Develo ment
(Sacrcsire)
Per Zoning Dist.
Urban
CM'&I'll sAFETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 12 2OW
Date: ClT8h0Fpaa01
Item NO.:
5�
Deparemeat Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Zoning
Name: Michael P. Gaffron�
Title: Planning Director
Item Description: #2638 Zoning Code Amendment: Revise "B-6 Highway Commercial
District" standards to incorporate more detailed landscaping and architectural standards.
List of Exhibits
A - Proposed Ordinance for Adoption
B - PC Memo and Exhibits of 1/12/01
Landscaping and Architectural Standards
The landscaping and architectural standards being incorporated into the RPUD District can be
equally applicable to the B-6CommercialDistrict. The B-6 landscaping standards currently in place
are relatively minimal, contained in Subd. 6 (H), (K), (L) and (M) as shown in Exhibit B.
The proposed standards for landscaping are shown in Exhibit A, replacing Section 10.45 Subd. 6(H).
Note that the standards in the current subsections H, K, L and M are incorporated into the new Subd.
6(H). The proposed ordinance incorporates the landscaping text revisions of the final draft of the
proposed RPUD ordinance.
The existing B-6 architectural standards in Subd. 6 are minimal as can be seen in Exhibit B. The
proposed architectural standards are shown in Exhibit A, and would replace subsections 1 and J with
a new Subd. 6(I). The proposed ordinance also incorporates the text revisions of the final draft of the
RPUD ordinance.
The proposed landscaping and architectural standards are nearly identical to those proposed for the
RPUD district. but an attempt has been made to eliminate residential use references, since the B-6
is a strictly commercial zone. Note that the office portion of the Dunbar project is being reviewed
as a rezonin¢ to B-S.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On January 17 Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment
as drafted. It was also suggested that staff encourage use of a mix of vegetation types in landscape
plans. Planning Commission also recommended that the City proceed with a public hearing at the
February PC meeting to add "Clinics" to the list of permitted uses in B-6 (see Exhibit B; this is not
part of the current ordinance amendment).
#2638 B-6 Amendment
January 29, 2001
Page 2
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed re%isions to the landscaping and architectural
standards of the B-6 District per the attached ordinance, Exhibit A.
ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 10 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 10.45, SUBDIVISION 6,
B-6 ZONING DISTRICT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 10.45, Subdivision 6 is hereby
amended by deleting subsections 6H, 61, 6J, 6K, 61, and 6M and adding new subsections 6H and 61
to read as follows:
"H. Landscaping.
1. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be required for any
proposed commer:ial site and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or
other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less
than
1 inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following:
a)
boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
b)
locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads and
other imp. ovements;
c)
proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals:
d)
location, a; proximate size and common name of existing trees and
shrubs;
e)
a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and
botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special
planting instructions;
f)
planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant
material;
g)
locations and details of other landscape features including berms,
fences and planter boxes;
h)
details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded
and seeded:
i)
location and details of irrigation systems; and
j)
details and cross sections of all required screening.
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required
parking areas, drives of storage shall be landscaped with a
combination ofdeciduous and coniferous species including overstory
trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials.
The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes,
shmbben, trees, sculp.ure, foundations, decorative walks or other
similar s::e design features or materials in a quantity having a
minimum value in conformance with the following table:
Page 1 of 6
Project Value
Minimum Landscane Value
(Including building construction, site preparation,
and site improvements)
Below SI,000,000
2.0 % of Project Value
$1,000,000 - $2,000,000
$20,000+ 1% of Project Value in excess of
$1,000,000
$2,000,001 - $3,000,000
$30,000 + 0.75% of Project Value in excess
of$2,000,000
$3,000,001 - $4,000,000
$37,500+0.25°/ of Project Value in excess
of$3,000,000
Over $4,000,000
1.0 %of Project
Value
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist
on a site prior to its development, the apppcation of the standards in
this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such
material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent
of this ordinance.
b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees
as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan.
c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from
the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a
minimum caliper of 2tF inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum
of s:x feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper
of 1 V2 inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots,
driveways, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered
with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This
requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state.
e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an
underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new
development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to
existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the
existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all
landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state.
Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be
composed of one species. The Ciry shall maintain a list of prohibited
species which shall not be used for landscaping.
Page 2 of 6
3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed to
incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as
required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum
of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe
and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the "150 stall"
standard and shall be required by the city when warranted.
b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be
reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break
up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be
provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees,
plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate
by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be
provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces
provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be
contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or
equivalent approved by the Planning Commission.
Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective
agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all
landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy. neat and orderly appearance
and free from refuse and debris. Planes and ground cover -which arc required
by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced
within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for
compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow
for seasonal or weather conditions.
2. Retaining'. ells. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged
walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4
tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered
engineer or landscape architect.
Landscaping Performance Security F-quired. When screening,
landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this
ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal
to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or
other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon
reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal,
contracting or other fies in connection with making or -completing such
improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of
any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one Dw
full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city
may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an
Pagc 3 of 6
amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be
appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed
within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city
may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the awner
and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all
landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the
control of the developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine months,
may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension
is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems
appropriate.
4. Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with
the requirements of this subdivision:
I. Principal buildings and structures and any building or
structure accessory thereto located in the B-6 zone shall be
buffered from residential lots located in any "W' district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces
shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking
facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones.
3. 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.
4. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within
the principal structure, with; n an attached structure accessible
from within the principal structure, or totally screened from
eye -level view from public streets and adjacent residential
properties.
5. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be
completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent
streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural
treatment of the principal structure.
6. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall
be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent
residential windows.
Page 4 of 6
b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls,
earth berms, hedges. or other landscape materials. All walls and
fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building.
Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be
designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual
barrier during all seasons.
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use. building, facility ur structure to be screened. No
screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or
within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway.
d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height
needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods
incorporating roofs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to
screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be required.
Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at
the time of installation.
1. Architectural Standards
It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when
reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan.
However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of
architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and
neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other
qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the following for all
structures in the B-6 District:
a) elevations of all sides of the building;
b) type and color of exterior building materials;
c) a typical floor plan:
d) dimensions of all structures:
e) the location of rash and recycling containers and of heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal
shall not be permitted as exterior materials for principal and accessory
buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all
accessory buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally
enhanced block or concrete panels.
Page 5 of 6
3. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal
structures. Accessory structures for trash and trash handling equipment shall
be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be
readily served through swinging doors.
4. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and
recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed or screened so as to not be
visible with materials compatible with the principal structure.
Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially
renovated structures (substantially renovated shalt mean when the
renovations exceed 30% of the pre -renovation value of the structurey'
Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and
The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 12th day of February, 2001 by a
vote of _ayes and _nays.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
Page 6 of 6
s
To: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moome, City Administrator V�t
From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director n.
!` A� �x p
Date: January 12, 2001 /"
Subject: #2638 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: I tA.
I) Revise "B-6 Highway Commercial District` standards to � T
incorporate mom detailed landscaping and architectural standards. (uh��
2) Revise B-6 list of allowed uses to include clinics. PC
List of Exhibits
A - Zoning Code Section 10.45 B-6 Highway Commercial District
B - Proposed Replacement Section 10.45, Subd. 6 (H) (Amended to reflect landscaping
standards in Draft 5 of RPUD Ordinance)
C - Proposed Replacement Section 10.45, Subd. 6 (1) (Amended to reflect architectural
standards in Draft 5 of RPUD Ordinance)
D - Highway 12 Corridor Excerpt from 2000-2020 CMP
E - Staff Memo I1-17-2000
Note: This item was tabled without discussion at the November PC meeting.
Landscaping and Architectural Standards
The landscaping and architectural standards being incorporated into the RPUD District can be
equally applicable to the B-6 Commercial District. The B-6landscaping standards currently inplace
are relatively minimal, contained in Subd. 6 (H), (K), (L) and (M) as follows:
K 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
Ornamental Trees
Coniferous Trees
Major Shrub Plantings
7-112 inches in diameter
1-112 inches in diameter
6 feet tall
5 gallons
1. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stared within the principal structure,
within rat attached structure accessiblefrom within the principal structure, ortotallysereenedfrom
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.
t12638 B-6 Amendment
January 12. 2001
Page 2
K The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from
contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural
treatment of the wincipal structure.
L. External loading andservice areas must be completely screenedfrom the ground level
view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access
points.
M The fight from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it
may be directed onto adjacent residential windows.
The proposed standards for landscaping are attached as Exhibit B, and would replace Section 10.45
Subd. 6(H). Note that the standards in the current subsections H, I, K, L and M are incorporated into
the new SiM. 6(H). Exhibit B incorporates the landscaping text revisions of Draft 5 ofthe proposed
RPUD ord i.mce.
The existing B-6 architectural standards in Subd. 6 include the following:
J Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas ofretaining walls
shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structwe.
The proposed architectural standards are attached as Exhibit C, and would replace subsection J with
a new Subd. 6(I). Exhibit C also incorporates the text revisions of Draft 5 of the RPUD ordinance.
The proposed landscaping and architectural standards are nearly identical to those proposed for the
RPUD district, but an attempt has been made to eliminate residential use references, since the B-6
is a strictly commercial zone. Note that the office portion of the Dunbar project is being reviewed
as a rezoning to B-6.
Add Clinic to List of B-6 Permitted Uses
During the r-view of the B-6 Section and in attempting to determine which zoning district the
Dunbar office project should fall under, staff concluded that rezoning to B-6 would be necessary as
opposed to B-4, because B-4 does not allow PUD's. While the B4 Office and Professional District
lists "Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" as a permitted use, the most
closely related B-6 permitted use is "A. Offices (business and professional)".
#2638 B-6 Amendment
January 12, 2001
Page 3
Staff feels it would be appropriate to add "Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" to the
list of permitted uses in B-6. This would more correctly accommodate the medical office building
proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in keeping with the City's intent for the B-6 district as
identified in CMP Amendment #2 (the 1988 Highway 12 Corridor Study) which is carried forward
in the 2000-2020 CMP (Excerpt attached as Exhibit D).
Unfortunately, this did not come to light until after the notice for the B-6 amendment was published
in November. This item was tabled at your November meeting with no discussion, and the "Clinic"
amendment has not been noticed for a public hearing. If Planning Commission feels this is a non-
controversial amendment, ahearing could be held at the Council level in February if Council agrees,
or this could be noticed for your review and recommendation at your February meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission should recommend that Council adopt the proposed revisions to the
landscaping and architectural standards of the B-6 District per attachments A and B.
Planning Commission should recommend that Council hold a public hearing for the purpose of
adding "Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only." to the list of B-6 permitted
uses.
Ex�a�r-A-
§ 10.45
SEC. 10.45 B-6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the B-6 Highway Commercial District is to provide
a commercial district specifically tailored to accomplish the commercial development objectives of
the Highway 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Application. All applicants for a building permit in any "B-6" Highway
Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for
review.
Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within my'B-6" Highway Business District, no structure
or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council:
A. Offices (business and professional).
B. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Libraries.
D. Motels, and hotels.
Deleted via Ordinance No. 152, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 10-28.96
Subd. 4. Relationship with Chapter 10.53 Planned Unit Development. Other types
of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned unit
development process. Applications that include commercial uses within the Highway 12 Corridor
shall assume the B-6 District as the underlying zoning distrct.
Subd. 4.1. Conditional Uses.
A. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be
used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit:
1. Restaurants (Class 1).
2. Tht following uses when such use includes a drive-thru condition:
a. Offices (business and professional).
b. Banks and financial institutions.
c. Libraries.
d. Motels and hotels.
Source: Ordinance No. 152, 2nd Series
Effective date: 10-28-96
ORONO CC 351-1 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89)
§ 10.45
Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any'B-6" Highway Business District, the following
uses shall be permitted accessory was:
A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1" Business District.
Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements and
exceptions contained in Section 10.52 of this Title.
A. Lot Area: two acres
B. Lot Width: 100 ft.
C. Setback - Principal Structure:
Front
30 (35) ft "
Side Interior
10 (35) ft.
Side Street
30 (35) ft.
Rear
30 (35) ft.
D. Setback - Accessory Structure
Front
30 (35) ft.
Side Interior
10 (351 ft.
Side Street
30 (35) ft.
Rear
30 (35) ft.
E. Setback - Parking
Front 15 (20) ft.
Side Interior 5 (10) ft.
Street Side 10 (15) ft.
Rear 10 (10) ft.
Setbacks in parentheses apply adjacent to all residential districts.
•30 (35) feel or 1 12 tim- 7 the building height whichever is greater in
determining front setbacks for principal and accessory structure only.
F. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that
results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage
plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and il:ose
ORONO CC 351-2 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89)
§ 10.45
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 shal I be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions
and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the
drainage.
G. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in
height except as provided in Section 10.75.
H. At least twenty five percent (25%) ofthe land area shall be landscaped with
grass, soproved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. Al least three percent (3%) of the land area
within a parking area shall be landscaped.
The following minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting:
Overstory Deciduous Trees 2-1/2 inches in diameter
Ornamental Trees I-1/2 inches in diameter
Coniferous Trees 6 feet tall
Major Shrub Plantings 5 gallons
1. 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 concocted of the some 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, qualiy and appearance as the principal structure.
K. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely
screened frem contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the
architectural treatment of the urincipal structure.
L. External loading and service areas must be completely screened 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.
(Sections 10.46 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.)
(Ordinance 67, 2nc Z-.ies
ORONO CC 351-3 Adopted: 5-8-99)
F,fri&r 13
Proposed amended Landscaping requirements to replace 10.45 Subd. 6 {H,1, K, L, M):
"H. Landscaping.
Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be required
for any proposed commercial site and shall be prepared by a
landscape architect of other qualified person acceptable to the City,
dtaun to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and shall
show the following:
a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
a) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots,
roads and other improvements;
b) proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals;
c) location, approximate size and common name of existing
trees and shrubs;
d) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common
and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition
and special planting instructions;
e) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new
plant material;
f) locations and details of other landscape features including
berms, fences and planter boxes;
g) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be
sodded and seeded;
h) location and details of irrigation systems; and
i) details and cross sections of all required screening.
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for
required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped
with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species
including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers
and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall
include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture,
foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design
features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in
conformance with the following table:
Proiect Value
(Including building construction, site preparation,
and site improvements)
Minimum Landscape Value
Below $1,000,000
2.0 % of Project Value
$1,000,000 - $2,000,000
1.-56$20,000+1% of Proiect Value in
excess of SI.000.000
$2,000,001 - $3,000,000
t:4%530.000+0.75%of Proiect Value in
excess of $2.000.000
$3,000,001-54,000,000
1.159b$37,500+0.25% of Project Value in
excess of $3,000,000
Over V 100,O0
I.0 % of Project Value
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable
species exist on asite prior to its development, the application
of the standards in this section maybe adjusted by the City to
allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment
is consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
b) A reasonable attempt shall oe made to preserve as many
existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into
the site plan.
c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or
moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees
shall have a minimum caliper of2Yainches. Coniferoustrees
shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees
shall have a minimum caliper of I'F, inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking
lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsuiface materials shall
be covered with sod or an equivalent ,around cover approved
by the city. This requirement shall nut apply to site areas
retained in a natural slate.
e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped
areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as
part of each new development, except one and two family
dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at
least equal the floor area ofthe existing structure. Asprinkler
system shall be provided for all lendscaped areas except areas
to be preserved in a natural state.
Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees
shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a
list of prohibited species which shall not be used for
landscapine.
Ed Note: Saagde List
"No required /neshall be one of the following:
I) a species ofthe genus Uhnus (elm), except dense elms bred to be lmmune to Dutch Elm Disease;
3) box elder;
3) a species of the genur Populous (poplar); or
d) femaleglnko".
3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed
to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and
dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall
contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are
necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of !-sffic
shall not be subject to the "150 stall' standard and shall be
required by the city when warranted.
b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands. shall
be reasonably distributed throughout he parking lot area so as
to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape
areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees,
ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch
and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning
Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at
the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces
provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping
shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised
concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning
Commission.
4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their
respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,
neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants
and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape
plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of
notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be
extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal
or weather conditions.
5. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and
staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve
more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect.
Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening,
landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required
by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in
an amount equal to at least one and one-half tunes the value of such
screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit
shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by
the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection
with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit
shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and
shall be valid for a period of time equal to one two full growing
seasong after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may
accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an
amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be
appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not
completed within the time • -escribed by building permits and other
approvals, the city may, at option, complete the work required at
the expense of the awner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all
landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably
beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not
exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather
conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such
additional security as it deems appropriate.
7. Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
Principal buildings and structures and any building or
structure accessory thereto located in the B-6 zone
shall be buffered from residential lots located in any
"It" district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more
spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50
feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with
landscape zones.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The ground level viewof all mechanical utilities shall
be completely screened from contiguous properties
and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible
with the architectural treatment of the principal
structure.
6. The light from automobile headlights and other
sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed
onto adjacent residential windows.
b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences,
walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All
walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the
principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of
!a 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which
I' provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons.
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be
screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any
- public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion
of any street or highway.
d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a
height needed to accomplish the goals of this section.
Screening meffigdl incorporating roofs over storage trash or
mechanical facililies to screen from higheradincent oroverties
or buildings may be required. Height of plantings required
under this section shall be measured at the time of
installation."
cxr,aalT C:
Proposed amended Architectural requirements to replace 10.45 Solid. 6(.f):
Architectural Standards.
1. it is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when
reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building
plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high
standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding
structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared
by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and
shall show the following for all structures in the B-6 District:
a) elevations of all sides of the building;
b) type and color of exterior building materials;
c) a typical floor plan;
d) dimensions of all structures;
e) the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
2. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels. concrete block and unfinished
metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for principal and
accessory buildings. This restriction Mall apply to all principal
structures and to all accessory buildings except 8 oscnotvisible-from
any extezioz poveit) fine. The city may, at its discretion, allow
architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels.
3. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal
structures.
4. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior
trash and recycling storage areas shall be fWly enclosed or • •reen
so as to not be visible with materials compatible with the principal
structure. ho W in.file, ahmdts n!rich blend
in vith tire building architectute me exempt fion. the scicenit
regtltlet milt.
5. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially
renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the
renovations exceed 30% of the pre -renovation value of the structure).
CMl' Part 3B.
Land Use Plan
Urban Commercial Land Use
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 retailand 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-famiiy developments will be considered
appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and type of
retail uses in a pedestrian -friendly environment is the most important
development parameter for the Navarre commercial area The City will
encourage redevelopment ofindividual commercial sites in Navarre to allow
for an expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business
opportunities.
An additional commercial area is designated along Highway 12 where the
availability of transportation and utilities as well as proximity to similar
commercial developments in Orono and Long Lake, make commercial use
appropriate.
Orono will coordinate its commercial development planning related to
Highway 12 area with the City of Long Laketo ensure the Long Lake .
downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a
compact downtown retail area, and to prevent the extension of retail
development west of Willow Drive in Orono.
The retail development in the Highway 12 area will be
community/neighborhood scale rather than 'big box' regional scale
development. The types of retail uses will be those that focus on providing
services to the residents and businesses of Long Lake and Orono, while also
drawing from the traffic stream that will be on current Highway 12 after the
Highway 12 Reroute is open. However, the retail development is not to draw
substantial traffic from beyond Orono.
The development plans for the Highway 12 area will encourage locally -
owned and operated businesses that provide services to Orono and Long Lake
residents. Additionally, the Highway 1^ retail area will be a pedestrian -
friendly area. This involves providing trails/sidewalks along the roadways
providing access to the retail uses. It also involves providing public
amenities that provide a sense of place and provide a gathering place for the
public.
The two commercial areas along Highway 12 within Orono are identified in
Map 3B-7 and include the following:
City or Orano Community Management Plan Page 38-37
aepiem ur _, r000
CMP Part 311. Land Use Plan
Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12
(Wayzata Boulevard) from Brown Road North to Willow Drive.
This area was reviewed as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment
No. 2 in 1989, resulting in a guide plan calling for commercial uses
abutting Highway 12, with primary access to a service road
connecting from Brown Road to Willow Drive, and elimination of
direct access to Highway 12. The area is currently bounded on the
north by existing residential development at densities ranging from
1 unit per 2 acres to 1 unit per 1.3 acres.
The western half of this area has since been developed via PUD as a
nursery/garden centerwith included leasable commercial spaces. The
east half of this area includes a strip shopping center, a new 10,000
s.f. office building, and a vacant 6.5 acre parcel at the northwest
quadrant of Brown Road and Highway 12. _
The City Council in February 1998 adopted a General Concept Plan
for development along Highway 12 indicating that the Council's
vision includes community scale retail development (as opposed to
regional or `big box' scale development) focused in a more compact
area in or near downtown Long Lake (closer to Brown Road than to
Willow Drive, at least in the short term) for the following reasons:
1. Focuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail
area, and helps preserve owner -operated small service
businesses in Long Lake which are vital to Orono and Long
Cafe residents.
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. Focusitgdevelopment toward Brown Road could strengthen
the ability to obtain des;able development on the north side
of Highway 12 east of the Otten Brothers Nursery.
6. Enables better control over the amount of retail development
that occurs along Highway 12.
7. Provides the opportunity to generate stablejobs in office, high
tecb, medical, etc.
City or Orono Community Management Plan Page 311-311
SgU..',r_. 2000
CMF Part 3B. Land Use Plan
8. A more compact community scale retail area matches the
design of new Highway 12 with no interchanges through
Long Lake.
9. Limits the impact oa north/south roadways (i.e. increased
traffic and activity levels) as compared to the more intense
"big box" retail uses.
10. Maintains a!ower 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.
Accordingly, this area should be developed with a mix of commercial
uses including retail, service and office components. Access via a
service road paralleling Highway 12 should still be required rather
than direct access to Highway 12, since existing traffic levels along
Highway 12 me expected to remain at a level which makes direct all -
way access difficult and dangerous.
The Highway 12 re-route ("proposed Highway 12") when completed
in approximately 2007 will have a significant impact on access for
this area, because current Highway 12 traffic levels are expected to
increase between now and 2007, then should drop dramatically when
the Bypass opens. However, traffic levels on "old Highway 12" after
2007 are expected to again creep upward, and the long-term need for
a service road may again manifest itself. For this reason, it is in the
best interests of the City and the business community to preserve at
least a partial service road corridor between Brown Road and Willow
for future use, that will provide all properties with access options
other than direct access from Highway 12. The City supports the
development of a "mid -point" connection to Highway 12 directly
across from Brimhall Avenue, such access to be at least a right -in,
right -out configuration. Further, if and when the service road is
constructed, all other existing accesses directly to Highway 12 should
ultimately be removed.
2. Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12 from
Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. This area (shown on Map
3B-7 a: the 'commercial' portion of Parcel Group 1) currently is
vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels with some 2600 feet of
Highway 12 frontage. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan
amendment, the City guided the portion of this area directly adjacent
City of Orono Community Management Plan Page 311-39
SrptsmEer _, 2000
CMF Part 3B. Laud Use Plan
to the north side of Highway 12 for commercial development. At that
time, the City was not clear about the type of commercial
development that should be planned for this area. Through joint
discussions with the City of Long Lake regarding development along
Highway 12, the City has determined that the optimum development
in this area would be office development. Office development can
provide services for Orono residents, can provide facilities for
businesses owned by Orono residents, and can provide quality
employment opportunities. The development of this area for office
use versus retail use enables the Highway 12 retail area to remain a
more compact pedestrian -friendly retail area versus a non -cohesive
extended strip of retail development.
Access to all office uses will be via a service road connecting Willow
Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, with no direct access points onto
Highway 12. Development of this service road began in 1991 with
the extension of Kelley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay
Road.
The City's intent is to have a single tier ofoffrce uses between Kelley
Parkway and Highway 12, with primarily residential uses north ofthe
service road. Due to construction of a stonnwater retention pond by
MnDOTmidway between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow, and the
City's intent to develop the area north of the service road residentially
at a density of 2-6 units per acre, the opportunities for large office
sites are limited. As many as six 2-2.5 acre office sites can be
developed along the Highway 12 frontage while still allowing the
intended residential devei potent to occur.
This area is guided for office use with minor retail and service uses
allowed only as accessory uses to the office use. "Big box"retail uses
will not be allowed within this area.
City of Orono Community Manzgeencnt Plan Page 313-40
S,a,emeer _, 1000
To: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator
066$-
Date: November 17, 2000
Subject: #2638 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment:
1) Revise "13-6 Highway Commercial District' standards to
incorporate more detailed landscaping and architectural standards.
2) Revise B-6 list of allowed uses to include clinics.
List of Exhibits
A - Zoning Code Section 10.45 B-6 Highway Commercial District
B - Proposed Replacement Section IO.A5, Subd. 6 (H)
C - Proposed Replacement Section 10.45, Subd. 6 (1)
D - Highway 12 Cortdor Excerpt from 2000-2020 CM?
The landscaping and architectural standards being incorporated into the RPUD District can be
equally applicable to the B-6 Commercial District. The B-6 landscaping standards in place are
relatively minimal, contained in Subd. 6 (H), (K), (L) and (M) as follows:
H At least twenty five percent (1591) of the land area shall be landscaped with
grass, approvedground 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 ofplanting:
Overstory Deciduous Trees 2-112 inches in diameter
Ornamental Trees 1-112 inches in diameter
Coniferous Trees 6feet tall
Major Shrub Plantings 5 gallons
L 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 screenedfrom eye -level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties.
Ifaccessorystructures are proposed, theyshall be constructed ofthe same building material
as the principal structure and be readily served through swinging doors.
K. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened
from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the
architectural treatment of the urincipal structure.
L. External loading andservice areas must be completelyscreenedfrom the ground
level viewfrom contiguous residential or commercial properties andadjacent streets, except
at access points.
92638 B-6 Amendment
November 17, 2000
Page 2
M. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened
whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows.
The proposed standards for landscaping are attached as Exhibit B, and would replace :ration 10.45
Subd. 6(H). Note that the standards in the current subsections H,1, K, L and M are incorporated into
the new Subd. 6(H).
The existing B-6 architectural standards in Subd. 6 include the following:
J. Garages, accessorystructures, screen walls and exposed areas ofretarning walls
shall be ofslmilar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure.
The proposed architectural standards are attached as Exhibit C, would replace subsection J with a
new Subd. 6(l).
The proposed landscaping and architectural standards are nearly identical to those proposed for the
RPUD district, but an attempt has been made to eliminate residential use references, since the B-6
is a strictly commercial zone. Note that the office portion of the Dunbar project is being reviewed
as a rezoning to B-6, and these general standards have been forwarded to the developer's landscape
architect as a guideline.
Add Clinic to List of B-6 Permitted Uses
During the review of the B-6 Section and in attempting to determine which zoning distort the
Dunbar office project should fall under, staff concluded that rezoning to B-6 would be necessary as
oppsed to B-4, because B-4 does not allow PUD's. While the B-4 Office and Professional District
lists "Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" as a permitted use, the most
closely related B-6 permitted use is "A. Offices (business and profersional)".
Stafffeels it would be appropriate to add "Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" to the
list of permitted uses in B-6. This would more correctly accommodate the medical office building
proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in keeping with the City's intent for the B-6 district as
identified in CMP Amendment 82 (the 1988 Highway 12 Corridor Study) which is carried forward
in the 2000-2020 CMP (Excerpt attached as Exhibit D).
Unfortunately, this did not come to light until after the notice for the B-6 amendment was published.
Consequently, no formal hearing can be held on this element of the proposed amendments.
However, if Planning Commission feels this is a non -controversial amendment, a hearing could be
held at the Council level in December or early January at the discretion of the Council.
42638 B-6 Amendment
November 17, 2000
Page 3
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission should recommend that Council adopt the proposed revisions to the
landscaping and architectural standards of the B-6 District per attachments A and B.
Planning Commission should recommend that Council hold.a public hearing for the purpose of
adding "Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only." to the list of B-6 permitted
uses.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: January 26, 2001
Item No.:
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Zoning
Name: Michael P. Gaffron
Title: Planning Director
Item Description: k2639 Add "RPUD" to List of Available Zoning Districts under Sec. 10.52
List of Exhibits
A - Proposed Ordinance for Adoption
B - Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits 1-12-01
Summary
Section 10.52, the Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area,
contains a list of zoning districts to which the corridor properties can be rezoned. The proposed
ordinance adds "RPUD -Residential Planned Unit Development District" to that list. Foradditional
background, please review Exhibit B.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On January 17, Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of this ordinance as
presented.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. Adoption will require a 4/5 vote of the City
Council.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the attached zoning ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 10 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 10.52, SUBDIVISION 5
AVAILABLE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR
HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 10.52, Subdivision 5 is hereby
amended to include "RPUD - Residential Planned Unit Development District" in the list of available
zoning districts to which properties in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area may be rezoned.
Section 10.52, Subdivision 5 shall henceforth read as follows:
"Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and
opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Higbway 12
Corridor Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned
unit development approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance.
However, applications will be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following
existing zoning districts within the City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the
Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with all ofthe additional requirements
established in this section:
B-6 Highway Commercial District
PRD Planned Residential Development
R-IA One Family Residential District
R-IB One Family Residential District
M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District
RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District
Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be
done as a Planned Unit Development."
Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and
The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 12th day of February, 2001 by a
vote of _ayes and _nays.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbera Peterson, Mayor
To: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director /i��
�/�" �
Date: January 12, 2091 U' J
Subject: #2639 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment:
Add "RPUD" to List of Available Zoning Districts under Section 10.52
Note: This item was tabled without discussion at your November meeting.
List of Exhibits
A - Zoning Code Section 10.52%L
B - Map from CMP Amendment #2, May 23, 1988
Background
In 1988 the City studied the Highway 12 corridor and made specific Comprehensive Plan (CMP)
changes for certain groupings of properties along Highway 12. Those changes carry through to the
2000-2020 CMP, and allow for future development of commercial or medium density residential
uses on those properties. The Highway 12 Corridor properties subject to those changes are along
the north side of 12 between Brown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road and are defined in CMP
Amendment #2 adopted May 23, 1988.
Subsequently, the City in 1989 adopted Section 10.52 "Special Requirements for Rezoning in the
Highway 12 Corridor Study Area", which sets out criteria, standards and requirements which must
be satisfied before rezoning of any of affected properties will be approved. Section 10.52, Solid. 5
establishes a short list efzoning districts to which the Corridor properties can be rezoned, as follows:
Subd S. Available Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and
opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12
Corridor Study Area, applicantsfor rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned
unit development approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance.
However, applications still be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following
existing zoning districts within the City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the
Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with all of the additional
requirements established in this section:
B-6 Highway Commercial District
PRD Planned Residential Development
R-IA One Family Residential District
R-1 B One Family Residential District
M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District
Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be
done as a Planned Unit Development.
#2639
January 12, 2001
Page 2
The proposed amendment is to merely add RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development to the list
of zoning districts available for the Highway 12 corridor properties. This amendment is consistent
with the 2000-2020 CMP which guides certain properties between Willow Drive and Old Crystal
Bay Road for medium density residential uses, which would be more appropriately developed
through the RPUDprocess than via the old PRD which has fewprocedural orperformance standards.
In the future we may conclude that the PRD Planned Residential Development option should be
dropped from the list in favor of RPUD; but staff has not yet fully assessed the ramifications of that,
so we suggest leaving PRD in for now.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission should recommend approval ofthe proposed revision of Section 10.52, Subd.
5 to add "RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development' to the list of zoning districts to which
properties in the defined Highway 12 Corridor can be rezoned.
§ 10.52
SEC IO.S2 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN THE
HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA.
Subd. 1. Minimum Area. To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of 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.
Subd. 2. Access and Circulation Plan. The plans submitted along with the application
must propose access to the proposed development which is consistent with the Transportation
Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. All public easements and road right of way
that is needed to allow the construction of service roads and/or the expansion of Trunk Highway 12
past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8-89
Subd. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. The available sanitary
sewer and municipal water 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 and water allocations or they must include improvements to increase the
capacity of the systems serving this area. If sanitary sewer or municipal water 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.
Source: Ordinance 78, 2nd Series
Adopted: 1-22-90
Subd.4. Storm Water Management. Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure
consistency with the Storrs Water h lanagement objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Plans
kill be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed storm water ponding areas contain sufficient
storage capacity and whatever additional measures are necessary to guarantee that the quality of
mnoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards.
Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and
opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor
Study Arm applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development
ORONO CC 359 (4-1-94)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.52
approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono 7.oning Ordinance. However, applications will be
accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning districts within the City,
consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to
compliance with all of the additional requirements established in this section:
B-6 Highway Commercial District
PRD Planned Residential Development
R-IA One Family Residential District
R-lB One Family Residential District
M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District
Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be done as
a Planned Unit Development.
Subd. 6. 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:
A. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be:
(a) Fare 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 panel materials be of any of those noted in items a, b and c above, or glass.
(a) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations
of such materials shall be permitted.
B. 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.
C. 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
d - be construction of permanent buildings.
Subd. 7. Requirement of Development Agreement. All development permits
authorized within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area shall be subject to the execution of a
ORONO CC 359-I Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8-89
§ 10.52
development agreement. Said development agreement shall clearly identiQ- the timing of all of the
public improvements associated with the development and the developers' financial commitments
related to these improvements. 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.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5.8.89
SEC. 10.53. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Subd. 1. Authorization: Planned unit development authorization may allow:
A. Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land
uses, housing types and densities.
B. Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required
setbacks. yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements. and otherperformance
standards associated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the
development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural
characteristics.
C. Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in
street lengths and other utility related expenses.
D. Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on
number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions.
E. District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in separate
zoning districts such as:
I. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied
within the project.
2. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater
sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is
utilized.
3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within
the project.
F. Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway
12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment N2 adopted May 23.
1988.
ORONO CC 359.2 Ordinance 67.2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8-89
u
a
Maple Plaln-Long Lake Interceptor
--_ Medina-0rono-Long Lake Interceptor
Water Mein
—+ = New Roads
Current MUSA
eeeee Proposed Extension of MUSA
City of Orono
HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY
Western Portion
Summary of Recommended
Changes
Fig. 30e
n
d
Application Date: 10/30/00
Deadline: 32/01
r»luvp MEETING
FEB 12 2000
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO
DATE: February 8, 2001
ITEM NO.: t"�
Department Approval: Administrator Raiewed: Agenda Section:
Name Paul Weinberger Zoning
Title Zoning Administrator
Item Description: Orono Amber, LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640 Preliminary Subdivision/CUP-Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment
02641 Site Plan Reviews
General Concept Plan Approval
Existing Zoning: B-I, Retail Sales Business District
Lot Area: ± 6.7 acres
List of Exhibits
A Plat Map
B Site Plan
C Office Building Plans
D Section 10.52 Hwy 12 Rezoning
E Section 10.53 Hwy 12 PUD Ordinance
F Traffic Consult. Review I (1117/00)
O Traffic Consult. Review II (11114/00)
H Property Owner Notification List
1 Planning Commission Minutes (1120/00)
1 City Council Work Session Review (12/7100)
K City Council Minutes(12/11/00)
L Elevation Views -Senior Building
M Elevation Views -Office Building
Application Summary
Orono Amber, LLC. has requested General Concept Approval for a two lot plat of a 6.7 acre property.
Proposedisarezoning for the two properties from B-1, Retail Sales Business District to B-6/PUD(for office
use of the proposed -.<,t arcel) and RPUD /PUD (for multi -family residential use of the proposed east
parcel). The intended uoo t : properties are a 3 story 62 unit senior housing protect and a 23,000 s.f.
office building. The proposal residential use of the property would require a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as the property, is not guided for residential use in the 1980 Plan or the proposed Comprehensive
Plan (CMP). The City has a Highway 12 PUD procedure and a Highway 12 rezoning procedure established
that provide the process the review requires.
#2640/2641 Orono Ambar LLC. (cont.)
General Concept Plan Review
Page 2-of 7
Section IM is the Code section that defines the standards and review process for a Highway 12 PUD and
Section 10.52 defines the special requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 corridor and study area.
Thom Code sections have been attached as exhibits to this report.
General Concept Approval
The General Concept Approval is required m part of the Highway 12 PUD rezoning and development plans.
A General Concept Approval would be similar to a Preliminary Plat approval without actually giving the
Preliminary Plat until other issues have been resolved. A resolution could be adopted by the Council for the
Concept Approval with all conditions that must be met by the developer for the Plat approval. The City is
Sill in a position to approve the rezoning or plat until a TIFF option is approved by the Council. State laws
require notification and public hearings for a TIF that would not be heard by the Council until this Spring.
Conditions of the General Concept Approval would include that the financing be approved and the Council
adopt the RPUD zoning district with the final development plans.
Review of Issues Discussed Previously by the Planning, Commission and City Council
The primary changes to the proposal since the November review are the total units in the senior building
hai a been reduced from 70 to 62, a trail connection has been added to the plans to provide connections to
the regional trail system, the senior building has been relocated f rtherto south to minimize impacts to the
residential properties to the north, and the through street has had the two sided parking areas relocated to
maid backing out into through traffic.
The applicant has provided site plans for both properties. A commercial site plan review for the office and
senior housing properties and buildings will include a full review of the follow3-.g items:
I) Landscaping
2) Traffic Flow/Road System
;) Parking Arrangement
4) Building Height/Setbacks
5) Review of Architectural Materials/Building Design
6) Lighting
7) Screening
Preliminary Subdivision/Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated by the official Comprehensive land Use Plan.
The 1989 Comprehensive Plan Amendment had guided the property, for commercial use. The
Comprehensive Plan (CMP) as preliminarily approved by the City Council in September designated several
Orono properties as areas that would al low- medium density. The density proposed in the CMP does not have
an existing zoning district that would allow the types of housing that would beoffered by as proposed in this
application. The proposed CMP did not include this property as a residential site. In fact it has been guided
for commercial use as was the case with 1989 CMP amendment. The entire property has been zoned B-I
since at least 1967, perhaps earlier. To rezone the east property would require changing the land use
designation to residential.
The 62 unit building on the 4 acre site would provide 15.5 unitslacre of senior housing units at a variety of
unit sizes and rental rates. The proposed RPUD zoning district would be the appropriate zoning district to
provide the units/acre density requested. Section 10.73, Subdivision 5(E) in the Proposed RPUD district
would allow the City of Orono to provide incentives to em ouragaprejechwhieh mixe sistent with housing
#264012641 Orono Ambar LLC. (cont.)
General Concept Plan Review
Page 3 of 7
goals. "Incentives may include modification of density and Floor area ratio requirements for developments
providing lifecycle housing and low and moderate cost housing." The City has the ability to ensure the
housing need, for lifecycle housing, is met. The RPUD district would rely heavily on the CMP designation
for housing density and the ability of the developer to meet the housing needs of the community.
The office use would not require a CMP amendment as the underlying land use designation is for commercial
use. The property is proposed as a 2.7 acre site. The use of the property as office/clinic would be permitted
under the B-6 district should the Council approve an amendment to the permitted uses in the B-6 district to
permit clinic uses.
Plat ina Process
This review is at the preliminary plat/general concept stage. A complete review of the preliminary plat will
require review and approval of the proposed site plans. The plat would result in two lots.
Lot I (west property) = 116,832 s.f. or±2.7 acres
Lot 2 (east property) = 173,871 s.f. or ± 4.0 acres
The preliminary plat review falls under the standard platting procedures as established in the Subdivision
Ordinance, but would not be approved until sometime aft^r the City and Developer have entered into a
financing and development agreement. Additional requirements may be imposed by the City on non.
residential subdivisions to protect adjacent residential areas from potential nuisance from a proposed
commemial/ofTice development including for provisions for a permanently landscaped butler strip if
necessary. Additional special requirements may be imposed to protect the residential areas surrounding the
development.
The developer has proposed to plat the senior housing project as condominiums. Each unit would have a
separate legal description and tax statement. Underthis type of plat the units would be owned by a non-profit
agency and rented to the occupants under the agreements established for the building.
Surroundina Land Use
The subject parcel was platted as Outlot F, Sugarwoods the parcel immediately south of the Sugarwoods
neighborhood. The only buffer between the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40' wide platted outlot that
is owned by the Sugarwoods homeowners association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the
Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2" in diameter within the rear setback
for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The property is located on Highway 12 and the
City of Long Lake is located south of Highway 12. Two lots that are located west of the project are
developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station.
U.S. Highway 12 is proposed to be relocated to the south and the existing Highway 12 will he turned over
to Hennepin County. Part of the proposed Highway 12 relocation includes a change to the existing 12 and
Brown Road intersection. Currently. Brown Road North ends in a T intersection with 12. The Brown Road
south of 12 will be realigned to create an intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road
North and a signal light would be installed at that intersection. The property east of Brown Road is the Lone
Lake State Bank site, in the City of Long Lake.
#2640/2641 Orono Ambar LLC. (cont.)
General Concept Plan Review
Page 4 of 7
IA. Financial Considerations
Briefly, applicant has requested the Council consider various methods of financial assistance to make this
project feasible. Such methods include the creation of a TIF district orsimilar provisions or reimbursements.
Council has had early discussions regarding this and has indicated it is willing to consider this. The City's
financial consultant is also reviewing the request.
H. Site Plan Review (Lot I - Office Building)
The proposed office building is two stories with approximately 23,000 s.f. of gross floor space. Under the
building is a 21 stall underground parking area. The actual building size is 172' X SO' or 13,760 s.f. The
building is designed to step down from a two story structure to one story immediately adjacent to the
Sugarweods neighborhood. The building would be constructed to only expose the SO' width to the
neighborhood.
(Note: Needed variances are shown in bold type)
Rcouired/Allowed Existina/Prop2sed
Site area: 2 acres
2.7 acres
Defined lot width: 100'
195'
Parking setbacks:
Required front yard:
15,
I5'
Required rear yard:
10,
35'
Required side yard adj. to "It" district: 10'
125'
Required side yard adj. to "B" district:
5'
15,
Building setbacks:
Front lot line:
30'
190,
Rear lot line:
35'
35'
Side lot line adj. to "It" district:
35'
35'
Side lot line adj. to "B" district:
10,
70'
Building Height:
30' (2 'h stories)
No. of Parking Stalls: Required = 1 per 200 s.f.
Required - 1 per 200 s.f. of"net
usable Boor area for office use"
Total stalls required - 97
Total stalls proposed =97
Signage Allowance 190 s.f.
Not known
#2640/2641 Orono Ambar LLC. (cons.)
General Concept Plan Review
Page 5 of 7
Additional Standards required by the current B-6 zoning district (Section 10.45):
A. 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.
B. 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
•v from public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accessory structures are proposed,
-hall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily
s. . through swinging doors.
C. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar
type, quality and appearance as the principal structure.
D. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities Ehall be completely screened from contiguous
properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the
principal structure.
E. 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.
F. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it ma_v be
directed onto adjacent residential windows.
• Note that the proposed B-6 landscaping/screening and architectural standards (applicz:ion 02639)
will be much more detailed than the current standard. The proposed standards have been fonvarded to the
developers landscape architect for this project.
M. Site Plan Review (Lot 2 - Senior Housing)
The senior housing building is designed with thesame concept of stepping down to decrease the mass of the
ends and along the north property line 3 stories to 2 stories. One significant design element of the building
is the clock tower, designed to break up the roof line of the building. The building is designed to have the
east Y1 of the entire structure located 10' lower than the west 1/2 due to the existing topograph.,.
A MnDot stormwater pond is located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road. The pond
is owned and maintained by MnDot. Developer has indicated this pond has existing designed capacity to
serve both proposed structures as well as other existing/future development in the area.
Site Characteristics Conformity with the proposed RPUD zoning district standard
Required/Allowed xist'n reposed
Site area: 5 acres 4 acres
• The RPUD district allows the Council flexibility to this standard when findings arc made as listed in
proposed Section 10.33, Subdivision 5 (A).
#2640/2641 Orono Ambar LLC. (cont.)
General Concept Plan Review
Page 6 of 7
Parking setbacks:
Required front yard: 20' 40'
Required rear yard: 20' NA
Required side yard 20' 60'
Building setbacks:
The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD lot lines would be 35' except that in no case shall
t :c setback be less than the height of the building. One concern is the building location being proposed at
60' to the rear lot line.
Building Height:
The intent of the RPUD district is to provide housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate
cost housing needs. As discussed with the review of the RPUD ordinance, the housing types may require
buildings to exceed the 30'standard that applies to single family residential homes and office buildings. The
only district that could allow a building greater than 30' is the Industrial district which allows 3 stories or 40'.
The proposed building would have a peak height of close to 50' as viewed from the backside of the
structure. Staffs determination of the defined height of the building averages 38'. Strict interpretation of the
ordinance would define the height at 45', lowpst grade adjoining building to highest midpoint of the roof.
Because the RPUD ordinance has not been adopted, no standard exists for building height in the district. The
developer has stated to allow the project to work the building would have to be three stories or moderately
priced senior rental units would not be feasible.
No. of Parking Stalls: Required = 2 per dwelling unit (Section 10.61)
Required = 140 spaces
Total stalls proposed = 83 interior spaces
50 exterior spaces
The standards for a. building designed for senior housing use may not require the same parking
standards. The applicants have stated they do not feel all the parking proposed on site will be necessary for
the use. They will be providingadditional information as to parking needs forother similar projects tojustify
the amount of spaces provided.
IV. Gradin and Drainage
The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the northwest comer ofthe site approximately 10' higher
than the adjoining property to the south. The City Engineer is recommending this partof the site be lowered
at least 4'. The retaining wall could then be eliminated.
Additional gnaineerina's mauired for further review of the proposal, The developer should provide storm
sewer and vondina calculations for review.
A retaining wall is required along the south side of the service drive. We have not received a detailed
planting and landscaping schedule to indicate how the wall will be screened. It is generally the requirement
that the wall shall be adequately screened to break up to the full length of the wall structure.
#2640/2641 Orono Ambar LLC. (cont.)
General Concept Plan Review
Page 7 of 7
V. Landscaping Plans/Pedestrian Ways
The revised set of plans show a 6'trail that connects the existing trail on the east side of the property to the
west side of the property. This is a change from the last set as no trail was provided.
The RPUD ordinance has proposed a landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of the project
value. For a development greater than S4,000,000 the minimum landscaping value that must be provided
would equal 1%of the project value. Wally Case, the City's landscaping consultant, would complete an
estimate of the landscaping value based on the proposed ordinance when final plans have been submitted.
A significant number of the existing trees would be removed to make room for the project. The plans
submitted have been designed to protect several mature trees that are located between the proposed building
and Highway 12. Protection of those trees requires the building and access road to be shifted to the north.
An adjacent property owner to the north has expressed concerns about the location of the building being 60'
from the rear property line.
Staff Recommendation
Per the Highway 12 PUD provisions of 10.53, this proposal is at the General Concept Stage, equivalent to
the preliminary plat stage of a subdivision. The General Concept Plan can be approved by the Orono Council
and bind the approval to a resolution. Council approval of the concept plan requires a 4/5 vote.
Staff recommends approval of the General Concept Plan subject to the following conditions:
I. The Council adopts the RPUD ordinance and the proposed residential development meets the
requirements and intent of the RPUD district.
2. The west lot shall meet the requirements and intent of the B-6 district.
3. Final proposed grading, storrnwater management, and erosion control plans shall be submitted for
review and comment by the City Engineer.
4. Drainage calcula'ions shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer.
5. Final landscaping plans and planting schedules shall be submitted and shall meet the requirements
of the RPUD district. Landscaping shall include plantings to screen the parking areas and buildings
to protect adjacent residential properties and the retaining wall.
6. Road and parking lot design shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
7. The site plans shall remain in substantial conformance with the site plans attached as Exhibit BI.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the General Concept Plan and direct Staff to draft an approval resolution for adoption
on February 26, 2001. General Concept Plan Approval requires a 4/5 vote.
I
I
�'. SS. � M I� I F i lOMIMOWa
• }Y t �4
2
'ti
—Jv
J
xartx
PALY•MFD IE410
i
ORONO
APP.+RT10:\TS
CITY OF
0 R 0 N 0
MINNESOTA
MILLER
HANSON
WESTERBECK
BERGER. INC
urocrtns • u..xvs
1°0sviivsiwuutz+s am
w asa ru cx ma.e
PREllvis.+TY
I
auev:c. on�m[ c
mys asx: w
s
i N_y it
w�
1
—1--____ I ' .---__--___— __—J_--___—_ ' I
HIGHWAY 12
vnwassn icmro
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I
I I I I
1______—___1____—_—____ill
HE
own
�mm
Nam
n. ff: N•�aaa �
�
II
/
11
� ♦
II
•
/
11
II
I
/ al�wyp3
II
II
,o .
I
J
Nwi
1
__
nr K•MCa] - ^
nr MW - Nt
1 ,
ORONO
A?ARTMEN-5
CITY OF
0 R 0 N O
INNESOTA
MILLER
HANSON
WESTERBECK
BEROEN, P1C
nlal•an • rwxn
u mx—;: m
1 � _
/ASSOCIATES
1
Iremlunr
1 T
SF
ORONO
APARTMENTS
CITY OF
0 R 0 N 0
M I N N E 5 0 T A
MILLER
HANSON
WESTERSECK
BERGER, INC
13
nru .¢ sse
,Zno P MT
erm
Lpm�
TABULATION•
I
i
i I
ten.•
�
e -
I
I
FML
1 ow wo
AMMNEBOTA j
1
I�
i wwurw�. I
I
i
I
I I
w..•r
MILLER
HANSON
WESTERBECK
BERGER, INC
wMern • nww
APT • rc
m rww mw•
auuae
W YOMOO..O
1
M ONO
OR
ORONO
NMESOTA
�enYn�.
I
Iffig
MILLER
HANSON
WESTERBECK
BERGER. INC
.swlr..a. Rwaa
.Hasa .•on.
(WSi LEVEL
VW-T`a•
A2.2
v
���.
�t�
muenwe wno
SEMOR
MOUSING
ORONO
IANNESOTA
w.w
,t I
MILLER
HANSON
WESTERBECK
BERGER, INC
.rwNC
B�
.v w.wrrumawn
mcC Lfi
vw-.r- -
A2.3
� w �rvsa wm
prE NO '
NO
MOUSING
ORONO
AIINNESOTA
a�
T t ft
vw+r .
A2.A
1
ppApR� W I�Ir11Mr
' ROOOR
I ORONO
iMINNESOTA
s�
I �
I arms !
IIre�wr�
HANSON
WESTERBEOK
RERGER. ING
Eipyp IY N �M'MM o ruaov IMm
Ip
pppF RAM
" ! -r• VM'•f'G'
'A =2-!�'
i
�:1�T
W we ppswro
gMgQOqNO
BOOSWO
ONONO
WNESOTA
L=
MILLER
HANSON
W'ESTERSECK
BERGER, INC
p @�6IY p IDM8
A.B.C&0
LPYf KANS
o - a
�-
r
ORONf _
HOUSING
ORONO
MINNESOTA
l
I, MILLER
HANSON
BERGER. INC
pyHW.Y N>m'M,.
E\F
L.1f Vl/J.5
A4.2
Q enPLM
HIGHWAY
7OMATATAsx s-surcz�vo Ree.TAb' w'M•• a' uowr m �1 IIS'G uw ayli �s Im •Imno
Iss wam
4aouo suss Imort s In rom w »wv
_ s.ovc sx¢ssm 1 s+� sa sao u.
is.smr. m � ,nm - ss •aeoc s,ru
rnemc rsoom 1 vz •n aoo v.
n vmm sysss f•au.o . w�,W
HIGHWAY 12
cZ
I L I
I II I I I
I TI I I I
/� o4WE lP8 RDOR RIN
u
AO
u
I
I II I I I I
1 I
II IT I 1 I
I I
I u I I
I _
I
1
I
LLI
(. ABIfLO mm
c.3
Gl
W-
§ V_ .. _
SEC. 10.52 SPECIAL. REQUIREMENTS FOR REZOMNG IN THE
HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA.
Subd. 1. Minimum Area. To insure consistency % ith the goals and objectives of 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.
Subd. 2. Access and Circulation Plan. The plans submitted along with the application
must propose access to the proposed development which is consistent with the Transportation
Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. All public easements and road right of way
that is needed to allow the construction of service roads and/or 6x expansion of Trunk Highway 12
past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8-89
Subd. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. The available sanitary
sewer and municipal water 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 and water allocations or they must include improvements to increase the
capacity of the systems serving this area: If sanitary sewer or municipal water system improvements
are proposed as part of the application, then the feasibility of providing this service .sill also be
scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to ins.ue that the costs associated with
providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development.
Source: Ordinance 78, 2nd Series
Adopted: 1.22-90
Subd. 4. Storm Water Management, Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure
consistency with the Storm Water Management objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Plans
will be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed storm water ponding areas contain sufficient
storage capacity and whatever additional measures are necessay to guarantee that the quality of
runoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards.
Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and
opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor
Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development
ORONO CC 359 (4-1.84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.52
approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance. However, applications will be
accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning districts within the City,
consistent with a fording of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to
compliance with all of the additional requirements established in this section:
B-6 Highway Commercial District
PRD Planned Residential Development
R-IA One Family Residential District
R-113 One Family Residential District
M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District
Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be done as
a Planned Unit Development.
Subd. 6. 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:
A. 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 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.
B. 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 architeciural
design and general appearance.
C. 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
Subd. 7. Requirement of Development Agreement. All development permits
authorized within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area shall be subject to the execution of a
ORONO CC 359-1 (4.1-84)
(5-8.89)
1 10.52
development agreement. Said development agreement shall clearly identi5, the timing of all of the
public improvements associated with the development and the developers' financial commitments
related to these improvements. The agreement shall also include any and all other conditions of
approval deemed necessary to insure dorripliance with the Special Minimum Requirements for
Rezoning the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, as well as the goals and objectives of the Hight4ay
12 Corridor Study.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd -Series
Adopted:5-8-89
SEC. 10.53. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Subd. 1. Authorization: Planned unit development authorization may allow:
A. Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land
uses, housing types and densities.
B. Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required
setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance
standards associated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the
development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural
characteristics.
C. Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in
street lengths and other utility related expenses.
D. Density Transfer. The project density may be cluttered, basing density on
number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions.
E. District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in separate
zoning districts such as:
1. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied
within the project.
2. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater
sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides.increased density on the property if a PUD. is
utilized.
3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within
the project.
F. Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway
12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment k2 adopted May 23,
1988.
ORONO CC 359-2 (4.1-84)
(5-8.89)
§ 10.53
Subd. 2. Allowed Uses: Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated
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 considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Subd. 6
of this Title.
Subd. 3. Required Standards: For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the
City shall apply the standards contained in the conventional zoning district that is most similar to
the proposed development. In the event of mixed -use developments, the Zoning -Administrator
shall determine the appropriate underlying zoning standards, subject to the approval of the City
Council. Furthermore, 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 resident of the PUD. To
these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas
and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as
streams and large tees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets
and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, locaticn 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.
Subd.4. Coordination WithSubdivision Regulations: Subdivision review under the
subdivision regulations shall be carried our simultaneously with the review of the PUD. 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.
Subd. S. Revisions and/or Changes.
A. 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 the Zoning Administrator.
B. Chariges 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 hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the
recorded copy of the final development plan.
ORONO CC 359.3 (4-1-84)
(M-g9)
§ 10.53
C. All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district within
which the Planned Unit Ieevelopment District is established shall apply to the PUD District except
as otherwise provided in approval of the fig_' plan.
D.Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable
time after approval of the PUD Zoning District as set forth in the Developers Agreement, 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 that the rezoning was in error.
Subd. 6. Phasing and Guarantee of Performance.
A. The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development
accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule.
B. 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.
C. The construction and provision of all of the common open space and public
and recreational facilities which are shown on the fatal 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. I f they find that the rate of constriction 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.
D. A letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the
developer. The amount of this letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program
that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement.
Subd. 7. Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion.
A. 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 plumed
development shall be governed by the final development plan.
B. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be
made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below:
1. Any minor ex:ensions, alterations or modifications of existing
buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Revie,v Committee if they are
ORONO CC 359-4 (4-1-94)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
consistent 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%).
2. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed
-may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to
the final development plan is approved under Section 10.53 Subd. 5.
3. Any otherchanges in the final development plan must be authorized
by am, amendment of the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd. 5.
Subd. 8. Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development.
A. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, 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 preparation of plans, surveys and other data.
1. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the
app!icant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent z,d the general nature of the entire
development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
a) Overall maximum PUD density range.
b) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
c) General location and extent ofpublicand common open
space.
d) General location of residential and nonres!dentialland
uses with approximate type and intensities of development.
e) Staging and time schedule of development.
Other special criteia for development.
ORONO CC 359-5 (4.1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 1053
2. Schedule:
a) Developer mr . with the Zoning Administrator to
discuss the proposed developments.
b) The applicant shall file the concept stage application
and preliminary plat; together with all supporting data.
c) Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Zoning
Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate, the Planning Commission shall
hold a public hearing.
d) The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing
and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall
consist of a legal property description, description of request, and 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 (350) of
the boundary of the property in question
e) The City may request additional information from the
applicant concerning operational factors or retaine::pert testimony at the expense of the applicant
concerning operational factors.
f) 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 plan and attach such conditions
as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four -fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council.
3. Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given,
the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall
proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10.53 Subd. 8(D) for zoning district changes.
If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages
may proceed simultaneously.
4. Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis arid
plans shall be submitted to the City:
General Concept Stage:
a) Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title.
ORONO CC 359.6 (4-1.84)
(5-8-89)
§ 1053
b) Generallnformation:
(1) The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject
property.
(2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner.
(3) 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 and surveyor.
(4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject
property to effectuate the 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 require to show the status of title or control of the
subject property.
c) Present Status: -
(1) The address and legal description of the Property
(2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject
property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,000) of the
property.
(3) A map depicting the existing development of the property and all 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 invert elevations on and within one hundred
feet (100') of the property.
(4) A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the
market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing is
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.
ORONO CC 359-7 (4-1-94)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
(5) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions
at scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (V — 100').
(a) Contours; minimum two foot (T) intervals.
(b) Location, type and extent of tree cover.
(c) Slope analysis.
(d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and
streams and flood plains within three hundred feet
(300) of the property.
(e) Significant rock outcroppings.
(t) Existing drainage patterns.
(g) Vista3 and significant views.
(h) 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 of overlays is
recommended for clear reference.
(6) 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.
(7) A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed
for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations
of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area,
which shall include at least the following:
(a) Area developed to residential uses.
(b) Area developed to residential use by building type.
(c) Area devoted to common open space.
OROL40 CC 359-8 (4-1-84)
(5.8-89)
§ 10.53
(d) Area devoted to public open space.
(e) Approximate area devoted to streets.
(f) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street
parking and loading spaces and related access.
(9) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to
commercial uses.
(h) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial
or office use.
(8) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time
extending beyond a single construction 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 state
and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to
stage.
(9) 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.
(10) Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to
property included in the proposed PUD.
(11) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and
storm sewers.
(12) The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item
of information or document regWred'u1 this stage which it finds to be
..necessary to the consideration of the specific proposal.
(13) The City may require the submission of any additional information
or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full
consideration of the proposed PUD.
ORONO CC 359-9 (4-1.84)
(3 8 89)
§ 10.53
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
forbackgrobnd and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The. development stage submissions
shall include but not be limited to:
a) A final plat and information required by the City subdivision Title.
b) Ten (10) sets of preliminary, plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch
equals one hundred feet (I" =100') (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 county where the subject property is situated).
(2) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any
Significant topographical or physical features of the property.
(3) The location,size, use and arrangement including height in stories and
feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of
proposed buildings, and existing buildings %'rich 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 forpublic open space, including perks, 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
properties.
ORONO CC 359-10 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
(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.
c) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final
development plan approval is sought.
d) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected
population.
e) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and
industrial floor space by type of activity (e.t. drug store, dry cleaning,
supermarket).
f) Preliminary architectural"typical"plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations
and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes.
g) A detaile.i 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, including mobile homes, and uses.
h) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing
topography and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the
site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan.
A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
j) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, 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 measures.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8.89
ORONO CC 359-11 (4-1-94)
(5-8-89)
N. Landscaping.
1 Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared
by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the
City,
drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and
shall
show the following:
a)
boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
a)
locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots,
roads and other improvements;
b)
proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals;
c)
location, approximate size and common name of existing
trees and shrubs;
d)
a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common
and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition
and special planting instructions;
e)
planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new
plant material;
f)
locations and details of other landscape features including
berms, fences and planter boxes;
g)
details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be
sodded and seeded;
h) location and details of irrigation systems; and
i) details and cross sections of all required screening.
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of 9 lot which are not used or improved for
required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped
with a combination of overstory trees, understory trees,
shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for
landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery,
trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar
site design features or materials in a quantity having a
minimum value in conformance with the following table:
project Value Minimum Value
(Including building construction,
site preparation, and site Lrnprovernenu)
Below S 1,000,000..
2.0 %
$1,000,000 - 52,000,1000
1.7 %
$2,000,001 - 53,000,000
1.4 V.
53,000,001 - $4,000,000
1.1 S °/
Over $4,000,000
1.0 %
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable
species exist on a site prior to its development, the application
of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to
allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment
is consistent with the intact of this ordinance.
b) -A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many
existing trees as is practicable and to incozporate them into
the site plan..
c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or
moved from the growing site by tee spade. Deciduous trees
shall have a minimum caliper oft'/,inches. Coniferous tees
shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental tees
shall have a minimum caliper of 1'/_ inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking
lots, driveways, patios, or similar ha.-dsurface materials shall
be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved
by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas
retained in a natural state.
e) In order to provide for adequate m=_ntenance of landscaped
areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as
part of each new development, except one and two family
dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at
least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler
system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas
to be preserved in a natural state.
— f) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees
shall be composed of one species. No required tree shall be
one of the following:
1) a species of the genusUlmus (elm), except those elms
bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease;
2) box elder;
3) a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or
4) female g'utko.
3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
., a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed
to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and
dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall
contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are
necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic
shall not be subject to the "150 stall' standard and shall be
required by the city when warranted.
b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall
be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as
to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape
areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees,
ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch
and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning
Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at
the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces
provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping
shall'be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised
concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning
Commission.
4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner,'tenant and their
respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,
neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants
and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape
10
plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of
'-' notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be
extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal
or weather conditions.
S. Retaining Nalls. Retaining walls exceeding four fee: in height, and
staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve
more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect.
6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening,
landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required
by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in
an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such
screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit
shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incuired by
the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection
with making or completing such improve tents. The letter of credit
shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and
shall be valid for a period of time equal to one full growing season
after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept
some other form of securiy in I:eu of a letter of credit in an amount
and under such conditions that the city may determine to be
appropriate. In the eve,-.: d,at ccastruction of the project is not
completed within the tune prescribed by building permits and other
approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at
the expense of the awner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended ; eriod of time for completion of all
landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably
bevonel the control of the developer. Extensions which may not
exwed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather
conditions. When anextensionisgranted, the city shall require such
additional security as it deems a,-propriate.
11
Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
1. Priucipi! buildings and structures and any building or
structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at
a density of greater than 4 um..: per acre shall be
buffered from residential lots located in any "R"
district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more
spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50
feet.
3. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and
public roads.
4. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot
lines and public roads.
b) Required screeningorbufferingmaybe aehievedwithfences,
walls, earth berms, hedges, orother landscape materials. Alt
walls aid fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the
principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of
3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which
provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons.
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be
screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any
public rightof-way or withineight feet of the traveledportion
of any street or highway.
d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a
height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height
of plantings required under this section shall be measured at
the time of installation.
12
9one+c,00
Memo moo:
Project Name: Orono Apartments Traffic Review
To:
From: Bryant Flcek
Re: Traffic Flow for the Orono Apartments
Client: City of Orono
File No: 139-99-000
Date: 11/07/00
The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trtm_l-
Highway (TH) 12 with Brown Road North in Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists oa this
site. The current site plan, dated October 17, 2000, shows two buildings. One building is proposed to be zi
apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the east side of the site, next to Brown
Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office buildins with approximately 23,200 square feet
of area and would be located on the west side of the lot.
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation rates for developments of this kind, the
following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site.
Time Period
Office Building
In Out
Senio: Housing
In Out
Total Site Trip Ends
In Out
Averaae Weekday
130
130
120
120
250
250
AM Peak Hour
30
5
5
5
35
10
P.M Pea.<Hour
5
30
5
5
15
35
Averaige Saturday
30
30
90
90
121
120
Average Sunda
10
10
95
_ 95
105
105
As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a
typical weekday according to the size and type of these developments.
Site Access
The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The fits', access
drive connects to Brown Road North on the east side of the lot. 1'Je would recommend aligning tius site
access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the east side of Brown Road
North, creating one four -legged intersection rather than two closely spaced 'T' intersections. One lane in
each direction on the access drive should suffice for the c.0ected amount of traffic. From this full access
driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing Fill access intersection of Brown Road North with
TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this interse^tion of Brown Road North and TH 12 due to the
traffic volumes on TH 12. We would riot recommend a signal at this TH 12 intersection since other nearby
inte --..ions in both directions on TH 12 have existing signals. The current geometrics at this TH 12
int,. _ z6on a:e also adequate for the expected amount of traffic.
6onestroo, P.osene, Anderlik and Assoctates
2335 West Hiah,,ay 36 + St Paul, MN 55113 + Pho+e: 651-636-4600 + Faux: 651-636-1311
Navembe• 7, 2000
'Page 2 of
The second access drive connects directly to TH 12, south of the proposed site. At the location of this
access, TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/right out only access at this
location, leaving the mediamon TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short right turn lane b'e'created
from TH 12 into the access drive. By re -striping the existing markirgs with a short taper immediately
following Broom Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each
direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive. _
A third access is in the northwest comer of the site. Based on site pl�i drawings and field reconnaissance,
we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before making a
recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects into a residential
area. Due tothe high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 from the side
streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an alternative to the other access drives.
Thus, the amount of'cut-lbru' traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically.
Internal Traffic Flow
From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and are able to choose to go
to the ofgtce building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trios to and from each building without
disruption of activity at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide this
type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would be driving through the
middle of the senior housing parking, creating safety concerns. Correcting this potential problem would
require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include:
Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the east side of the lot and the
senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situation of
apartment residents driving through the office parking lot, office users are generally used to more
vehicle activity in their building's parking lot.
Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puts the parking close
to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lot without disruption from
parking activities.
Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain
as showy or be shifted to the north side of the building as wee. Either option would allow office
users to use this drive instead of going through the apartment parking area.
:,anges should be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas.
':he access drive in the northwest corner of site could have mo:o.'Ists from the senior housing driving
hrough the middle of the office parking, depending on where this access leads. Although not desirable,
Office users are generally used to more vehicle activity in their building's parking lot. As stated before, this
access drive and its relation to the internal traffic flow should be re-zssessed when n.ore information is
known.
Pedestrian Movements
To provide additional safety and encourage pedestrian movements, sidewalks should connect each building
to the existing trail and sidewalk system, located on the east and south sides of the lot. This would allow
people from either building another option to use to reach nearby lard uses or for general exercise.
eonestroo, Rosen e, Anderlik and Assocla tes
2335 west Highway 38 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636.1311 -
• 1�1 boneuroo
lJia edi
Mem' o AMenikL
ALOdGt[i
egM,q i/vWUN
project Name: Orono Apartments Review Client: City of Orono
Ta: Paul Weinberger F11e No: 139.2641
From: Bryant Fcek, Tom Kellogg Date: 11/14/00
Re: Traffic Flow and other Issues for the Orono Apartments
The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk
Highway (TH) 12 with Brown Road North in Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists on this
site. The current site plan, dated October 17, 2000, shows two buildings. One building is proposed to be an
apartment complex with.70 dwelling units and would be located on the east side of the site, next to Brown
Road North. The other building is proposed to be a--t office building with approximately 23,200 square feet
of area and would be located on the west side of the lot.
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' trio generation rates for developments of this kind, the
following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site.
Time Period
Office Building
In Out
Senior
In
Housing
Out
Total Site Trip Ends
In Out
Ave ra a Weekday130
130
120
120
250
- 250
AMPeakHour
30
5
5
5
35
10
PM Peak Hour
5
30
5
5
15
35
Tv -,rage Saturday30
30
90
90
120
120
Average Sunda
10
10
95
95
105
105
As shown in tlhe table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a
typical weekday according to the size and type of these developments
Site Access
The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The first access
drive connects to Brown Road North on the east sl. -- of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site
access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the east side of Brown Road
North, creating one four -legged intersection rather t:.an two closely spaced 'T' intersections. One lane in
each direc.ion on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access
driveway, mo:onsts could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brown Road North with
TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection if this project is completed before MNDOT's
realignment of TH 12. As part of the MNDOT TH 12 project, South Brown Road will be realigned to be
the fourth leg of the Brown RoadfrH 12 intersection. 1,1NDO'I plans include signalizing this intersection.
Bonestroo Rosene, Anderlik and Associates _
2335 West Hiyhwly 36+ St. Paul, MN 55113+ Phone: 651-636-1600+ Fax: 651-636.1311
No, m6er 14. 2000
Page 2 of
The second access drive connects directly to TH 12, south of the proposed site. At the location of this
access, TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/right out only access at this
location, leaving the median -on TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short right turn lane be created
from TH 12 into the access drive. By re -striping the existing markings with a short taper immediately
following Brown Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each
direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive.
A third access is in the northwest comer of the site. Based on site plan drawings and field reconnaissance,
we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before making a
recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects into a residential
area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 from the side
streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an alternative to the other access drives.
Thus, the amount of'cut-thin' traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically.
Internal Traffic Flow
From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and are able to choose to go
to the office building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trips to and from each building without
disruption of activity at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide this
type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would be driving through the
middle of the senior housing parking, creating safety concerns. Correcting this potential problem would
require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include:
• Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the east side of the lot and the
senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situation o:
apartment residents driving through the office parking lot, office users are generally used to more
vehicle activity in their building's parking lot.
• Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puts the parking close
to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lot v: i:`.opt disruption from
parking activities. This will require locating the drive aisle a bit further south than originally shown.
This will not impact the site any more than shown or, the proposed grading plan. A sketch of this
option is included with this submittal.
• Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain
as shown or be shifted to the north side of the building as well. Construction of this drive aisle
would impact an area north of the buildings not shown to be graded on the proposed grading plan.
Either option would allow office users to use this drive instead of going through the apartment
parking area.
Changes should be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas.
The City should evaluate the proposed access drive in the northwest corner of the site. This access could, at
a minimum, provide access to the Ciy's pump house.
Pedestrian Dlovements
To provide additional safety and encourage pedestrian movements, sidewalks should connect each building
to the existing trail and sidewalk system, located on the east and south sides of the cot. This would allow
people from either building another option to use to reach nearby landusesor for general exercise.
Bonesrroo, Rosene, Anderllk and Associates
2335 west Highway36+ St. Paul, MN 55113+ Phone: 651.636.4600+ Fax: 651.636-1311
November 14, 2000
Page 3 If
edlnc and Dralnaee
The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the northwest comer of the site approximately 10 feet
higher than the adjoining property to the south. We recommend this part of the site be lowered at least 4
feet. The retaining wall could then be eliminated and 4:1 slopes graded between the parking lot and the
adjoining property. If the proposed grades are not revised the developer should wwk with the adjoining
property owner to replace the existing timber wall with a segmental block retaining wall.
The developer'should provide storm sewer and ponding calculations for our review.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlikend Associates
2335 West Highway 36+ St. Paul, MN 55113+ Phone: 651-636-46W+Fax: 651-636-1311 "
RUN DAIF 16/27/00
BATCH 505
35 31-115-23 12 5004
PROP ADOR 0065E BROWN RD H
OMIFR MANE TANA R SEIBOLO
TAXPAYER TAN& A GARRETT
NAME/ADDR 696 BROWN RD 11
LONG LAKE M 55356
36 34-115-23 21 0015
PM AM 02109 SUCARWOOD DR
0AR0 MANE D A D AINERS
TAXPAYER DAVID H A DIANE R ARLERS
Wjm/AGSR 2264 LONG LAKE WOOD OR
55556
35 34-113-23 21 0015
PROP AMR 02103 SUCARNOOD Oft
OWN" NAM R J A S 0 HOCAN
TAXPAYER RANDALL J S SARA C HOGAN
NARCIADOR 2XISS SUCA MOD LORD LARD ON 5DR
5351-
35 34-116-23 21 002'.
"m ARM 62144 SUCARWOOO OR
�R��RR XAIIE a 2 GILL A F 5 GILL
TAO1Y[R CNETCIMN 2 A FRANCIS S GILL
RAWJAODR 2104 SUCARWOOD DR
LOHO LAKE MH 55556
35 34-115-23 21 0025
kop AMR 02110 SUOARWDOD DR
J�%Mf MAIZE IC TAXACH A M C TAXACH
TAXPAYER MAU A MARIA C TAKACII
MANUADDR 2120 SUCARWOOD OR
LONG LAX HH S5356
H01HILPIN COW11, rnurEnTY mrommiun .YsTin
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
31 34-11a-23 21 002a
PROP ADOR 00035 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
BOOM NAME SUGAR WDOq HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
TAXPAYER SUGAR VCOSS IIUMEDIMERS ASSOC
MAME/ACOR C/o WEESTER RONNSVERUCTION CO
3525 ,rLS MH 55416
35 34-113-23 12 0007
00690 BROWN RD N
ERIC J LARSON
ERIC J LARSON
696 BROWN BB N
LONG LAKE MN 55356
35 34-115-23 2.1 0016
02107 SUGARWOOD DR
T J I V A SMITH
THOMAS J SMIT11
2107 SUCARNOOD DR
LONG LAKE MN 55356
35 34-11a-23 21 0019
02101 SUCARWOOD DR
RICIIARD J S CONNIE L APPLE
RICIIARD J A CONNIE APPLE
IAOI SUCAMOOD UR
LONG LAKE MI 54156
3n M-tin-23 2.1 RD23
02301. SUCANWOOG D11
R M SCROMMER A E M SCMOMMER
R M SCHOMMER A E M SCHOMMER
2206 SUCARWOOD DR
LONG LAKC MN 55354
35 3A-118-23 21 0026
02112 SUCARWOOD OR
K C BERC A K M D DERG
K C BERG I K M D BERC
2112 SUCARVDOD DR
LONG LAKE Ma 55356
35 34-115-23 21 0030
00035 ADDRCSS UNASSIGNED
SUGAR VOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
3uCAR NDODS DOMEDVNEBS ASSOC
C/O REDERS CONSTRUCTION CO
3529 NEDSTER AVE
MPLS MH .5416
REPORr Ro. 1'1.35401
PACE 19,
35 34-119-23 21 5002
02160 WAY2ATA BLVD N
NILLIAM N WEAR A WIFE
NILLIAM V NEAR
2164 WAYEATA BLVD 0356
LONG LAKE HN , 55356
3a 34-113-2S 21 0017
02105 SUCARWOOD DR
THOMAS J A VIRGINIA A SMITH
T116HAS J A VIRGINIA A SMITH
2205 SUCARWOOD DR
LONG LAKE HN . 55356
35 34-110-23 21 002.1
02102 SUGARWOOD OR
T M KINMED A A E KIMMES
TODD M A ANITA E KIMMES
2102 SUCARWOOD DR
LONG LAKE MN 55356
3n 34-11n-23 21 0024
021a0 SUCARWOOD DR
M L RICX5 1 J M RICKS
MICHAEL UJACOUELINE M RICKS
2108 SUCARWOOD DR
LOIRI LAKE MN 55356
35 34-115-23 21 0027
02114 SUBARWOOD OR
MCDONALD CONSTRUCTION INC
MCoONAIY CONSTRUCTION INC
7601 14STM ST W
APPLE VALLEY MN 55124
35 34-115-23 21 0033
00035ADDRESS. PENDING
GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC
GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC
219E N WAYZATA BLVD
LONG LAKE NN '55356
Ix
RUN DATE 1"27165
BATCH SH
34 34-11A-23 22 0015
PROP ADM 00638 ADDRESS PLIIDI14C
OWNER NAME C R L OTTEN
TAXPAYER CLIFFORD t LOUISE OTTEN
HAME/ADDR BOX 249
LONG LAKE MN 55356
34 34-116-23 24 605A
PROP ADDS 01495 ADDRESS MASSICH50
OWNER NAME SIDNEY 5 A BARBARA REBERS
TAXPAYER SIDNEY B A BARBARA REDERS
HAMR/ADOR U25 WEBSTER AVE
ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416
72 34-SSA-23 24 0002
MOP ADM 02073 WAYZATA BLVD N
OWNER HATE GREOORY M SHAUGNNESSY
TAXPAYER LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC
NAME/AODR Z073 V WAYZATA BLVD
P 0 BM 497
LONG LAKE RN 55356
72 34-116-23 24 BOIS
MOP AMR 04512 VIRCINIA AVE
OWNER NAM TIOMAS JOIN KIELEY
TAXPAYER THOMAS JOHN KIELEY
HAMVAMR n2 VIRGINIA AVE
LOUD LAKE MH 55356
72 34-119-23 24 0027
PROP ADM $4535 VIRGINIA AVE
OWNER NAME KITH 0 HILLER
TAXPAYER KEITH D HILLER
NAM/AOOK 535 VIRGINIA AVE
LONG LAKE MN 55356
72 34-116.23 24 0036
PROP ABBE 02061 WAYZATA BLVD N
OWNER NAM HI6NEL BUDGET RENTAL
TAXPAYER HNINEL BUDGET RENTAL
WJW/AODR 2041 WAYZATA BLVD N
LONG LAKE MN 55356
IIEI44CPUI COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATIO14 SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
36 34-115-23 22 0020
00639 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
C A L OFTEN
CLIFFORD A LOUISE OFTEN
BOX 249
LONG LAKE HN 55356
72 34-110-23 13 0010
01177 WAYZATA BLVD N
P S A P A GOSHCARIAN'
PAUL A PATRICIA COSIICARIAN
5965 LAKEVIEW DR
HOUND MN 55364
72 34-IIA-23 24 0013
00522 VIRGINIA AVE
JJ 9SM RUFF
CHERYL LYN RUFF
522 VIRGINIA AVE
LONG LAKE MN 5535A
72 34-130-23 24 0025
02045 WAYZATA BLVD N
D CREAR I M D CREAR
DAN CREAR
1950 SPATES AVE
WAYIATA MN 55391
72 34-115-23 24 0028
DD525 VIRGINIA AVE
GUY N FELDMANN
GUY V FELDMANN
525 VIRGINIA AVE
LONG LAKE HN 55356
72 34-110-23 21 0037
0201,5 WAYZATA BLVD N
J L M IHVESTI:ENTS
J A M INVESTMENTS
6341 KINGSVIEN LA N
MAPLE GROVE MN 55311
REPORT 140. P2435401
PACE 20
34 34-110-23 24 0001
02120 WAYZATA BLVD N
NILLIAM NEAR ETAL%
NILLIAM N NEAR
36 HACKBERRY HILL
LONG LAKE MA 55356
72 34.110-23 13 0E71
01964 WAYZATA BLVD N
STATE DANK OF LONG LAKE
STATE SANK OF LONG LAKE
1964 WAYZATA BLVD 9
LONG LAKE NN 55356
72 34-1111-23 24 0014
00522 VIRGINIA AVE
JJ A SM RUFF.
CHERYL LYN RUFF
522 VIRCINIA AVE
LONG LAKE MH 55356
72 34-116-23 24 0026
00545 VIRGINIA AVE
R CREAR A M D CREAR
DAN CREAR
3.950 SPATES AVE
WAYZATA MN 55311
72 34-138-0 24 0029
00513 •VIRGINIA1 AVE
0 A C SMEBY
OVER H SMEOY
515 VIRGINIA AVE
LONG LAKE MN 55356
72 M-118-23 24 0040
02065 WAYZATA BLVD V
JOHN D DRISCOLL
JOHN D DRISCOLL
C/G Fa
332 MINNESOTA ST 02100
ST PAM MH SS101
CjF;T:Liit�
cot
RUN DATE 10/27/00 MEHNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT PNO. PIuS401
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
RATCN 549
72 34-118-23 24 0046
PROP ADDR 02073 WAYZATA nLVn V
OWNER NAME CRECORY M SHAUGHNESSY
TAXPAYER LOW LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC
HAMVAD➢R 2673 R WAYZATA OLYD'
P O BOX 497
LONG LAXE MN 55356
72 34-110-23 24 E067
MOP AM • 60061 PREMIER DR
DIROTR RIME RJR HOLDINGS CO INC
TAXPAYER RJR "OLDIMS CO INC
MARVADOR 1 PROTIER DR
LONG LAKE MN 55356
72 34-130-23 24 6049
R6 m VIRCIMIA AVE
PAUL S OOSIMARIAN ET AL
P S A P COSIMARIAN
5965 LAREVIEN OR
MOUND MN 55364
TOTAL BATCH SEO 00040
72 34-I1e-23 24 0052
02085 DANIELS ST
RUENTIN P NENSTROM ET AL
LAKE ENGINEERING INC
P C COX 787
2069 DANIEL ST'
LONG LAKE MN 55356-07e7
I CERTIFY THAT illE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON'THE REMR02
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST
OF MY XNONLEME AND BELIEF.
oATE�G� ^/
1nNUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(g2631 ZONING CODE ANIEND\SENT, Continued)
Lindquist commented in his view overall this is agood document in principal and he would
prefer to deal with the height restrictions on a per unit basis.
Berg stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the height of the structure, where it is
located, what it is adjacent to, and that there needs to be some guidelines in place to help give
direction to the developers.
Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application 92631, Zoning Code
Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Residential P.U.D., to a work session in
November or December. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED
(89) #2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45
Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to table Application 02638 Zoning Code Amendment,
Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45, to a work session in November or
December in conjunction with Application 92631. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(910) k2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Oronc Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52
Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to table Application N2639 Zoning Code Amendment,
Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52, to awork session in November or
December in conjunction with Application 92631. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
�L (911) 42640/2641 Orono Ambar,LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard, P.it.DJSubdivision/
—/� Rezoning/Commercial Site Plan Review, 10:01 p.m. —11:32 p.m.
Frank Dunbar, Orono Ambar, appeared.
Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted an application for a two lot plat of a 6.7 acre
property. The Applicant is proposing rezoning for the two properties from the B-1, Retail
Sales Business District to B-6/PUD for ofti_e use of the proposed west parcel, and
RPUD.PUD for multi -family residential use of the proposed east parcel. The intended use of
the properties are a three stony, 70 unit senior housing project, and a 23,000 square foot office
building.
Weinberger noted the subject parcel is platted as Outlot F, Suganwoods, which is the parcel
immediately south of the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The only buffer between the residential
use in Suganwoods is a 40 foot aide platted oudot that is owned by the Suganvoods Homeowners
Associaticc. Restrictions w: ere placed on each lot %.'thin the Suganwoods neighborhood that
pro;.f-i:i removal of trees greater than mo inches i. diameter within the rear setback for those
lots located closest to the proposed development. In order for my development to occur on the
property, the lot would need to be replatted.
DIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN-NING CONMIISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(H264012641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued)
Weinberger stated they are proposing to rezone this property, which requires a compeheoive
plan amendment to change the guided land use designation for at least Lot 2. The rezoning
would allow Lot 1, which is proposed to hre a 23,000 square foot office building constructed
on it, to be rezoned to the B•6 District. The second rezoning would be to rezone Lot 2 to the'
RPUD, which would establish standards for a multi -family residential senior use of the building.
The Applicant is proposing to construct a three-story, 70 unit senior housing facility. The
housing would be similar to other senior housing facilities. Weinberger stated the 1980
Comprehensive Plan and the revised Comprehensive Plan has this area guided for commercial
use. The proposed senior housing would not fit under this designation, which results in the
need for a comprehensive plan amendr..tar for Lot 2.
Weinberger stated Section 10.53 defines the standards and review process for a Highway, 12
PUD, which is really the umbrella for Us process being put in place to allow rezoning to occur
on this property. Weinberger noted Section 10.52 defines special requirements for rezoning
along the Highway 12 corridor.
The Applicant has provided site plans for both projects. Weinberger noted a site plan review
is required for each individual lot. Commercial site plan will typically involve all of the reviews
that am typically involved in any cape of site plan review, including such things as landscaping,
parking, lighting, traffic flow, building height, setbacks, architectural materials, screening, and
any other design or use issues the: exis:
Weinberger noted this is a preliminary plat applization, which also involves replatting and
subdivision of the two lots. Lot 2 consists of apuroumately four acres in size and would house
the senior housing facility. The 70 units would result in a density of 17.5 units per acre on the
propert, which is higher than a-,c other zoning district within the City of Orono, therefore
the RPUD ordinance would zpply in the case. The RPUD would rely heavily on the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the lot to guide the lot towards the type of uses and
densities that would be allowed on this propem.. The RPUD would also provide those incentives
that are consistent with Orono's housing goals aad includes modifications to regular density
requirements. The housing goal in this case is to provide moderately priced senior housing.
Weinberger stated the office use being proposed for Lot I would not require a comprehensive
plan amendment suite the underlying laid desigmadon is for commercial use for the entire.
'sim. Lot 1 consists of2.1 acres. Weintisger riled the Applicant are looking for a conceptual
plan review and approval at this time.
Weinberger stated the preliminary plat %would E..11 under the preliminary, plat standards. Because
this is a non-residential plat, the City has the option of applying additional requirements that the
City would help this developsum fry wi:ain the neighborhood and to protect adjacent areas from
any nuisance uses on the propem. Weinberger stated some of those provisions would include
permanent landscape buffer strips and any other additional screening or design elements that
%would help it fit into the neighborhood beaer.
The Applicant is proposing to plat Lot I as an iedividual lot. Lot 2 would be platted creating
a building with 70 units, which would be accomplished by creating 70 separate tar parcels and
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMINUSSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(N2640!2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued) `-
70 separate legal descriptions. Under this type of plat, the units would be eventually owned by
a non-profit organization and each unit would be rented to an individual occupant.
Surrounding this individual lot is the Suganwoods neighborhood to the north. Weinberger noted
a 40 foot outlot exists between this development and Suganvoods, which is owned by the
Homeowners Association. There are also covenants and restrictions in place within the
Suganwood development that prohibit the removal of any trees greater than two inches in
diameter. Weinberger noted there are five lots that actually abut to this protosed development.
To the south is the existing Highway 12, which is proposed to be relocated, and the existing
Highway 12 would eventually be turned over and maintained by Hennepin County. Looted
east of this development is Brown Road, and as part of the Highway 12 relocation, would form
a complete lighted intersection with existing Highway 12.
Weinberger indicated the City is considering the various methods that are available to offer
financial assistance to this project. Some options the City will be considering is the creation of
a TIF District for this area, tar abatement or bonding for the project that would allow this type
of development to occur and to keep the rents affordable. Weinberger noted the City Council has
not made a determination on what type of financing should be offered at this time.
Weinberger stated the office building would consist of a 23,000 square foot office building with
a 21 stall parking area underneath the building. The actual sin of the building is 172 feet by
80 feet, with the 80 feet being exposed to the residential areas to the north. The building is
designed to have a step -tip appearance to lessen or soften the visual impact to the adjoining
area. Weinberger noted one portion of the building would consist of one story, with the
remainder of the building being two stories. One access point would be off of the existing
Highway 12 corridor.
Proposed landscaping on the site for the office use consists of a number of plantings around the
prope :y and within the parking area. Weinberger noted the landscaping could be subject to
additional requirements at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Weinberger stated one setback issue that needs to be addressed further would be the setback
between the building and the interior property line, which is shown at 30 feet. The B-6 district
requires a 35 foot setback. Weinberger stated another issue for consideration is the height of the
building, noting that the building does meet the 30 foot maximum height restriction for the
B-6 district. Weinberger indicated the proposed toner on the building would have a defined
height o` 32 feet, which is an architectural and design element on the building to help break up
the facade of the structure.
Weinberger stated rite senior housing facility has a clock tower on the Highway 12 side of the
building and also incorporates some of the same design elements as the proposed office building.
Weinberger noted this facility would also have a step down from three stories to two stories,
which helps to make the mass c f the building appear less. Due to the topography of the land,
half of the building would be located at a lower height, with the other half of the building being
ten feet higher in eleaation Weinberger noted the portion of the building facing Highway, 12
would consist of the three stories.
Weinberger stated the setbacks that would apply in this situation are up for some discussion in
relation to the RPUD ordinance. The proposed ordinance would require setbacks based on
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(02640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued)
building height in addition to minimum setbacks on the property. The plan before the Fleming
Commission shows 40 feet between the building and the northern property line and 30 °ie:
where the garage entrance is located and the interior property line. Discussions have been held
between Staff and the developer about the possibility of moving the building further to the south.
Weinberger noted a pond has been constructed in the area which is designed to handle the water
runoff from Highway 12. Weinberger noted the pond is owned and operated by Mn/DOT.
Weinberger stated the other access to this site would be off of Brown Road and could be located
closer to the pond should the building be relocated slightly. However, this would result in the
removal of some mature trees on the site.
Weinberger stated the developer is proposing one space on the interior of the building for each
individual unit with the senior housing complex, with 83 outdoor spaces being shown for use
by guests to the building. Weinberger stated the City Engineer would like to keep the exterior
parking away from the main traveled portion of the road. Weinberger stated a portion of the
parking area could be relocated closer to the building, with outdoor parking anly, pa the to th
side of the road. Weinberger stated the road would be by easement and would not be planed,
which vmuldpllow a lesser setback.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission should be advised that per the Highway 12 PUD
provisions by which this review will occur undemeain, this proposal is in a general concept
stage, which is equivalent to a preliminary plat application. However, the City Council may hold
a second public hearing w allowed under the PL"D ordinance and would require a 3!3's vote.
Weinberger stated under the PUD ordinance, there is a mandatory 60 da; requirement for the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation, and because the Planning Commission does
not meet in December, this application would to beyond the 60 day limit. Wainbe:ger noted the
developer may prefer to have a recommendation on this matter before the end of the year rather
than tabling of the application.
Dunbar commented he would like to address two items rctating to the office building. Dunbar
stated the five foot variance on the east side could be adjusted to 33 feet, which would eliminate
the variance request. In an attempt to get the office bvilding to look more like the housing in
the area, the tower has been eliminated and would not result in the need for any variances.
Dunbar stated their intent is to get a concept ar.d a site plan that is acceptable to the Planning
Commission, City Council, and the neighborhood. Dunbar indicated they have a tight ticte frame
in which to get this project approved, and requested that concept approval be given as soon as
possible. Dunbar staled they are willing to work with the City and the neighborhood it.. order to
address the issues satisfactorily.
Dunbar indicated two neighbor and meetings have been held with the local residents. Dunbar
stated they have attempted to locate the narrowest portion of the office building next to the
neighborhood and to limit it to one story, with an 80 foot setback, to limit the impact on the
residential area. Dunbar stated they .could like to preserve the vegetation in the fro-: and place
some additional screening along the building. Unbar commented they have attempted to make
the office building appear more residential looking to make it more appealing and to blend in
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COJL%nSSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(g264012641 ORONO AMIBAR, Contiqued)
with the adjoining residential area.
Dunbar stated as it relates to the senior housing facility, they have reduced the number of
outdoor parking stalls to 50 and are considering the possibility of increasing the indoor parking
to 84 spaces. Dunbar noted they are looking at Staffs concerns and are attempting to address
those. Dunbar stated they could also remove the tower incorporated into the senior housing
facility.
Dunbar indicated they will need to discuss with the City Council any financing that could be
rude available on this project. Dunbar noted a non-profit organization would own this facility
once constructed, with the mission of the non-profit to provide moderately priced senior
housing, which is somewhat dependent on the amount of financing provided by the City.
Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, inquired whether any family members would be
able to reside with the senior residents.
Dunbar stated under state law they are not permitted to have family members five in the senior
housing fackftunless they are married.
Schommer inquired whether there would be balconies on the building and what they would be
used for.
Dunbar stated they are planning balconies on the facility, which will be used for sitting. Dunbar
indicated there will be no electrical outlets located on the outside of the building for the decks.
A resident in the audience inquired about the lighting and air-conditioning of the building.
Dunbar stated there will be air-conditioning units available in each individual unit.
Gaffron noted the City will require recessed outdoor lighting.
Dunbar stated they need to construct a 70 unit facility in order to help keep the rent increases
to a Minimum.
Earl Berg, 2112, Suga:�vood Drive, commented he has a number of issues he would like to
set addressed. Berg stated he would like to see the service road pass in froht of the property.
Berg inquired about the height of the building and lighting at night. Berg commented in his view•
the senior housing development would make a good neighbor, with the concept plan being more
positive than negative.
Gaffron indicated the City could incorporate a height restriction for this zoning district if they
should elect to do so.
Schommer commented the neighbors would like to be kept updated on the progress of this
project.
27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(9264012641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued)
Gaffron stated the City could give notice to the affected property owners. Gaffron noted the
City normally does not mail out individual notice of the upcoming meetings once the public
hearing has been held. Gaffron stated the City could send out individual notice of upcoming
meetings if the Planning Commission so desired.
Berg requested the president of the Sugarwood Homeowner's Association be given notice of
any upcoming meetings concerning this application.
Haswn commented she is unsure what action or recommendation the Planning Commission should
give at this time since the RPUD ordinance has not been formally adopted by the City. Hawn
stated in her opinion this appears to be a good plan, noting she would like to see a buffer along
the front of the building. Hawn requested the neighbors' concerns and comments be kept in
mind when revisions are being made to the plan.
Lindquist noted he is in agreement conceptually with the plan.
Berg commented she is glad the developer is working with the neighbors.
Smith inquired whether the building materials could be specified.
Gaffron stated the RPUD process will allow the Planning Commission to dictate what, they would
like to see for this development.
Stoddard stated in his opinion more discussion is needed regarding the height ofthe building and
the parking.
Nygard inquired how many employees there would be.
Dunbar indicated 42 parking stalls would be available to staff, with the majority of the parking
area being utilized on the weekends.
Pat Brakeman, Sugarwood, stated his major concern is with the size of the project and
landscaping for the wintertime. Brakeman stated he would like some idea of the developer's
agenda for this project. Brakeman stated in his view the City does not need a city-wide
ordinance in place prior to dealing with this project.
Gaffron stated Orono's current ordinances do not allow this type of density beyond what's in
the current zoning districts, and that this ordinance is needed to permit this type of housing.
Dunbar stated he will need to meet with the City Council regarding the available financing before
being able to proceed much further. Dunbar stated he would like to get some direction from the
Planning Commission and City Council on which direction they would like this project to go.
Berg commented she is aware of other senior housing facilities consisting of two 30 unit
buildings rather than one large building. Berg suggested this application be tabled until the
ordinance amendment is adopted.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
(A264012641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued)
Gaffron noted a work session is scheduled with the City Council for December 7° to discuss
this item: GaffTon stated a work session is also needed in order to discuss the proposed
ordinance. Gaffron stated if this application is tabled, the Planning Commission will not see it
again until January. Gaffron suggested that a formal meeting could be held in December to
discuss this project.
Nygard suggested meeting sometime after the City Council meeting.
Mayor Jabbour suggested that perhaps ajoint meeting with the Planning Commission be held on
December 7*. Jabbour stated the City needs to look at providing higher density housing.
Hawn inquired whether this matter could be sent on to the City Council without a
recommendation.
Gaffron stated the City Council will probably send it back for review by the Planning
Commission at some point. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could give conceptual
approval to this plan.
Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to give conceptual approval to Application
H2640J2641, P.U.D.(Subdivision/RezoninglCommercial Site Plan, and to send this
application forward to the City Council for their comment. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Hazen noted there is not a consensus on the appropriate density
Dunbar indicated he is not opposed to extending the 60 day time limit
PLANNING CO,'*1MISSION COMivIENTS
(1112) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION'REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 23.2000 AND NOVEMBER 13, 2000
This item was not discussed.
(414) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR OCTOBER 16, 2000
Berg moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning
Commission meeting of October 16, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Nygard moved, Lindquist, to approve the minutes orthe Regular Planning
Commission meeting of September 25, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 29
SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 7, 2000 WORK SESSION DISCUSSION
REGARDING SENIOR HOUSING PROPOSAL
There was general agreement among the Council Members and the residents in attendance
at the work session that the concept of a senior housing development on the site is acceptable.
However, there were concerns regarding the height and massing of the proposed building. There was
substantial discussion regarding options for addressing this concern. The option determined to be
both feasible and effective in reducing the impact of the building's height on the neighbors to the
north was to eliminate the top story of the easternmost portion of the building, which is closest to
the neighbors. This would result in a reduction in the number of units from 70 to 62.
There was also concern regarding the City's ability to ensure the building would continue to
be used for senior housing, both in the medium term (20-30 yeas) and in the long term. It was
discussed that the City's financial participation (i.e., through TIF) gives the City control for the
duration of this participation (20 25 years). There were two options discussed for maintaining
control of the use of the building in the longterm. One was the imposition of restrictive covenants
that would require the building to continue to be used for senior housing. It is questionable whether
the owner of the building would agree to such covenants, and whether those covenants could be
extended far into the future.
Another option considered was the City's purchase of the land. This would enable the City
to control the use through a long term lease arrangement restricting the use of the land to senior
housing. These options need to be further explored.
Mr. Dunbar indicated financial assistance, i.e., TIF, was essential to the feasibility of the
project. Council Member Kelley indicated it was his opinion the City should not be involved
financially. Jabbour indicated there is agreement regarding the need for the project. The City's
financial par'^ipation provides two benefits. First, it makes the project feasible. Second, it provides
the City wits -ontrol over the project, at least in the medium term. It was determined that the use
of Tax Increment Financing should continue to be pursued.
ea
G
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS H SECTION
r • waeav�mn iwwirt rux
V
i■
MINMiiiiisi
i■
uiiuiii■uiiii%e'
Euuoiii■i■iiiiu-.
-
o■■ ■■■■■n■■■■
■■■■
-- -- -lu-■■ -- ■■ -- -- -- --
■■ ■■ ■■
M2
ii
ii ii ii ii iil
ii ii ii ii
------------------------------------------------------------------
..
wo
LL
•
liil_ luli1liii�l • ii
•
MOXM BEVAI
v+�aooe
r." .. A4
Application Date: 12/19/00
Completion Date: 12/19/00
60 Day Deadline: 2116101
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval:
Name Wendy Bonenberg
Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planner
Item Description: 82648 Peter Thomas
1395 Orono Lane
Variance/CUP
COONCl1, MEETING
FEB 1 2 2000
CITY OF ONONO
DATE: 218/01
ITEM NO.:
Agenda Section: Zoning
Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre)
Lot Area: 57,848 s.f. (1.32 acrs..`
List of Exhibits:
A Resolution
B PC Action Notice
C SUIT Report and Exhibits of 1/172001
Application Summary: The applicants are seeking approval to build up and repair several
retaining wails and construct steps on the property. The residence was built in 1929 and is in
excellent condition. The property is on a bluff and has significant elevation changes. Because of
the age of the property there are several areas that need to be repaired, replaced and added to for
erosion control, soil retention and safety.
The proposal consists of ten different projects on the property. Four of the projects are in the 0-75'
setback area and will increase the hardcover total by 42.84 s.f. to 3,258.84 s.f. (11.38%). The other
six projects are in the 75-250' setback area and will increase the hardcover total by 85 s.f. to 7,433
s.f. (25.45a/o).
Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8,
10.56, Subd. 16[J]).
Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, Subd. 16[L]).
3. Conditional use permit for land alteration (I0.03, Subd. 21, 10.56, Subd. 16 [5]).
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to:
Approve the application as presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the enclosed resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2,
SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) (5),
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (J) and (L),
AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 21
FILE NO.2648
WHEREAS, Peter M. Thomas and Nicole Marie R. Thomas, (hereinafter "the
applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1385 Orono Lane within the City of Orono
(hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows:
See Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City to permit the construction of
retaining walls on the property requiring variances to Municipal Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision
2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) and (L) to allow hardcover in
the 0-75' Lakeshore setback zone and to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess ofthe 25%that
is normally allowed; a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(5) to allow retaining walls
which are prohibited in the shore setback zone; and a conditional use permit for Lakeshore alterations
per Section 10.03, Subdivision 21.
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2001, at which time all persons desiring to be
heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
Miw, -"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File r2648.
2. This property is located in the LR-1 A Zoning District, where 2 acre is the minimum
lot area. The property consists of approximately 1.32 acres.
Page I of 7
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 17,2001 and
recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0.
4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact:
A. The property currently contains existing deteriorating retaining wall systems
at the lakeshore and street side of the property. Replacement of the retaining
walls is necessary to prevent erosion of the steep slopes on the property and
at the Lakeshore.
S. The existing lakeshare retaining walls are located within 30' of the shoreline
but do not extend the full width of the property.
C. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone should not exceed 3,258.84 st and no additional
hardcover should be allowed in this zone.
D. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone should not exceed 7,433 s.f. and no additional
hardcover should be allowed in this zone.
5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to
it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting
the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire
Ward or othet danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve cs 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.
6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow construction
of a retaining wall system will not to be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or
other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property
values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the
intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
7. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdines and
Page 2 of 7
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8
and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) and (L) to allow hardcover in the 0-75' Lakeshore setback
zone of 11.38% where 11.22% hardcover exists and no hardcover is normally allowed and to
allow hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone of 25.45%where 25.16% hardcover exists and 25%
is normally allowed; a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(5) to allow retaining walls
where they are normally prohibited in the Lakeshore setback zone; and a conditional use permit
for lakeshore alterations per Section 10.03, Subdivision 21. Approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to
this resolution as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the site plan may require further
Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. The property owner shall obtain the appropriate building and land alteration
permits for the retaining wall prior to construction.
3. Applicants are advised that the City will not look favorably on future additions to
hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback zones.
4. Authorities granted by these variances and conditional use permit run with the
property not with the applicants, but we permissive only and must be exercised by
application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval,
or these variances will expire on that date (February 12, 2002).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of these
variances and conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning
code, shall automatically terminate an}. authority granted herein, and shall be
punishable as a misdemeanor.
Page 3 of 7
6. 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 12th day of February, 200 L
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Property Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of
January, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson 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 7
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY Or HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 2001, before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared
Mown 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 , 2001, 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 7
Exhibit A
2, AND 3 AND ACCRETIONS AND RELICTIONS THERETO, AND THAT PART OF THE VACATED
ALL IN 'HOMES ON BROWN'S BAY, AND THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, AND
DONS AND RELICTIONS THERETO, IN SECTION 2. TOWNSHIP 117, RANGE 23, ALL
BED AS COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3 IN 'HOMES ON BROWN'S BAY,
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 3, 2 AND i IN 'HOMES ON BROWN'S
1 DISTANCE OF 267 FEET; THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 106 DEGREES 03 MINUTES A
CE OF 41.55 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 'HOMES ON BROWN'S BAY TO THE POINT
,INNING; THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 'HOMES ON
'S SAY 16 DEGREES 30 MINUTES A DISTANCE OF 31.35 FEET; THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE
31 DEGREES 15 MINUTES TO THE SHORE OF LAKE MINNETONKA; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND
TLY ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE MINNETONKA TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EXTENSION OF
EST LINE OF LOT 3 IN 'HOMES ON BROWN'S BAY THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EXTENSION OF
ES7 LINE OF LOT 3 IN 'HOMES ON BROWN'S BAY TO THE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT
ITS EXTENSION, IN 'HOMES ON BROWN'S BAY TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 'HOMES ON
S BAY, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 'HOMES ON BROWN'S
f0 THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ,
RECORDS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Page 6 of 7
�•i ,..,
LOTS
P;Py
LOT�2 srP
`
iwii
P.P P'Y ..-a
1eo-Y NexP Y�iYuaPwn
•✓ _
HOMES ON BR N
.Pu.
•n:P r P.a p
M
J
.l
PeY/ r6N Pl
,rat. Y -�� �- •Pur
LAKE M'
//. '.oy tl ipl'YY LL'4
0116/N4N CQWZS
LEGEND
Z° 00E7-
-® ura a vx
.••�(� ,aYrun iP.x rra�o�
"m urcix.: max
m.Px.x Yttx
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
612-249.4600
TO: Peter and Nicole Thomas
5804 Crescent Terrace
Edina, MN 55436
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/CUP
ZONING FILE k 2648
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: January 18, 2001
COPIES:
DATE OF MEETING: January 17, 2001 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval as submitted.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council on February 12, 2001 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.
TO:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:
Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:
January 12, 2001
SUBJECT:
#2648 Peter and Nicole Thomas
1385 Orono Lane
CUPNariance-- Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre)
Lot Area: 57,848 sT (1.32 acres)
List of Exhibits
A Application
B Written description of projects
C Pictorial description of projects
D Written hardship of projects
E Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan
F Site Plan/ Survey
G Plat Map
H Location %lap
1 Property Owner's List
J Permit Record
Pertinent Code Section:
Variance for land alterations within 75' ofthe shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, 10.56, Subd.
16(J]).
Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, Subd. 161L]).
Conditional use permit for land alteration (10.03, Subd. 21, 10.56, Subd. 16 (5]).
Application Summary: The applicants are seeking approval to rebuild, build up, repair several
retaining walls an6construct stepson the property. The residence was built in 1929 and in excellent
condition. The property is on a bluff and has significant elevation changes. Because of the age of
the property there are several areas that need to be repaired, replaced and added to for erosion
control, soil retention and safety.
The proposal is ten different projects (A-J) on the property. The ten projects are listed in great detail
in Exhibit B, C, D. Exhibit F is a colored city plan showing the locations of the projects.
Improvements A-F are within the 75-25Y setback area. The allowed hardcover in this zone is
7,299.75 s.f. (25e/s). The improvements add 85 s.f. to the hardcover total 7,433 31 (25.450/0).
Improvements G. H, I and J are within the 0-75' setback area. The allowed hardcover in this zone
is 0 s.f. (0%). Currently there is 3,216 s.f. (11.22%) hardcover in this area. The improvements
increase the hardcover by 42.84 s.f. Two improvements (I and J) are portable fountains (33 s.f).
42648 Peter/,Vleole Thomas
1185 Orono Lane
t urlance,CUP
111212001
Page I
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit D.
The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Comprehensive Plan: (Retaining Walls)
The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") contains a number
of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land
alteration would be consistent. Without the retaining walls erosion or freezing would be a problem.
See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and views on altering
shoreline areas. (Exhibit D). These same goals and policies appear in the 2000-2020 CMP.
Engineering Review:(Retaining Walls)
The City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering
standpoint. The applicants are not adding but replacing retaining walls. A wall higher than 4'
must be engineered and approved by the City's engineer and building official, these walls are not
4' or higher. The applicants will be required to submit detailed plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
bsues for Consideration:
I The retaining wall located by the boat house could be eliminated by grading, however that
could cause a frost footing problem. The wall is needed.
2. The portable fountains are included in hardcover calculations. Should they be considered
portable or permanent?
3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and the variances.
e2648 Peter and Nicole Thomas
1385 Orono Lane
i'anance
1112 2001
Page 2
M
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee 325991E
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non -conforming structures $250.00
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address /3YS- Di.,.,>
Property Identification Numbe
Attach legal description to aF
Date Pro Acquired
I (do) do not) )lso own the
present use o property: I
Zoning District:
Application f! 2 (o ri 8
Date Received t x r 9 0 o
Amount Paid
¢32S
CUPlanr
not included on required survey. T ^TM!
,7ZfAl (month/year)
sels of land.
other (specify)
APPLICANT Phone (home) fr2 - i3C- / 7 rr t
Name A ,tIle,f, 74~f Phone (work)L/Z-3Y9-9E"1.-''•
Address:S'Lw City: P.1— i /v Zip: 'YJE''•1114
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Phone (home) f '"
_ Phone (work)
City: Zip: �:•v
M
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /o� hoc
Describe request in detail: Sre Off cs.w r/•rtr
(attach additional sheets if necessary) C
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area _ Lot Width V Hardcover _Lot Coverage
Setback: _ Front _ Side _ Rear _ Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
RARDSIUMESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Sr #kc.4 .,P fb�etc .
(attach additional sheets
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
10110wing InTOrmlIMU must De SUDMIMU by the 'Ipplication deadline date in
order for your application to be considered complete:
1. Completed Application Form
2. :/ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map front Iletmepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
3. ✓ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11" for
reproduction.
4. ✓ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x I V for reproduction.
5. ✓ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8%i' x 11").
6. /yList 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).
7. t/ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
8. ✓ Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date
a -
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.
Owners Signature j,T�I �?—� Date
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
ARTGARDEN =lr��b a
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
195 NORTH FAIRVIEW
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104
PHONE/FAX: (651) 647-9426
Client: Pete and Nicole Thomas
Proposed Landscape Alterations at 1385 Orono Lane, Orono, MN:
A. Eliminate 21 linear feet of the existing aggregate wall (orange color on survey, ,
marked 'A J. Cut remaining existing wall to just below grade and overlay with new
brick (pink). Brick veneer will be applied to exposed north side of existing wall (see
drawings and photos for section A, pages 1-3). The finished wall will be 16" wide
and 18" tall from the black top. There will be two 20"x 20"x 3'-4' columns located
along the wall. Wrought iron fencing, 14-16" high, will be installed between the
columns and on top of the low 18" wall. Proposed improvement results in an addition
to hardcover area of 2.44 square feet.
B. Remove existing stone wall (pale lavender color on survey, marked 'B ) closest to
driveway and build a new brick wall that will extend 70' to the west beyond the
existing aggregate wall. It will be constructed with 3 columns and fencing to match
description in 'A' and supported by a 48" frost footing (see drawings and photos for
section B, pages 4-7). Some blacktop (light blue) will be added to the driveway to
create this section, however more will be removed (purple) in this process. Proposed
improvement results in the removal of hardcover area equal to 63.14 square fat.
C. Install 4' wide stone steps (gray color on survey, marked 'C) with 12" tread going
from driveway to lower lawn area (see drawing and photos for section C, pages 5-8).
Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 38.88 square feet.
D. Remove existing stone wall (red color on survey, marked 'D) surrounding large
maple tree. Tear down the rest of the existing retaining walls, shift position of some
of the wall slightly to improve soil retention and rebuild them with dry laid bluestone
boulder walls (brown color on survey, marked 'D) (see drawing aid photos for
section D, pages3-7 and 9). An additional tier will be built to help control soil erosion
(brown). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover of 41 square feet.
E. Rebuild existing stone steps (teal color on survey, marked 'F.) on the west side of the
house to maintain a uniform width of 30". Existing steps vary from 18 to 30" (see
photosfor Section&, pages 10-11). More stone steps (coral) will be built to extend
the steps to the driveway, maintaining a 30" width. The steps will be built with dry
laid bluestone flagging for the tread and bluestone boulders for the rise (see example
photosforSection&, page]]). Proposed improvement results in an addition to
hardcover area of 65.84 square feet.
F. Repair existing brick retaining walls (dark orange on survey, marked 'F) on east and
west sides of house (see photosjor Section F. page 12). Remove small limestone
wall on east side, dig frost footing and replace with a low brick wall that is
incorporated into the adjacent brick wall. Please note the following: 1.) The survey
identifies the west wall as stone, but it is a brick mortared. 2.) Existing limestone
wall on east side does not overlap brick wall as shown on survey. Proposed
improvement results in no additions to hardcover area.
G. Remove concrete retaining wall by boathouse and replace with a tiered, dry laid
bluestone boulder wall (blue color on survey, marked 'G ) (See drmvings and photos
for Section G, page 13). This will be the same type of wall as what is proposed for
Section D (see example photos and urmvings for section D, page 9). Proposed
improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 9.84 square feet.
H. Repair stone walk by boathouse (yellow color Ott survey, marked 'H ) (see photos for
Section H, page 13). Please note that the survey identifies this as a concrete walk,
however, it is a stone path. Proposed improvement results in no additions to
hardcover area.
I. Install portable, tiered fountain with gravel base by boathouse (green color on survey,
marked 7) (see drawing and photos for Section 1, pages 14-16). Proposed
improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 6.12 square feet.
J. Install portable, 9'x 3' cistern fountain with gravel base by patio (rest color at
survey, marked J) (see photos for Section J, pages 17-18). Proposed improvement
results in an addition to hardcover area of 27 square feet.
Section A.
C
A. Eliminate 21 linear feet of the existing aggregate wall (aru,rg: r,.t.n nn .rrr,; t,
morked 'A). Cut remaining existing wall to just below grade and m erla% ,• it net%
brick (pink). Brick veneer will be applied to exposed north side ore\istinc v. all nrr
dramvingsmtdphotosfor section A. pages 1-3) 'fheflnishedwalluillbelF'«ide
and 18" tall from the black top. There will be two 20"x 2ii'x Y-4 coAnun> iocaicd
along the wall. Wrought iron fencing, 14-16' high. will be installed hemere the
columns and on top ofthe low 18" wall Proprsed improcemem rev It, in an add it inn
to hardcover area of 2.44 square feet.
0
l
� taRpCE.
Section A.
�rrbgb
�. -CAP
A �aVEWAY
92+•Orl EihG'� Or
97l=r/NE( iG iMC ATe- WAUL
,JrrK *,v( PAa VG466-K
Cross Section of Wall Proposed For Section A.
3
Section B.
C
B. Remove existing stone wall (ode lavender color on survey, marked 'B ) closest to
driveway and build a new brick wall that will extend 70' to the west beyond the
existing aggregate wall. It will be constructed with 3 columns and fencing to match
description in 'A' and supported by a 48" frost footing flee drawings and photas for
section B, pages 4-7). Some blacktop (light blue) will be added to the driveway to
create this section, however more will be removed (purple) in this process. Proposed
improvement results in the removal of hardcover area equal to 63.14 square feet.
rlAw � sor» CkF
IS" 77)TAG i ICaF1'(
�— 'j;ACX-o9
5WVBtvnV a
_ • "rib" fY" GoNGKE'rG *y.�+L
— �JO1C F11.GrA 5VFiZV .;ou2`,P.
GiFN�
tpos'r FOa7iAXa i
I
�I
y
n/SW rkvu , W6W rwrlNm
rovnA
4 . Cross Section of Wall Proposed For Section B.
S
F
Section C.
L
12
C. Tnstall 4' wide stone steps (gra)-cnlnr nn suriv . marked 'C) with I'_" tread going "`q
from driveway to lower lawn area (see drmring and photos for section C. jwges SF).
Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 38 83 square feet
a•i
Cr 't
�a
vY
FA
Example -of Block Stone Steps Proposed. for Section C..
Section D. G
D. Remove existing stonewall (red color on mirve}, marked 'D) surrounding large
maple tree. Tear down the rest of the existing retaining wails, shift position of some
of the wall slightly to improve soil retention and rebuild them with dry laid bluestone
boulder walls (brown color on survey, marked 'D) (see drawing and photos jor
section D, pages5-7 and 9). An additional tier will be built to help control soil erosion
(brown). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover of 41 square feet.
�.',
Example of Stone Retaining Wall Proposed for Section D. 9
Section E
E. Rebuild existing stone steps (teal color at survey, marked •E) on the west side of the
house to maintain a uniform width of 30". Existing steps vary from 18 to 30" (see
photos for Section$ pages 10-11). More stone steps (coral) will be built to extend
the steps to the driveway, maintaining a 30" width. The steps will be built with dry
laid bluestone flagging for the tread and bluestone boulders for the rise (see example
photasfor Section F page 11). Proposed improvement results in an addition to
hardcover area of 65.84 square feet.
Al
i"
a
Examples of Flagstone
f,
section F.
nepatr extsung onca Icta'III ug wnu> lu,"" I'llI'll" I --
small lim..
west sides of house (see pbnrns jar Section F, page 121 .tee
wall on east side, dig frost footing and replace with a to. brick call 0--m I.
incorporated into the adjacent brick wall. Please note tF.. col lowins i I I h,
identifies the west wall as stone, but it is a brick monare; 2 ) Existing liar, ,
wall on east side does not overlap brick wall as shown ec survey Prop
improvement results in no additions to hardcover area
Brick Wall on West Side of House.
Please note the wall is brick, not stone as stated c l ;un e..
Brick Wall on East Side of 11UU')C.
Please note that the limestone retaining wall does not o\ : ht ick. as st,t! ,J
12
survev.
Section G. & H.
L
fl Remove con: rote retaininu wall by boathaeW -1.nd repl2ce with a tiered, di v laid
bluestonc boulder wall (h%u; +n1or on surwi, marked '(;', owe <b riwngs an,l phut .
for Section (;, page 13). This will be the same type of wall as what is proposed for
Section D (see eran+ple phonts nr+d dra+ru+gr fnr section D, page 9), Proposed
improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of9.84 square feet
If Repair stone walk by boathouse (w1loa color ot+.mnr), ,ztkeel 'H7 (.ar fJruei� fur
.1'ec(ion fl, page 13). Please note that the surrey identifies this as a concre:r 'zll.,
however, it is a stone path Proposed irnprevementresults in no additions to
Please note %� alk is made with stone not cement, as stated on survey.
13
Section I.
Install portable, tiered fountain with gravel base by boathouse (sneen co/m ,.„ „.n{�.
marked 'I) (see drawing mid photos for Section I, pages N-16). Proposed
improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 6 12 square feet
9sd Cistern _
Lead cisterns were popular in
large houses from the middle of
the I7th centur) through to the
earl) 19th cewup They were
u,cd to collect mimsater for use
in the house and guden
%lost of the I81h century
examples make use of the
geometric pattern and quite
often have heraldic deices
memporaied. Mary are dated.
fXrt..I al 5:'
P IS Doublo Sro Fool Geoarerric
C � Rerrangulor Cistern
Photo of Fountain Proposed for Section J.
}
18 -- , — -- —�
L
Section I.
Arcadian Doable Fountain CC300
(shown in -CO)
`lemrmd /3n(pl dpp/n:niw�.eq: _>0'JIXp.I
V006;nrpuu�p
Hcighc
1155mm
(45Vf)
Nu. widda
x45nm:
03,h )
Tonl unighr.
170kg
(3741h)
Hu.i.,compunenn
73kg
(I611h)
16 Photo of Fountain Proposed for Section I.
Seetion J.
C
1 ImtatI portable, 9'x ; cistcm fountain with gravel base by patio (nnfxuLn on
nor;),, marked V) G,eeplrotos(u $'erv/on,l, p,te,, 1,-/S" I4 oposed iIII pro%ru:eIII
results in an addition to hardco,., ;area of 27 sgaare ice;
17
Peter & Nicole Thomas
1385 Orono lane
Hardship Requests
Our house is very unusual because it is located on a large bluff with significant elevation changes throughout
the property with lots of steep slopes, hills, and ridges. These severe elevation changes are creating two major
hardships for us.
#1 Safety for young children.
#2 Erosion control and soil retention.
We have a sixteen month old daughter, and we hope to have several more children. so the safety of the property
is large concern for us. We just purchased this old home (built in 1929), the house is in excellent condition,
however, there are a lot of landscaping issues that need to be shored up for safety and erosion reasons. We just
had a very detailed topographical survey of the property completed, and we found out that within the 75-250
foot setback lines, the main areas that we would like to address, we are over the al lowed hardcover percentage
by A5%. Therefore, we are seeking your permission for the following improvements through the Variance
Application process. There are eight projects that we would like to do to help improve these hardships, they are
all listed in great detail in the following pages. The requests are divided into sections A-H. The summary for
Hardship Requests for the projects are:
Section A & B To the North side of the driveway there is a steep ridge that leads down to the lawn.
Approximately 8-1 Oft in elevation drop. We are very concerned that a young child could bicycle / rollerblade /
fall down this ridge and incur serious injury. Therefore, we are trying to build up a retaining wall around the
driveway, and put a small iron fence on top of the wall to prevent anyone from falling down the ridge. Minimal
additions to hardcover area.
Section C On this same ridge between the driveway and the lower lawn we would like to put in
some steps so that children and elderly adults would be able to safely walk down to the lawn without getting
hurt by falling down the ridge.
Section D We would like to do some repair and maintenance of a retaining wall at the bottom of the
same ridge to help improve soil retention and prevent erosion. Minimal addition to hardcover.
Section E On the West side of the home, there is a very significant hill to get from the front to the
back of the house. This slope is approximately 12-15 feet high. There are existing steps to help walk up and
down this steep grade, but the steps are very old and falling apart. The steps are so beaten up and narrow that
they are almost not functional. We would like to redo these steps for the safety of young children and older
people to be able to walk from the front to the back of the house. Minimal addition to hardcover.
Section F Repair existing retaining walls on the East and West sides of the home which are built
into the side of a hill. The walls are old, cracking, and in need of maintenance. No addition to hardcover.
Section G Rebuild an old wall that is built into the side of a hill next to the boathouse. The wall is
so old and in such bad shape that it is cracked and buckling. By rebuilding this wall we will preserve the soil
retention of the hill and prevent erosion. Minimal increase to hardcover.
Section H Repair the stone walkway on the slope at the bottom of the hill next to the boathouse.
The stones are very old, cracked, and sunken. Repairing this walkway will help improve the erosion control of
the hill. No increase to hardcover.
JUNE, 1980
THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED
AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY
PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION.
The Harza Study, the 208 water Quality Management Study, and Orono's
Surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent
water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono
Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that
require protection as part of the City's storm water management program.
It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen-
dations of the 1974 Orono Surface water Management Plan.
7. PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL
INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE,
FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. ordinances will
establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever
possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for
conservation of these lands.
PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND
\\JJ ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT.
In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for
recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense
development within 10000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake vse regulations
will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitiv,
bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable
control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachmen'
9.� LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation
\J in ahoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable
in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize
excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. in areas of soil
. or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will
be encouraged.
10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE 0£ ADVERSE SHORT-TERM
AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases
large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely
affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new
channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access
where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited
circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing
natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the
control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's
desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for
disrupting sensitive lake beds.
CMP 3-20
E
JUNE, 1980
11. 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 other pro-
visions applicable to those areas. In addition, where 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.
012. 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. The extent of each such review will be determined by
probable environmental impact. Greater detail will be required of
larger projects than of smaller ones. As proximity to Lake Minnetonka
or a major wetland increases, so will the care and concern increase
in direct proportion.
13. ON -SITE WATER RETENTION FACILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHENEVER
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE THE EXISTING STORM WATER RUNOFF
PATTERNS. Whenever a development's location, size, scope or hardcover
would tend to increase the quantity of runoff, increase the speed of
runoff, or decrease the quality of runoff, that development will be
required to provide on -site retention facilities sufficient to maintai
the existing situation or to improve the resulting runoff by reducing
quantity, reducing speed and/or improving quality. No development will
be permitted to adversely impact it's neighbors, or the City, by
changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting storm
water drainage.
14. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT THE EXPENSE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 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 hazard, 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 healt:
safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivisic
or of the community. No land use will be allowed to adversely affect
the neighborhood's air or water resources nor will any use be permitt
to emit noise, dust, electrical or radiation pollution.
[NsIME"I
E
FNVIRONMENTAL JUNE, 1980
15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND
ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize
the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage
downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed
for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be
required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be
required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways.
Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence.
1. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON
LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths 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.
1I2.� RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION
�// AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heig':ts will be limited to less
than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided
with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of
vegetation. Natural vegetation will be 'preserved on slopes. Retaining
walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent
erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation.
DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be
established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover
in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will
be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline
pursuant to Mn. DNR recommended shoreline practices.
ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR
SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff
exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to -ssimilate all nutrients#
therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands
would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation
include on -site retention on all new developrents and storm water
recycling through the existing marshes.
CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER
QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized.
Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they
will not overload the natural drainage syste= or where foreign matter,
especially salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring
cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts before' environmental
damage occurs.
CMP 3-22
FHennepin. County Taxpayer Services Department
(,9) Hu
oa)
j„)
^iI (7) 161 v at4r
In) _
i
Q ' not
it r2)
t
d
nm
• iyrro'rS�. i. /�:.''�'_� J/ir.; N.�/, iK lu-r� .t.c/�
Parcel information v it� / r-,y Y—
Parcel ID 0211723340003
House Number 1385
Street Name ORONO LA
Condominium
Ms is rW s kg* ncoNed map. It npww is a cwWft fm dMormsWn
i enddefaham CW Canty. aM State roadoW wW"andoflwaaays. —�
! 11
I Ira
A BLVD TL
-
q p - AXIELS
a :.Si'.vOs WOOOX E!A ....... o S e a IDAL� _ 4 -
7 WLAA CY $ rn EA a o 3 IT U
9 12 @ A mr
o O u r s `��� J k•(�� •
D00 M0A0UDN LDATERTOAWIb - •k_,• *j
Gf s U COLIM 0r On0,-
ClrIN LA DR
a CR W Biking ,.. Golf
LONMEW C! $: 1.......
Alaop
F LOY[nsEi Lis[ • Jf' i:. Course DDD
rret:l' HrW�4-•... FOX XAL
RIDGE RD ... AV �o
.. ,.:
A
Line AtpODOX WAY
----•-..-..... ORON W
Ap{!XU � WAIT[o qDD �
e c rcnnat '�
1p R C g ! on IT eJ
FOX $T �. F1 A + Wit Sr ir6 a
LABa e
AD 4 �a
S �NEF RD « 15
a NOerCObCrg BCU FRENCH LAKE
4GLrdena AD a Tanager ;
�L ti Rrk'�?, 8C ;
., Lakrr ..
14O 8ti�
`Fru,ch , 4q• 0/ LRaNT AeE]
o
v _ _ Lake •�4h �f . rtl �
RUM DATE 32/18/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO, P1436441
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACE 5
BATCH 502
38 02-117-23 54 0003
PROP ADOR RIMS ORONO LA
OWNER RODE J P SPOONER L K O SPOONER
TAXPAYER JONN SPOONER E KARLA SPOONER
NAME/AMR 1305 ORONO LA
WAYZATA HN 55391
30 OZ-117-23 34 00D6
PROF "DR 01395 ORONO LA
OWNER NAME NORWEST UK MPIS-HTL ASO TRST
TAXPAYER S TWK3AS/RER030-97
NRME/ADDR C/O NORWEST TRUST REAL EST
6TH R MARQUETTE MAC N9305092
WES MN 55479
30 02-127-23 34 0013
PROP AODII 013E5 SHORELINE DR
OWOWNNEERYN NW J POPP A T E POPP
TARIAYEW WILLIAM J E TERI E POPP
HAME/ADDR 1305 SHORELINE DRIVE
NAYZATA MN 55391
38 OZ-117-23 34 0004
01387 ORONO LA
DOUGLAS C MEN ET AL
DOUGLAS A JUDITH MEN
1547 ORONO LA
NAYZATA MN 55391
38 02-117-23 34 9011
D1S25 SHORELINE DR
LYNN MARIE DUOOS
LYtNI MARIE OU005
13U SHORELINE OR
NAYZATA HN 55391
TOTAL BATCH 502 00007
30 02-117-23 34 0005
01389 ORONO LA
N W SEE A G S SEE
HENRY R R GAIL S SEE
1389 ORONO LA
NAYZATA HN 55391
30 02-117-23 34 0012
01355 SHORELINE DR
D A M JOHNSON
DOUGLAS 0 JOHNSON
4194 CENTER BOARD LA S E
STUART FL 3499.6176
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
^EPRESENTATIOM OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
4F THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. /•n/
DATE 10� / • !Y' 7"�!t S1197�.�
i�
PERMIT RECORD
Permit No. Date Type of Permit
0134S 11-1v•69
VAII / 3D_T / /Zemope
669� s • a h 8.- SEWBR s SAC.
'7{, G - / V - 9 a- cY,
?U 1 p °i • ie Yo" �zPu ce.
Application Date: 12/20/00
60 Day Deadline: 2I18101
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Name Paul W
Title Zoning
Item Description: #2649 Charles Leekley
1525 Long lake Boulevard
Variances
COI INCIL WETINO
FEB 1 2 2000
CITY OF ORONO
DATE: Januan 31. 2001
ITEM NO.:
Agenda Section:
Zoning
Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acre)
Lot Area: 16,175 s.f (0.37 acre)
List of EshiLits:
Resolution
Site Plan
Elevation Views
Planning Report (Januan' 8, 2001)
Application Summary:
The applicant has proposed to replace a one stall detached garage with a 20' X 22' two stall, detached garage
5' from the front property line and 5' from the side property line. The existing building is 3.5' from the front
property line and T from the side lot line. Construction of a Earage would require the structure to be located
along the front property line due to the topography of the lot.
Review of Hardship:
The site topography restricts the garage to only the northeast comer of ❑.e property. The properties along
Long Lake Boulevard slope to home building sites. The garages must be located at the top of the hill to avoid
unsafe driveway access to the properties. The location of the existing well and site topography restrict the
garage location to only the far northeast comer on the property
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval of the variances to permit a garage to be
located 5' from the east property line and 5' to the north property line due to the hardships noted in the
-Planning Report. - - "
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED ..
Motion to adopt or mnend the attached approval resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D), SECTION 10.24,
SUBDIVISION 5 (B)
FILE NO. #2649
WHEREAS, Charles Leekley (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in, and
Marie Wendt is owner (hereinafter "the owner") of the property located at 1525 Long Lake
Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows:
All of Lot 20 and that part of Lot 21, which lies West of a line drawn North and South
through said lot and midway between the East and Rest fines of said lot in "Albee's
Long Lake Addition" (hereinafter "the property"); crd
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2001, at which times all persons desiring to
be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance application to the City for
variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to permit a garage
entrance 5' from the north property line where 39 is required; and Section 10.24, Subdivision
5 (B) to permit a 5' side setback where a 10' setback is required for construction of a detached
two stall garage.
.Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File2649.
2. The property is located in the LR-lB (I acre) One Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District.
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 17, 2001
and recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 0 for variances based upon the
following findings and hardships:
Page t of 6
A. The site topography restricts the garage to only the northeast corner of
the property. The properties along Long Lake Boulevard slope to home
building sites. The garages must be located at the top of the hill to
avoid unsafe driveway access to the properties. The location of the
existing well and site topography restrict the garage location to only the
far northeast corner on the property.
B. Long Lake Boulevard is located 10' above the ground elevation of the
house. If a garage were located attached, or near the house a driveway
with slopes at or n.ar 15% would be required. The City of Orono
normally suggests driveway slopes not exceed 8-10%.
C. An existing garage is located only 1' below the Long Lake Boulevard.
4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property n 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.
S. 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.
Page 2 of 6
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above F. dings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to permit a garage
entrance 5' from the north property line where 30' is required; and Section 10.24, Subdivision
5 (B) to permit a 5' side setback where a 10' setback is required for construction of a detached
two stall garage, approved site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the following
conditions:
I. Applicants shall apply for a demolition permit and remove the existing garage
and storage shed prior to issuance of a building permit for a new structure.
2. 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 12, 2002).
3. 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.
4. The undersigned applicant and owner have read, understand 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 6
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 12th day of February, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Property Owner
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
A. Peterson, Mayor
Applicant
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of
February, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City
of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and stud instrument was executed on behalf of
the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _day of , 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared _ known to me
to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged
that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
CHARLES LEEKLEY
W LOTS 20 & 2L ALBEE'S LONG LAKE ADDITION
-_ HENNEPIN COUNTY. AIINNESOTA
Dvc
Wlo
21
\ E
4 22
COFFIN k GRONBERG• INE.
Page 6 of 6
STATE OF HIINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _day of . 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personaily 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 6
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
CHARLES LEEKLEY
IN LOTS 20 @ 21, ALBEE' S LONG LAKE ADDITION
-_ HENNEPN COUNTY. MINNESOTA
LOMG
21
22
—' comN k GRORBRNG. INL
Page 6 of 6
Application Date: 12/20/00
60 Day Deadline: 2/10/01
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Mortise, City Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: January S. 2001
SUBJECT: #2649 Charles Leekley
1525 Long Lake Boulevard
Variances
Zoning District: LR-IA Two Acre Lakeshore Residential
Lot Area: 16,175 s.f (.37 acre)
List of Exhibits:
A Application
B Plat Map
C Site Topography
D Site Plan
E Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
F Garage Plans
G Property Owners Notification List
Application Summary:
The applicant has proposed to replace a one stall detached garage with a 29 X 22' two stall garage
located S off the front property line and 5' off the side property line. The existing building is 3.5'
off the front property line and 2' from the side lot line. Construction of a garage would require the
building to be located along the front property line due to the property beginning to slope towards
the lake.
Discussion:
The topography of the lot requires a garage to be constructed near the front property line. Long Lake
Boulevard is located approximately 10' above the ground elevation of the house. If a garage were
located attached or near the house a driveway with slopes at or near 15% would be required along
with extensive grading and installation of a retaining wall system. Normally the City suggests
driveway slopes not exceed 8-10% depending on the individual lot. Only the northeast comer
(where the existing garage is located) of the property is located above the hill. The existing garage
is located only I' below Long Lake Boulevard.
Another factor in determining the garage location is the well. State Building Code requires
structures, or any part of the structure, to be located 3' from a well. The well and slope of the land
02619 Chutes Leekky
1325 Long Lake Boulevard
veri nm
Page]
have restricted any garage construction to the area where the existing garage stands. One outdoor
parking space is currently located north of the existing garage. This space is partially off the property
into the right of way. The space may also encroach slightly onto an adjacent property. The outdoor
space would be eliminated if a new two stalled structure is built.
The building would be a two level bu;lding with the !owest level access being located towards the
house below the hillside. The purpose of the lowest level is to provide indoor storage on the
properly. A small shed would be required to be removed to accommodate a larger building resulting
in a loss of storage on the property.
Hardcover:
The property would not exceed the 25%allowed hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback. The
total hardcover would be approximately 1,850 s.f. (21%).
Existing
Total Hardcover 75-250' setback = 1,699 s.f. (20%)
Setbacks:
The 5' proposed front yard setback would allow for off street parking in the driveway. Long Lake
Boulevard is a narrow street that does not provide on street parking. The code requires a 30'setback
for garages when the doors face the property line. The building is required to have a 10' setback to
property lines when no access is required. Long Lake Boulevard is not a through street and does not
carry heavy traffic, mostly local traffic. There is no proposed change to the access to the property.
The 5' side yard setback would allow another building on the adjacent property to be located 5' from
the lot line and maintain a 10' builk ag separation as required by the State Building/Fire Code.
Review of Hardship:
1. The site topography restricts a garage to only the northeast corner of the property. The
properties along Long Lake Boulevard slope to home building sites. The garages must be
located at the top ofthe hill to avoid unsafe driveway access to the properties. This particular
lot is unique by the fact the only high point is to one side. The northwest comer of the
property slopes off much closer to the road not leaving adequate room for a building.
2. A well is located between the house and garage. State Code requires a building, or any
portion of a building, to be located no closer than 3' to a well. A minimum two stall garage
would fit into the hillside without requiring the well to be relocated.
3. A building below the hill would have driveway slopes up to 15% which is far greak than
what the City suggests for safe access. The garage entrance would only be about 1' lower
than Long Lake Boulevard. The lower level storage area would minimize the need for
additional storage buildings on the property.
02649 chm.L klp
IM Lon{ LQ. Boulsvxd
V..m '
Pge2
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed the site and recommends approval for construction of a 22' X 20' two level two
stall garage 5' from the front property line and 5' from the side property line based on the hardships
noted above subject to the following condition:
The garage is located in substantial conformance with the site plan attached to this report.
Any major alteration to the site plan shall require additional review.
Options for Action:
1. Recommend approval.
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
3. Table.
4. Other action.
02649 ChWn L.U.Y
112! L.g Lk, B.W,IW
V.."M
rrte r
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original r pplication)
Variance for non -conforming structures $250.00
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFOMMATION
Apph.ation N Z
Date Received za
Amount Paid S 2,. t)
Site Address iSaS Lo..a i.alee. B u�CVarpr
Property Identification Number TP.I.D.)_.
Attach legal description to plication if not included on required survey.
Date P rty Acquired NIA (month year)
I (do) o not also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of prop": residential _ other (specify)
Zoning District:
APPLICANT Phone (home) e-1 r _1 6-13 -1
Name Churl P_S F. 1 o v leio u Ph.., rwnM
OWNER (if different than applicant
Name Malin VJev% t - �r
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width
Phone
Phone
Cost
1]ur 1
necessary)
Hardcover Lot Coverage
XSetback: X Front _K Side X Rear _ Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
\RDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practi-al difficulty or unusual property conditions prppenting
compliance with Zonint¢- CRde requirements:_ 51one CA oroaert V Q�CFtv.o
Wo i1 Sion& AC NrruorninV r��-Vl& TM , i
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
COUucn seFFTING
Application Date: 12/20/00 FEB 1 2 2000
60 Day Deadline: 2/I8101
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY Ur unurvu
DATE: January 31, 2001
ITEM NO.: 10
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Paul Weinberger Zoning
Title Zoning Administrator
Item Description: #2650 Kirsten and Patrick Burton
2601 Rainey Road
Conditional Use Permit and Variances
Zoning District: RR- IB Two Acre Rural Residential
Lot Ana: 5.25 acres (non -wetland area)
List of Exhibits:
A Resolution
B Building Height Comparison
C Applicant Letter of Request
D Main House Plans
E Guest House Plans
F Site Plan
Summary of Request: The property owners have proposed a four part request:
I. Conditional Use Permit to permit a second residential unit (Guest House) on a 5.25 acre property.
2. Conditional Use Permit to permit the chimney height for the main residence to exceed 30' per
Section 10.75, Subdivision I. Under this provision of the zoning ordinance chimneys are permitted
to exceed the 30' height limitation by the CUP process. The total proposed height of the chimneys
is 36', V above the peak of the house.
3. Variance to permit construction of a three story house where the Code allows a maximum of 2 '/I
stories for a private residence (guest house). The building is a Bat roofed structure that would have
a height of 30' to the top of the cornice, not exceeding the allowed building height.
4. Variance to permit a 30 inch high railing around the roof of the guest house for safety purposes. The
30 inches is structure over the 30' maximum height for a structure. The total height of the guest
house is 30' + 2.5' railing = 32.5'.
Guest House:
Applicants have filed a conditional use permit application to permits "guest house". The lot is a vacant 13.8
acre site, with 5.25 acres that is considered dry buildable land. The applicants have requested to build the
guest house building before beginning construction of the principal residence. Upon completion of die guest
house, construction of the primary residence would begin. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) allows guest
houses m a conditional use permit. A guest house is defined as "a separate dwelling constructed on an
existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic
employees or their non-paying guests". A condition ofapproval shall be the property owner file a restrictive
covenant on the property that states the guest house may only be used and occupied by persons who would
otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the property. The applicants have provided such
a document that would be executed and recorded in the chain of title of the property should the CUP request
be approved. The guest house can not be used for a Home Occupation,
Site Analysis:
The property contains about 13.8 acres of which over 5 acres are dry contiguous buildable land. Lots in the
RR-1 B district require two acres for the site to be considered buildable. A guest house CUP requires an
additional two acres to maintain the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan density of not more than
one dwelling unit per 2 acres.
Guest houses must meet minimum principal building setbacks and be located behind the principal residence.
The RR-1B zoning district requires the following:
RR -IA
Lot Area
Lot Width
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
( acre)
Required
2 acres
200'
50'
30'
50'
4 acres for a
guest house
The property does meet the minimum requirements for a guest house.
Septic:
Septic Design has been provided to the City of Orono. The design work shall be approved by the On -Site
Systems Manager prior to a building permit being issued.
Guest Floe Variances:
Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (A) establishes the maximum building height for structures to be 2'/r stories
or 30' in height. Technically, the building would require a variance for height because apart of the house
is 3 full stories. A '/. story would be the portion of living space within a gabled roof line, for example.
Because the architectural style has a Bat roof, it leaves a full three story house 30' in height.
A second height variance is required for a 30' high railing that would be located above the roof line. The
railing would be placed on the roof for safety purposes. A variance is required because the railing is
considered part of the structure over 30' in height.
The Orono Code allows structures to have a maximum height of 2 1/2 stories or 30' whichever is more
restrictive. In this case the 2 %story height is the more restrictive standard. Building height is defined as
Exhibit B has been submitted by the project architect to illustrate how a building could be 2 %r stories in
height, but actually be higher than the proposed guest house. If the architect would build a house with a
gabled or hipped roof, which is the standard house built in Orono, a building over 35' in actual height could
be constructed. The defined height is the midpoint of the gable not the peak of the roof. The comparable
guest house shown in Exhibit B has an actual defined height of approximately 27' vs. a defined height of the
proposed guest house of 30' on a building with lower actual height.
The variance would allow the 30' building and 2.5'railing to be built. The full third story is an architectural
feature due to the roof line being flat rather than gabled.
Conditional Use Permit - Primary Residence
Section 10.75, Subdivsion I would allow height limitations for chimneys to be increased by 50%if the City
Council approves a Conditional Use Permit. The Building/Fire Code requires chimneys to he Thigher than
any portion of the house within 10'. The proposed chimney is for a total of 6' in height where 2' would be
allowed. The added 4' of height requires the CUP. There is one chimney on each end of the house, each with
a defined height of 35 feet 8 inches.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the property owners agreeing to file a restrictive
covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants, guests or
domestic employees or by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the
property, and that the guest house could not be used for a home occupation.
Planning Commission Vote and Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommended approval of the guest house conditional use permit
to permit a guest house subject to the filing of a restrictive covenant.
The Planning Commission had a failed motion 2 to 2 to approve the conditional use permit for the 6' high
chimneys on the main house and to approve the height variances for the guest house. It was the position of
the 2 nay votes that the proposed height is an issue. However the 2 votes in favor of the variances would
allow a new house to be built that would have less actual height than a 2 14 story house with a gabled roof.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the attached approval resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (G) AND
SECTION 10.75, SUBDIVISION 1, AND VARIANCES TO
SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (A)
FILE N 2650
WHEREAS, Patrick Burton and Kirsten Borten, (hereinafter "the applicants") are
the owners ofthe property located at 2601 Rainey Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City")
and legally described as:
Lot 3, Trees to Be, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2001, at which times all persons desiring to be
heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit to
Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) for a guest house, a conditional use permit
per Section 10.75, Subdivision I to permit a 6' chimney height over the allowed 30' height limitation
for the primary residence, and variances to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit a 30', three
story guest house with 2.5' safety miling over the 30' height limitation.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File 92650.
Page 1 of 5
2. The property is located in the RR-IB Zoning District, where 2 acres or is the
minimum lot area. The property consists of 14.06 acres of which 5.25 acres are dry
contiguous.
The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 17, 2001.
4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact:
A. The guest house will not exceed the 2 acre per "dwelling unit" density for
properties in the RR-1 B zoning district.
B. The guest house meets all required principal building setbacks.
C. Three septic sites have been identified by SP Testing and all building and
wetland setback requirements have been met.
D. The Planning Commission had a split vote on approval of the variances for
the full three stories and added height to the top of a safety railing above the
roof line of the guest house.
E. A house with a gabled or hipped roof, which is the standard house built in
Orono, can have an actual height over X. The defined height is the midpoint
of the gable not the peak of the roof.
F. The variance would allow the 30' building and 2.5' railing to be built. The
full third story ism uchitectural feature due to the roof line being flat rather
than gabled.
G. The guest house is proposed to be constructed with natural earth tones. With a dark
wood color as the primary color of the structure.
H. It is the intent of the applicants to construct the guest house before the main house.
Page 2 of 5
The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a guest house
and 6' chimneys on the main house 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 properties, not 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.
6. 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, tight, 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.
7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by Ctry 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 findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby
grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G), a
conditional use permit per Section 10.75, Subdivision 1 to permit a 6' chimney height over the
allowed 30' height limitation for the primary residence, and variances to Section 10.24, Subdivision
5 (A) to permit a 30', three story guest house with 2.5' safety railing over the 30' height limitation,
subject to the following conditions:
The property owners file a restrictive covenant on the property agreeing the guest
house will not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home occupation.
The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise use the
primary residence on the property, domestic help, guests and relatives.
Page 3 of 5
3. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by
application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or
this conditional use permit will expire on that date (February 12, 2002).
4. 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.
5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of
this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chaff r of tide of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of February, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Property Owner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of February,
2001, by Barbara A. Peterson and 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.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _day of , 20_ 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 . 20_ 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
arx A—•-----
'r
a V
M1�
i
QAOILILL �.— / L
ONI101[TQ r
CONSTRUCTION Y GABLE ROOF
u tAr . r-r
Building Height Comparison -
Proposed Residence & Typical
Gable Roof Construction
---19 Old w
ar-r
------------- POWT Ia
•�T _ W-W
!�•--'�xoar �vu
—_—e MID LM
t .,r-e
SUM LIM
.IQ-r
Dow LMl
C-r
�-1 PROPOSED
' RESIDENCE
Addendum #1
to
City of Orono
General Land Use Application
Submitted 12/20/00
Request for Conditions] Use Permit
Applicant: Richard B. Peterson, Attorney for Owners
Owners: Kirsten and Patrick Burton
The Applicant, as representative of the Owners, and the Owners hereby request a
Conditional Use Permit from the City of Orono for the Owners' property legally
described as:
Lot 3, Block 1, Trees To Be
Address: 2601 Rainey Road
Orono, MN 55391
A Conditional Use Permit is requested for the following:
1. That the property be approved for two dwellings, one of which is to be the
guesthouse and that the Owners be allowed to construct the guesthouse first.
The site plan submitted with this application shows the location of the
guesthouse and the primary dwelling. The Owners are willing to subject the
property to Restrictive Covenants in substantially the form attached hereto.
2. That the chimney of the primary residence and guardrail for the roof of the
guesthouse may be constructed as shown on the plans submitted herewith
notwithstanding applicable Building Height standards in the City Ordinance.
P.v
mE u m
MEMO Il
MAIN
F Ai
��m uwr+
MAIN �ovsE PLANS
1�;
DI
t.�
IESf flfVA1NN
DZ
O °
i4-=:rt L aaw n w
M.
u
1J 3
0-4
n
C
M.M.
TIM
T`T-T
T-T-T T-T-T
T'T`119P"T`
- - T'FCF'T`TR'P'T�'T'
E u n
1 I n n 1 1 1 1
1 Y u 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 A
0 1 1
1 1 u u 1 1 1 1
1 1 n 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A
0 1 1
1 1 II II 1 1 1 1
1 I Y 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A 1 1
1 1 II II 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1 I 1 1
1 1 A A 1 1 1
m.-
4
12T—T'7ET'T-TE}'T"TEi'T-TE'T-
i
e e e e o e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Y
� n
II ®O® II �� .....•
11 II
1-11 1 II eqp 11 ••��•`
u
®M
EDELWw�D lFa R "
®�.
LtMSR�
.
r
o=c
LY°.TiYib
GuES-
NORTH E
y. -oLEVATION
R
OAST ELEVATION
- enm u<•rr
NATION
ra
Yi' q
EUPY
Y-C W
IYMf
GUEST JAWSE pLA
12
MS&R
mb BYMF
LAC
SURTON
GUEST
HOUSE
Rah" Rd
IXp. MN
s®
�1lWeW �
Q
HEYAlgl6
A-201
/150UTH ELEVATION
M1/
WEST-4-1
EST ELEVATION
K. 11
7 EL
a
:VARON
b
f10N
mama
MT
MS&R
BURTOH
GUEST
MOUSE
Pak" nd
-®
E7x t ,
. Al
A-202
C
SITE PLA
"..,
MS&R
��O.i�lw
IY16�YI�y..
YY�dla�
HwD BEM
BURTON
GUEST
HOUSE
Rater Rd
an . km
s�E aw
A-100
C07
G EIRSTe.... LEVEL
�k.ra
u
i
SECONyrD LErurc .raVEL
IM
II
v
SSCOND LEVEL
"..,.>
ABASEMENT LEVEL
(1 THIRD LEVEL
MS&R
BURTON
GUEST
HOUSE
Pak" Pd
AN
FLUOR PLAIN`
A-101
FS
A.
AN DATE 12/18/00
BATCH 512
35 03-117-23 33 0001
PROP ADDR OOOM ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
OWNER NAME NCHNERN FORFEITED LAND
TAMP.YER - CITY OF ORONO
NAME/ADDR P O SOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MH 55323
38 04-117-23 45 0015
HOP ADDR 02730. RAINEY RD
OWNER NAME MARY SWART FOX
TAXPAYER MARY SWART TOM
NAME/ADDR 2730 RAINEY RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 04-117-23 43 0015
PROP ADOR 00R35 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
OWNER NAME K M A P M SURTON
TAXPAYER KIRSTEN R PATRICK BURTON
NAME/ADDR 91 OAKVIEW TER
SNORT HILLS NJ 07078
38 04-117-23 43 9022
PROP MDR DOOM MORBID UNASSIGNED
CMARA MANE D F KUMLIN ET AL
TAXPAYER DENNIS E KUMLIN .
N /ADDR PO BOX ASS
WAYZATA HN 55311
M 04-117-23 44 0005
PROP ADDS 00730 GANDER RD
BORDER NAME D L DANIELS A K B BURNS
TAXPAYER DAVID A KATHLEEN DANIELS
NAYS/MDR 710 GANDER RD
ORONO MN 55391
30 09-117-23 12 0001
PROF MDR OOOM :DDRESS UNASSIGNED
GANDER NAME G A B MST
TAXPAYER GEORGE A MUST
MAME/ADDR $20 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD
WAYZATA HN 55391
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
35 04-117-23 43 0012
02725 RAINEY NO
N F KAHLER A E BAWLER
H F KAHLER A E KAHLER
2725 RAINEY RD
WAYZATA HN .55391
38 04-117-23 43 0016
02690 RAINEY RD
J T CUCHARME I S M UUCHARME
JON T A SHERYL H DUCHARME
2690 RAINEY RD
WAYZATA MI 55391
30 04-117-23 43 0019
000" ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
TREES TO BE PRIVATE ROAD ASC
TREES TO BE PRIVATE ROAD
ASSOCIATION INC
2770 RAINEY RD
WAYZATA HN 55391
35 04-117-23 44 0002
ORS55 FOX ST
P E ECKERLINE/M A ECKERLINE
PETER E ECKERLINE
2555 FOX ST
ORONO HN 55392
3a 09.117.23 11 0007
00895 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD 5
CITY OF ORONO
CITY OF ORONO
335BROWN RD
CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323
38 09-117-23 12 0002
00540 OLD -CRYSTAL BAY RD 5
A J ELLIS
A J ELLIS
840 CRYSTAL DAY RD
WAYZATA HN 55391
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 32
30 04-117-23 43 0013
02685 RAINEY RD
R 5 3 S S VICKERMAN
R SCOTT VICKERMAN
SUSAN 5 VICKERMAN
2655 RAINEY RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
30 04-117-23 43 0017
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
TREES TO BE PRIVATE RD ASSOC
TREES TO BE ASSOCIATION
2770 RAINEY RD
WAYZATA HN SS391
36 04-217 23 43 0021
OC730 DANDER RD
MARIA 5 ANDERSON
MARIA S ANDERSON
.730 GANDER RD
WAYZATA HN 55391
38 04-117.23 44 0004
02601 RAINEY RD
K M A P M BURTON
KIRSTEN R PATRICK BURTON
91 OAKVIEW TER
SHORT HILLS NJ 07078
38 09-117-23 11 0010
02465 FRENCH LAKE RD
ROBERT J L JOAN L DAWN
ROBERT J L JOAN L DAYTON
1 FRENCH LAKE RD
WAYZATA MH 55391
38 10-117-23 22 0002
OODDS WILLOW OR S
G A'L A E ANDERSON
GILBERT A ANDERSON
A45 S WILLOW OR
WAYZATA MN 55391
W
J
I
U3
Dy
ell
4k
-1 Eq
CD
a r�
Q
G MI
M
u
(15LOOu0 LEVEL
7
&A IN.I. LEVEL
^ YwgO ILIA
7 ES
I
^•tea
i
�^"
____—
�
S
i
9�
�
r
..
aL
.�yum mMa.Ya...
i
3
GUFST }GOOSE FL
••.v
dNORM EICVA710N
vv.
_m
GI ASI EIEVA➢ON
-
E-1
MS&R
�W
I
m
ED
Lo
CQ
I
Gg; RL VAIIp
qwr r
~nr
L
/1
Ll
/il KSf [IEVAIIM
1♦�r r n r -'
BURTON
GUESI
HOUSE
0
a
3
s[cn� m
Be
ME III MW I
-b 3
u
11
®d ;Ap2t
MAIN NovsE PLANS
IM-11I11IIIN� lls
Ip
DI
DZ
Minnegasco
Steve Von Bergen, .Leal Estate Specialist
700 West Linden Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165
U.S West Qwest Communications
5910 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Triax Cable Co.
Attn. Robert Craig, Plant Manager
2381 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, MN 55364
Excel Energy/NSP
Attn. Lisa Rainbolt
5505 County Road 19
Shorewood, MN 55331
n "•
41
MAIN ► J
`"" a HevsE
_ 1Iie POOL
Eli
°"` tv PRELIMINARY SITE PLAT. /
Pb\ man scar. .
sxpps �,., CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
o
CaA RAGE
n
!X
GAR
'POOL '
.. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN -------------------
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ....
Application Date: 12/20/00 fN ilhimi MEETING
60 Day Deadline: 4/19101 FEB 12 2000
REQUEST FOR COUNCR, ACTION CITY OF ORONO
DATE: February 5, 2001
ITEM NO.: I I
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Paul Weinberger Zoning
Title Zoning Administrator
Item Description: #2651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp
2696 Caroline Avenue
Variance
Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre)
Lot Area: 33,076 s.f. (0.76 acre)
List of Exhibits:
A Approved Site Plan
B Original Site Plan
C Planning Report (January 8, 2001)
Application Summary:
The applicants have requested variances to permit additional hardcover on the property for an expansion to
the driveway and to construct a lakeside paver stone patio. The total hardcover request is for 350 s.f, 250
s.f. for the patio and 100 s.f. for the driveway.
Drivew
The property owners have submitted an approved site plan, revised 12/28/00 by Alta Survey Company,
Exhibit A. The property owners had originally requested a wider drive to allow more space to maneuver a
vehicle, and are requesting approval to install the wider driveway.
Patio/steps
The paving stone patio being requested is a ground level patio, with stain; located below a patio door. Two
issues are the 1) variance to permit a patio and/or 21 variance to permit hardcover to allow a stair access to
the patio door. There would be about a 3.4 fact drop to the ground without a stairway. The State Building
Code does not permit patio doors without a safe landing. The City has required the property c%mers block
the door so it cannot be opened more than 4 inches. Without blocking the Boot the house could not be
occupied.
Background:
A building permit was issued June 20, 2000 to construct a new house. The house is nearly complete and a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) has been issued. At the time the building permit was
approved, the submitted site plan met all requirements of the zoning ordinances and building code. After
additional review of the site plan it was discovered the 75' lakeshore setback was not measured correctly.
The site plan indicated a 75'setback to the lakeshore(east side of the property). However, it was discovered
the lakeshore bends around an adjacent property within 75' of this property. The area that should have, but
was not originally included, in the 75' setback is shown on Exhibit C, also note the irregular lakesh�re. As
a result, the area of the 75-250' zone is actually smaller than initially indicated, and the owners have had to
omit c' rtain items of bare—rer to remain at the 25% level.
When the setback issue was discovered construction of the new home had begun, and was nearly com"Iele.
Since the souse was nearly complete it was not possible for the property owners to reduce the size of the
structure. To conform to the hardcover requirements the property owners had to reduce the s1Le of the
driveway, and remove the patio from the plans.
The site plan, attached as Exhibit A, is the site plan that was approved by Staff and met the requirements of
the zoning chapter. The grading plan has addressed the concerns by Staff regarding proper drainage on the
property. Swales are being provided around the house to direct water from the road, driveway and roof
around the house and beyond the adjacent homes where the water will then naturally flow towards the
lakeshore.
In addition to the drainage swales, gutters are being added to the northeast roof line to direct water towards
the front of the house and not towards the neighboring house. Draintile will also be installed to take the
water from the house around to the front of the bank. Final grading and the dmintile will not be completed
until the ground thaws in the Spring. Because the additional grading and drainage improvements cannot be
completed until Spring, the (T.C.O.) was issued rather than a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). When
the improvements are complete a C.O. could be issued. The City of Orono has routinely allowed individuals
to occupy a home by a T.C.O. without all the exterior work being complete subject to a defined time period
to complete the work. .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff had recommended denial of the application to the Planning Commission, however an alternative to the
250 s.f. patio could be to permit a Y X S' landing with a stairway could be constructed to provide safe access
to the patio doors rather than to approve the patio as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend denial of the request based on no apparent undue
hardship being inherent in the land, and the property has been redeveloped and is new construction
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to direct Staff to draft a resolution for adoption on Monday, February 26, 2001
MY OFORONO
SITE P'.AN .$ GRADING KAN
0 APPROVED-Na-✓ (1'05REVISIONS
'
❑ APPROVED WITH REVISIGNS \ +
❑ DISAP VEDA
DAn g o1` m \ \ �L
\ ILT
--......E4CLIN
F
°x'
EXIST HOUSE
° / wj ^ tC \ 1 / m -spa * \
°k�49 \
1
HOUSE
DIAL SHOWN ARE SB
" ; v sR+a AREA CALCULATIONS
y 95 e
LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE 04
/ v
X S .F 4960 S.F.%ALLO
\ 1 > \_• J\� 1 o p as 419494 S.F. 84.0S F L
EXIST -HOUSE LOT AREA (75-250 5BFRON
Ob
7d' X 25S = 5625 S.F. ALLOY
.6625 S.F. PROPOSED
p4HOUSE
pp9— —L �dr A .-_ ' FRONT STOOP =429
`19
`dip $ 951A) yip � � SIDE STOOP&POST-.
PATIO STEP
RETAPM WALL e .
DRIVE = 104
1 ^ ya p5i 250'TOTAL 56
( \p SETBACK LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM
( 1 1 L!E X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOW
9 S.F. PROPOSED = (502
`ice' 1l�
�
m
SCALE 1 " = 30'
N
PROPOSE', ELEVATIONS
a0
GARAGE=LOOR=951.0
Z00
yg. TOP FO_VATION=952.80N
=LOOK=
LOWEST 944.01-�
AREA CALCULATIONS 11/28/00 (REV. 12/28/00)
o0
LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) - 33076 S.F. / 0.76 oc
-1
X 15% = 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRICT. AREA
W
4194 S.F. - 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE
V)
LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) - 22500 S:.
p
X 25% = 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER .-R-A
S.
.5625 SF. PROPOSED
HOUSE - 4194 S.F.
FROM STOOP - 296 S.F.
SIDE STOOP&POST-38 S.F.-
PATIO STEP - 6 S.F.
REFMl1G WALL a 45 S.F.
DRME 1046 S.F.
TOTAL 5625 SF.
LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM OHW) - 60 S.F.
X 30% - 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AflEA
9 S.F. PROPOSED - (50% ALLOWABLE)
�¢v uus ii-i
�V xplSE 1/3�/:L
I
Are4, no+ ;nclu d
' n 75' <eaL- ,_ a�
10
GAR y9
FFE-951.0�
-
�
SETBACK
LINE
HOUSE
DIM. SH
/S' SETBACK LINE
/ Or s>
EXIST HOUSE
AAJAA
flf�Je1P°�4{
C AREA CALCULATI
LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE C
X 15% - 4960 S.F. ALLO'
4194 SF. - 84.5x OF AL
-LOT AREA (75-250 SIB FRC
X 25X - 5625 S.F. ALLC
5614 S.F. PROPOSED - S
HOUSE = 4194
S?QOP = 268
RETAIBIC WALL
DRIVE - 1114 !
TOTAL - 561/
5614 SF / 58
LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM
X 30% = 18 S.F. ALLOV
9 S.F. PROPOSED - (50
S40re
75' SETBACK LINE
�^f M(")
sss.o)
I
,061 / .,
/ .� AI
/ 33
� 159�
i
DO
SCALE I" = 30' y
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Q p
GARAGE FLOOR=951.0 Z O
= TOP FOUNDATION952.80H
LOWEST FLOOR— 944.0 L-�
AREA CALCULATIONS 11/28/00 00
LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) - 33076 S.F. / 0.76 cc
X 15R - 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA
4194 S.F. - 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE
EXIST HOUSE C%�Cn\LOT AREA (75-250 SO FROM OHW) - 22500 S.F.
25% - 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVFR ARFe
5614 SF. PROPOSED - 99X OF ALLOWABLE
HOUSE = 4194 S.F.
jj
t— IDo 5.�.
l IJe1P°"'�
STOOP — 268 SF.
RETAeNG WALL - 45 S.F.
DRIVE - 1114 S.F.
TOTAL — 5614 S.F.
5614 SF / 5625 SF (99 S ALLOWABLE)
LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM OHW) — 60 S.F.
X 3OX — 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA
9 S.F„PROPOSED — (50S ALLOWABLE)
w
0
O
2
REV AREA$ I"
R RausE 7n4m
I acl = w I
/
EXIST HOUSE
i/
SETBACK
LRff
Arep no+ inc
i n 75' seihe.k
♦PyP
/
/
HOUSE (MOER
ON. SHOWN ARE
75' SETBACK LINE
'
\`
4J0 M /
o"° A ryy9}3
AREA CALM
1y8ULOT
AREA ABOVE
X 15X �- 4960 S.F. ALI
�qo
S.F.OTAL
4194 . B4.51G OF
EXIST HOUSE
p'- LOT AREA (75-250 SB F
X 25% - 5625 S.F. AL
5514 S.F. PROPOSED
HOUSE - 41£
STOOP ; 261
RETAPBJC WA
DRIVE m 111
TOTAL - 5f
5614 SF /
LOT AREA (<250 SS FIR
X 30S 18 S.F. ALL
9 S.F. PROPOSED - (
S40p-e
me
— — 75' SETBACK LIPS
cr
/ t �
1�
EXIST HOUSE
014 7T 3
0 \" \ I
/f m
SCALE I" = 30' N
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 4 0
GARAGE FLOOR-951.0 Z 0
9�3 TOP FOUNDATION=952.80N
1, 25 LOWEST FLOOR= 944.0 F—
AREA CALCULATIONS 11/28/00 0
LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) - 33076 S.F. / 0.76 w J
X 15% 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA - W
p[ 4194 S.F. - 84.5E OF ALLOWABLE V)
\LOT AREA (75-250 SIB FROM ONW) - 225DO S.F. 0
X 25X - 5625 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA D-
5614 S.F. PROPOSED - 99X OF ALLOWABLE
HOUSE - 4194 S.F. lav A1EA5 tt-c
STOOF• - 268 S.F. 7/24AX
RET WALL. - 45 SF. v�T
DIM - 1114 S.F. op,tpNc l0/4/00
TOTAL - 5614 S.F.
5514 SF / 5625 SF (29 % ALLOWABLE)
LOT AREA (<250 SO FROM OHN) - 60 SF.
X 30% - 18 S.F. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA
9 S.F. PROPOSED = (5OX ALLOWABLE)
qfM 939a ___
7S
.0
ILT
E
75 ETBACK L
�. 93
9/�
i HOUSE (UNDER\(
mot\ ON. SHOWN ARE
GAR
^ Sr
EXIST HOUSE
a"s°q&-4 �k\
A.2y9
\ ; \ AREA CALCULATION
ti LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE 1
X 15% - 4960 S.F. ALLC
4194 S.F. - 84.5% OF A
LOT AREA (75-250 SB FRI
otd" X 25% a 5625 S.F. ALLI
5625 S.F. PROPOSED
ec - Al
DRIVE - 1,
TOTAL = .
LOT AREA (<250 SB FRO
X 3OX — 18 S.F. ALLO
9 SF. PROPOSED - (51
N9ggS
�
p......... 7
\ 054 -37 -�3
751__
\•�� \"/� \ Cn�
ILT I / / a
Ems\ \' <Q
V= 9
p1X y P
=``gig \ /
^ / \
/1
� e
s
m
*� / SCALE I" = 30' Lo
1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ¢0
GARAGE FLOOR=951.0 ZO
TOP FOUNDATION-952.8 0 ry
LOWEST FLOOR- 944.0 H�
Q
1
AREA CALCULATIONS 11/28/00 (REV.
12/28/00) po
LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE ONW) - 33076 S.F. /
0.76 cc J
i�
X 15% — 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA
N
ye
4194 S.F. - 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE
V)
EXIST HOUSE
ry.
LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) - 22500 S.F. 0
ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA
d
X 25% — 5625 S.F.
=
5625 S.F. PROPOSED
HOUSE 4194 BY
FRONT STOOP - 296 SF.
SIDE STOOP&POST-38 SF.
�iz�ia
y•��
PATIO STEP = 6 S.F.
RETANING WALL = 45 S.F.
DRIVE 1046 S.F.
taia
TOTAL = 5625 S.F.
LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM OHW) - 60 S.F.
X 30% - 18 SF. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA
9 S.F. PROPOSED - (50% ALLOWABLE)
waw
91ala
J
1�
Application Date: 12/20/00
60 Day Deadline: 2/18101
TO:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:
January 9, 2001
SUBJECT:
02651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp
2696 Caroline Avenue
Variances -- Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential ('/n acre)
Lot Area:
33,076 s.f. (.76 acre)
List of Exhibits:
A Application
B Hardship Statement
C Site Plan (1128/00)
D Site Plan (12/28/00)
E Plat Map
F Comments (James and Peggy Kadlec 1/9/01)
0 Property Owners Notification List
Background:
A building permit was issued June 20, 2000 to construct a new house. The house is nearly complete
and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) may be issued in January, 2001. At the time the
building permit was approved, the submitted site plan met all requirements of the zoning ordinances
and building code. After additional review of the site plan it was discovered the 75' lakeshore
setback was not measured correctly. The site plan indicated a 75' setback to the lakeshore (east side
oftheproperty). However, it was discovered the Lakeshore bends around an adjacent property within
75' of this property. The area that should have, but was not originally included, in the 75' setback
is shown on Exhibit C, also note the irregular lakeshore. Asa result, the area of the 75-250' zone
is actually smaller than initially indicated, and the owners have had to omit certain items of
hardcover to remain at the 25% level.
When the setback issue was discovered concoction of the new home had begun. Most of the
structure was built. Since the house was nearly complete it was not possible for the property owners
to reduce the size of the structure. To conform to the hardcover requirements the property owners
had to reduce the size of the driveway, and remove aconerete patio from the plans. Neither had been
constructed. A revised site plan, dated 1228/00, has been submitted.
12651 Stephen Lonpmm Butlaerr Inc on behYf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp
26%C.'or. A.cnuc
Va.. .. Public Hemma
Pye I cfe
The site plan, attached as Exhibit D, is the site plan that is approved by Staff and meets the
requirements of the zoning chapter. The grading plan has addressed the concerns by Staff regarding
proper drainage on the property. Swales are being provided around the house to direct water from
the road, driveway and roof around the house and beyond the adjacent homes where the water will
then naturally flow towards the lakeshore.
In addition to the drainage swales, gutters are being added to the northeast roof line to direct water
towards the front of the house and not towards the neighboring house. Draintile will also be installed
to take the water from the house around to the front of the bank. Final grading and the draintile will
not be completed until the ground thaws in the Spring. Because the additional grading and drainage
improvements cannot be completed until Spring, staff will be issuing the (T.C.O.) rather than a final
Certificate of Occupancy(C.O.). When the improvements are complete a C.O. could be issued. The
City of Orono has routinely allowed individuals to occupy a home by a T.C.O. without all the
exterior work being complete subject to a defined time period to complete the work.
Variance Request:
Driveway
The property owners have submitted an approved site plan, revised 12/28r00 by Alta Survey
Company, Exhibit D. As previously stated the plan removed a portion of the driveway and a paving
stone patio. Staff has determined the approved driveway is acceptable to provide access to and from
the street and garage. However, the property owners had originally requested a wider drive to allow
more space to maneuver a vehicle, and are requesting approval to install the wider driveway.
.Patty/Steps
Secondly, the paving stone patio being requested is a ground level patio located below a patio door.
The second issue is how to access the patio door since placing a small stairway with a landing up to
the patio door absent the paving stones would also constitute hardcover. Two issues to discuss are
the 1) variance to permit a patio and/or 2) variance to permit hardcover to allow a staff • access to the
patio door. There would be about a 3-4 foot drop to the ground without a stairw . "sty State
Building Code does not permit patio doors without a safe landing. The City has required the
property owners block the door so it cannot be opened more than 4 inches. NVithout blocking the
door the home could not be occupied.
Patio Discussion:
The natural grade below the patio door has been altered to accommodate a raised area. The grade
can be changed in this area by 2 %9 feet. The raised elevation is equivalent to the height of a
patio/deck that is permitted without being considered "structure" ahead of the average lakeshore
setback. Most of the patio would be closer to the lakeshore than the average lakeshore setback line.
The code prohibits any patios/decks over Gin height from being located closer to the Lakeshore than
adjacent residential buildings. A patio or deck more than 30 inches above the natural grade would
aI661 Suphen Longman Builders Inc on behalf of Robin end l.rewt Bupp
2696 Caroline Avenue
Vusinas —Public Hewing
Pill, 2 ore
constitute an encroachment because the State Building Code requires railings when patiostdecks are
more than 30 inches above grade. The Building Code requires railings to be 3 %. in height. The total
height of the deck/patio would then be 6 feet.
Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "Tennis courts, patios,
decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls
which extend more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage."
The City of Orono has interpreted this section ofordinance to include anything that is considered lot
coverage or structural coverage to be structure and those structures are not permitted to encroach
into the average Lakeshore setback.
Reauired Setbacks LR-1C
Front Yard = 30'
Side Yard = 10'
Lakeshore = 75'
Hardship:
1. Approval of a variance would require a hardship be inherent in the land. The fact that there
may have been an error in a site plan would not necessarily be an issue with the land.
However, the irregular shape of the lakeshore does have an impact on the property.
2. The City of Orono has been consistent with new construction that lots develop to not exceed
allowed limitations for hardcover. The lot has been developed to use all the allowed
hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Any additional hardcover would require a variance.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the application based on the Staffs finding that no hardship exists that
would allow additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Orono has been consistent with new
construction that lots develop without requir.ng variances.
Options for Action:
1. Recommend approval of variances.
2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons.
3. Table for additional information.
4. Other action.
02651 Suphen Longman Budden Inc. on behgf of Robin and Jemmy Bupp
2696 Cunlme Avenue
von. - -Public Wining
PW 3 ofa
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
t a:
1,11-1 e.
Lot Area
Required
2I,780 s.f. (1/2 acre)
Actual
33,076 s.f. (.76 acre)
Structural Coverair :
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
33,076 s.f. Allowed: 4,961 s.f.
Existing: 4,528 s.f.
Hardcover Calculations:
Distance from
Total area in
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
shoreline
setback
hardcover
hardcover
hardcover
0-75'
10,516 s.f.
0 s.f. (0a/6)
0 s.f.
0 s.f.
(0%)
75-250'
22,500 s.f.
5,625 s.f.
5,625 s.f.
• 5,975 s.f.
(25%)
(25%)
(26.5%)
250 s.f. for a store paver patio
100 s.f for expansion of the driveway
350 s.f. additional hardcover
62651 9e. Mn Larymu, Builder Inc. an Mhdfof Robin Md 5emry Bupp
26%Cua;ix Aeenua
ViuiuKcs —Public Hewing
Pr{e 4 ofe
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non -conforming structures $250.00
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFO TI(
Site Ad 21c el
G E G
Property Identification Nun
Attach legal description to
Date cquired_
I (do)I o so own f
Present use of property:
Zoning District:
Name
Application N 2(p. I
Date Received rz e
Amount Paid 2 0
a� lTI
ttion if not included on required survey.
kmher- 15`4' 19 g 4 (montb/year) 1 ;`
cent parcels of land.
lential _other (specify) J:
rC1 r"
r� Phone (home)�ghy�4-�-i•.2 ,
t-'tea( 5 LtX ( Phone.(yrork,'+�"z
Ciry: C.L(Cbt I tY n' Zip:{-
:*,;,f
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) L L-4o1-U 4 - _
Name Aq u . Phone (work), 612-1p? -z(o7 1 � �:.•;
Ad: 1�4-Z*; t h 74weh I ShN�4'"—"-1 . Zip: SS331 `�+'
s
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ e
Describe request in detail: lravli miil L'ltVaL vttl. Un -j-i,rt.�-
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED 7 Z 50
Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover _Lot Coverage
Setback: _ Front _ Side _ Rear _ Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSIUP/DESCRIPTIOY OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Sre atktr iA1r LL
(attach additional sheets
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in
order for your application to be considered complete:
1. Completed Application Form
2. _ Certified Property Owners List of owners v ithin 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
3. _ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/," x II" for
reproduction.
4. _ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'F," x I1" for reproduction.
5. _ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation vies% s (provide one (1) copy 8%" x it").
6. _ 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).
7. _ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
8. _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Pwperty Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requesteu by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by origiaal fee payment)
and/or consultant expe �rwurre,d in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied i tin d correc to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature / ^,a' Date /d
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry r«3o the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purpose of investigation nd erification of this request.
Owners Signature -' i Date
Applicant must have all submitt into the dy aces 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 appli...mt is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
STEPHEN 3
LONGMAN
BUILDERS
December 18, 2000
The Planning Commission
City 0f Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Re: Variance Request
The Bupp Residence
2696 Caroline Ave.
Members of the Planning Commission:
We are asking for a variance from the allowable hardcover of 25% in the 75-250
zone in the following two areas approximately divided as follows:
feet
'
1 An expansion of the driveway of approximately 100 additional square or
0.44%of additional hardcover;
2. The construction of approximately 250 square feet of hardcover paving stone
patio, as shown on the registered land survey dated May 10, 2000 and all subsequent "As
Built" surveys, or 1.1%of additional hardcover.
�)
3. The complete request is for an approximate total of 350 square feet, or 1.54% of
i
additional hardcover. Please be aware that the expansion of the driveway and construction
of the patio itemized above would not exceed allowable hardcover in the 75-250 zone were
y
.us lot calculated independently from the neighboring lots.
!)
.S,
At the time of permit application the surveyor and the city staff believed us to be in
strict compliance with Orono's hardcover ordinance. Our building permit was approved C, '
and issued on June 20th, 2000 and a e began construction. In November, at the request of
a neighbor, the city again reviewed our survey and hardcover calculations and we were
informed that, as our lot is situated on a point, it was necessary to establish the 75' setback
line from the ordinary high water elevation even if it required measuring across someone
else's adjacent property. (See suncv). t'dortunately Alta Surrey Company, Inc. had
never heard of this requirement and the Orono city staff did not enforce it at the time of
permit application. In June it M'ou6d have been a simple matter to adjust our design to
conform.
10012 GRISTMILL RIDGE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347
t 5 2- 9 4 3- 8 2 2 6
However, in November the house was approximately 90% built and we were put in
the impossible position of being asked to eliminate hardcover essential to the existing
design and clearly shown on our applieaunn documents. How can we now be asked to
settle for less driveway than our neighbors enjoy and a patio door and stairs that go
nowhere?
The variance you would be granting is minimal and would have no impact on the
lake nor any impact on any neighbors sight line. In fact, if it were not for the shape of the
neighbor's lot to the west we would be in complete conformance with the letter of the
hardcover ordinance. We have even gone so far as to p•ovide gutters and drainage swales
to the west side of the house and garage to lessen the impact of any roof run off on our
neighbors. Obviously we are in conformance with the spirit of the ordinance and we feel it
is unfair to hold us to a stricter interpretation than our fellow lake shore owners. Therefore
we ask that you recognize the unique situation and hardship that is created by adjacent
neighbors lot and the untimely enforcement of thi: ordinance and grant us our variance.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Longm
President
STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS, INC.
Minnesota Contractor's License #2166
Homeowners:
1
1 myD.Bu
b-
ao-/ /7-43- a z/-
tv%
wo-
e5r20/190B 04:43 KADLEC&n$SOCIRTES........ 61:
Januay 9, 2001
Mr. Ronald Moors: by FacAndle & U.B. Mail
City of Ororw
PO box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: 2696 Caroline Ave. Variance Notice 42651
Dear Mr. Moose
As residruts of Ilia 4olNng lotto the cast at 2726 Carobne, this letter documents our concern regatding
the rexpteste for wriuue to city ordrhances and the granting of wiliporaay occupancy for the building site at
2696 Caroline Ave.
]-laving built a home ourselves in I988t89, we ass, vary familinr with the city of Orono building ordnance
and rules for building on lakcsho s: property. The building next door has been riddled with issues Goan Ilse
beginning. Them has been apparent premeditated disregard of oily osdstances and intent to defraud the city
and ighbors.
Speclflally, false house plans and survey documents were submitted to the city for building approval.
The house was then built to a much lager scale. Having buill our hone, we arc aware that to build a larger
home thin the originally staled footprint, major changes to foundation, the ordering of roof Insstes. ctc.
etc., in advanoc is required. Having the house "happen to chat up larger` Is an impassibility. Disregard for
the l,wdwv" "uimi=llu is Just one of several outstanding issues. To our knowledge a druiru.go plan has
yet m be submitted, Intended violation to Ilse nt bark requirements exist -- two retaining walls have been
built and a deck which is being called a patio.
Duah.g this eutro construction process, the city was made ewaroofthe concerns ofthc neighborhood. We
as well as others, have had to him outside surveyors and wnsnitants to recheck the work in progress mther
thin rely an the city to monitor it. We believe the city has been derelict in its responsibility to protect us
tram this sort of f andulcm building activity.
We wit undersand and support requests for variance approval due to "hurnan error", but this so "-Lion was
premeditated mud planned with no concern for the neighborhood wad with total dimapeet for the atdnances
that average residents must adherent. In July we lmhuv: tlae builder stated his intent "You an try and stop
inc, but I am building as fast as 1 an. One: it is built, at I have to do is request a variance'. It would be of
iutcn,�t to knew how utuuy Lima tuts builder romhrsely requests variances as a convenient after thought.
We will haw to live with the resuits of this wnsuuctun for the rentalnder of our reidence at our home. 11
Las undoubtubly rodwxd Lite value of our Lorne It Is obvious to everyone that the building is inappropriate
to We lol on which it stauds. It will be a wrRtant wntuder of the wiccrivo applation of the laws and
ordnance by The City of Orono
....... 6124717043 P.02
Ron Moom
January 9,2001
Pegs 2
After adhering strictly to the city nrdnurccs in building cor house, we fat it is cul ust and unfair to mvanl
dehbemtc and pronteditaled acts ofdeGaua to Ibc ndcs by granting vuiances and veuporary occupancy
ceniBcates.
Respectfully,
mot,
Cc: Honorable Barbara Peterson
Jay Nyll-4
Bob Seam",
RUM DATE 12/18/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
BATCH 510 .
38 20-117-23 24 0005 38 20-117-23 24 0007
PROP ADOR- 02726 CAROLINE AVE 92715 CAROLINE AVE
DRINK NAME J N KAOLEC A P L BERNHARDT T M t L.S REJZER
TAXPAYER J H KAOLEC A P L BERNHARDT T t L REJZER
NAME/ADUR 2721 CAROLINE AVE 2715 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA, MN 55591 WAYZATA HN 55391
3A 20-117-23 24 0025
PROP AVOR 02691 CAROLINE AVE
OWHMR HAMS TMELMA J PULVER
TAXPAYER THELMA J PULVER
MAME/ADUR 2141 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA HN 55391
M 20-117`23'24 0041
PROP ADDR 02)32 CAROLINE AVE
F AHER NAME CHARLES A SUSAN PERCIVAL
TAXPAYER CHARLES t SUSAN PERCIVAL
NAME/ADDR 2752 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA HN E5391
38 20-217-93 24 0033
62690 CAROLINE AVE
J B J CLEMONS
.JOSEPH t JANE CLEMONS
200 CAROLINE AVE S
WAYZATA MN 55391
TOTAL BATCH 510 00007
REPORT NO, PI435401
PACE 30
38 20-117-23 24 0013
02700 ETHEL AVE
JULIA S JENSEN
JULIA S-JEMSEM
2700 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN SS391
38 20-117-23
24 0034
02696 CAROLINE AVE
JEREMY D BUPP
JEREMY D BUPP
A ROBIN H BUPP
A ROBIN N BUPP
CAROOD
HILL
Tuzq
SHORE HN
SNOREW000 MN
55331
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS TMIS'DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPER Y TAXATION/ TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. /1/)
DATE
Im
THOMPSON&THOMPSON
LAW OFFICE
Oery A. Thompean' fl p Pbooe 9524.'-3221
KAy M. Tbompeen 17717 Flis6ey Seven Fat 952-474-.575
•R••IPnp.hr.�sr•••�•� NSwetonlxe, MN 65345
C.rvedbr M�••..m.6nn
e�A...d.ue•
January 15, 2001
BY FACSM= AND
U.S. MAIL
Planning Commission
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 56
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: 2696 C roline Avenue
Variance Request No. 2651
Our Client: Joseph Clemons
File No. 1024-1
On behalf of Josepb and lane Clemons of 2690 Caroline Avenue, I urge the Planning
Commission to deny the request for variance for 2696 Caroline Avenue, the property
adjacent to the Clemons property.
I will make three points:
(1) The amount of hardcover already allowed before the variance is in dispute and has not
been verified by the city.
(2) The city has not yet required from the owner, nor has the owner submitted, a drainage
plan to solve the drainage issues resulting from the construction.
(3) The patio for which the vaiance is requested, as well as the existing retaining walls
already built around it, are structures which encroach across the building setback line and
will also require a setback variance which has not been requested from the owner.
First, the amount of hardcover resulting from the new construction as represented by the
applicant was questioned in OrKober by neighbors who had a consultant calculate from
the builder's own survey drawing the hardcover resulting from the house, not including
the patio, driveway or eaves, at 4,748 square feet. The city corresponded with that
consultant about his calculations which are on file with the city. Since the square footage
of the house as represented by the applicant is 4,194 square feet, that considerable
difference should have caused the city to verify the numbers with its own calculations.
The neighbors believe on November 1, 2000, Mayor Jabbour instructed the city staff to
have the Bonestroo engineering firm make those calculations as well as the lot area
calculations to determine which representations were accurate. I understand that
Bonestroo was asked by the staff only to verify the exterior dimensions of the house as
The Planning Commission
January 15, 2001
Page 2
built and not to calculate the square footage of hardcover. Therefore, the hardcover
already created by the house is still in dispute.
The applicant's survey drawing showing hardcover of the house, stoop, retaining wall
and drive incorrectly totals their own numbers at 5,614 square feet when the total is
actually 7 square feet more. Also, the applicant originally represented the lot area to be
35,000 aquae feet and only recently amended that number down to 33,076 square feet. It
would seem all these numbers should be verified independently by the city.
In addition, the applicant's hardcover totals do nct include an extra column and stoop not
shown on the "as built" drawing on the northwest side of the house and whatever cement
slab will be built to hold an a+r conditioning unit on the northwest side of the house (sea
photos). Will there he a sidewalk along the northwesterly side of the house to reach t're
door there? These additional hardcover elements must be figured into the total
hardcover.
Because the total hardcover has not been verif ed by the city, the city should not entertain
a variance when, we submit, the hardcover requirements are already exceeded.
Second, the new construction and change of grade on the applicant's property creates
new drainage problems because of the close proximity of the Clemon's house to the new
house. However, as of yet, no drainage plan has been submitted, which any qualified
person can verify will solve the drainage issues presented by the large roof runoff on the
Clemon's side of the new house.
City Ordinance 10.03, Subdivision 21, provides that when substantial earth is moved,
such as occurred here, at the time of issuance of the building permit, the Building
Inspector will approve of a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining
property. Not only was a building permit issued without an adequate drainage plan
submitted, recently a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for this property
without a proper drainage plan having been submitted.
The city staff seems to feel that a proper drainage solution can be achieved in the spring
and all parties will cooperate. However, this runs counter to your own ordinaace which
requires submission of a proper drainage plan before issuance of a building permit so that
the city can assess before construction begins whether drainage problems will be solved.
The neighbors do not understand why this procedure was not followed for their
protection.
The applicant asserts that they have "gone so far as to provide gutters and drainage svrails
to the west side of the house and the garage to lessen the impact of any roof runoff."
Neither the gutters nor the swails have been provided yet. That will be the minimum that
would be required for an adequate runoff protection for the neighboring properties.
Bemuse this new construction which moves hardcover so close to the adjoining
properties presents new and tricky drainage problems for this site, no request for variance
9/9 'd 0618'0N 9995 WAR G: P. i0ni 'U uep
The Planning Commission
January 15, 2001
Page 3
from hardcover requirements should be entertained until it is known whether the present
drainage problems resulting from the hardcover already built have boen solved.
Third, the proposed patio as well as the alre,_".y built retaining walls adjacent to it (see
anached photo) are structures or part of the house structure, and encroach across the
building setback line for this structure. Therefore, a variance from the setback
requirements is also required, but none has been. requested.
Ordinance 10.02 (69) defines "structure" as "anything which is built or say piece of work
artificially built up which requires a location on the ground or attached to something
having a location on the ground." How can these patio and retaining walls, which are
structures themselves, and which are attached to the house, be anything other than
structure under this definition?
The act -back restrictions in your Ordinance 10.22, Subdivision lB provide that "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 ariating resident
buildings on adjacent lots."
Finally, a variance should not be gtamed unless there is undue hardship or unless the
"I'ight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by
lw.downer." The applicant complains tba: the coDfiguration of the adjoining, lot's
lakeshore creates a hardship. However, the configuration of that lakeshore, and the
houses on adjoining properties were there when the applicant designed the house. It is
not the adjoining properties that have created the hardship here. It is the applicant's wish
to push wall to wall with his design and to overbuild this lot. The large house built leaves
no extra room for additional hardcover. Please help protect the interests of the neighbors
by denying the variances requested.
Respectfully submitted,
oo—ipso�- L"nd Th� on Law OfficePLLF
By: t+ao9 A Thompson
cc: Ron Moorse
M. and Mrs. Josc;.'.i Jlemons
9/t 'd 0618'0N 99JS H89 E 100Z 'SI'u°
_ _ yt ,G✓ M a<�
� r
y
�f
J �j4 i
rA
Jr
a6ci1 ca,e1,�c /4�
S .Z pvl
RolMoor:; a
C,(-y VFV' ru�u
P. v. g,K 6 6
Crysf�l 13o,y/ MN SS 313
Deo.r Mr. Moe,rsa s
Z ka.ve a{' .24q, Cor rc 4acnuC. t-or 23 yews.
i-irna i-h, ra:" w,Nkce -�r"'M Crzro line,
Pr
�¢✓-c. at L"{-�.e.l /�-✓c. hay rev 4hw{ 41nc Va.,+e•
Wo�n��yoL, rlca a me lc scm + at
y�r.>rer r
14- 4-- my
.iG c/G Carc Inc /.arc. d''`'' n or
rvereri-y• Cans% �nkc 0.rY w'.re wr.-Fcr
par'i'y.
1 yV(nr 4�cl ri �
,v.,,L& r--llY arY,r<<,e�
y y I I, e 5,
SL.,cc rc
(In' air ll MEETING
Application Date: 1220/00 FLd 12 2000
Comyletlon Dale: 12/20/00
60 Day Deadline: 2/16101 CITY OF UHONO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval: DATE: 21&'01
Nam. Wendy Bonenberg ITEM NO.:
Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planner Agenda Section: Zoning
Item Description: N2652 Ron Lauer for Dennis Anderson
1720 Bohn's Poat Road
Variances
Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre)
Lot Area: 64,830 s.f. (1.48 acres)
List of Exhibits:
A Resolution
B PC Action Notice
C Staff Report and Exhibits of 1/172001
Application Summary: The applicants are seeking approval to add a second story to the existing
residence, a concrete paver walkway, and to enlarge an outdoor stairway.
The second story addition is located in two different areas of the re:,.:ence, it does not cover the entire
residence. One section is 22' x 32' located on the south side (over the master bedroom) and the other is 22'
x 34' mn the northeast side (over the guest suite).
The stair addition is to add 17 s.f. onto the existing stairs Ixated between the driveway and residence. The
paver walkway will be between the house and tie driveway. It is in two different locations, south and east
of the driveway. Combined they will total 14- s.f. These areas are currently grass.
The entire house is located lakeward of the averaze Lakeshore setback line as drawn between the two adjacent
residences. The house sits on a point of the Lakeshore.
1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2): Hardcover in the 75-250'setlo
zone: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a
variance to allow 13,209 s.f. (49.3%) of hardcover where 13,045 s.f. (48.7%) exists and 6,687.5 (25%) is
allowed.
2. Section '" 22, Subdivision 1(B)and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(CX6): Average Lakabom Setback:
No princiF : accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from
the shorn' : of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit a variance to encroach 88' and 92'
into the average lakeshom setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission recommended by e 4 to 0 cote to:
Approve the application with the conditior, that hardc-ver in the 75-250'setback area remain at 13,045 s.f.
(48.71%). Applicant has indicated that he can remove existing driveway and sidewalks in order to meet this
condition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the enclosed resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE
'PO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2,
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(L)(2),
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION I(B), AND
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C)(6),
FILE NO.2652
WHEREAS, Dennis D. Anderson, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the
property located at 1720 Bohn's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and
legally described as follows:
See Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning
Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to allow 13,045 s.t'.
,.8.7%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone to construct a paver walkway and outdoor stair
addition; Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(6) to allow a
second story addition on the existing residence to encroach 88' and 92' into the average lkeshore
setback.
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, :he Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2001, at which time all petsons desiring to be
heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 11' RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed s Zoning File #2652.
2. The property is IOCata 1 in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District, where I acre is the minimum lot area. The property consists of
approximately 1.48 acres.
Page I of 6
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 17, 2001 and
recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0.
4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact:
A. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone will not change as a result of the addition
because applicant will remove an equivalent amount of existing hardcover.
B. Hardcover in the 75-250'setbackzone will remain at13,045s.f(48.7%)with
the paver walkway and stairway addition.
C. The average lakeshore setback variance is justified by the conclusion that
existing views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners will not
be encroached upon by the proposed addition.
D. Lot coverage on the property is currently 7.9%, and will remain with the
proposed addition, meeting the standard 15% limitation.
E. The shape of the lot and the curve of the shoreline, as well as the fact that
lake exists on both the south and east sides of the property t.re hardships that
are unique to the property.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to
it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting
the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire
hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship
or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant;
and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by
the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
Page 2 of 6
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 and Section 10.56, Subdivision
16 (L)(2) to allow 13,045 s.f (48.7%) hardcover in the 75-259 setback zone to construct a paver
walkway and outdoorstair addition; Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision
16 (C)(6) to allow a second story addition to the existing residence to encroach 88' and 92' into the
average lakeshore setback. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this
resolution as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the site plan may require further
Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit
within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that
date (February 12, 2002).
3. 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.
4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of
this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, his successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on
the 12th day of February, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Property Owner (s)
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Page 3 of 6
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of February, 2001
by Barbara A. Peterson 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
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 2001. before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared known
to meto 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 , 2001, before me a Notary Public within
and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 6
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Lot 3. "Auditor's Subdivision Number. 349. Hennepin County, Minnesota", except that
part thereof described as follows: Commencing of the point of intersection of the
Southeasterly. line of Lot 11. in said Auditor'sSubdivision No. 349 and the dividing
line between Lots 3 and 4 in said subdivision;.thence Southeasterly along the
dividing line between said Lots 3 and 4 a distance of 114.85 feet to the angle point
in said dividing line, said point being the actual point of beginning of the tract
of land to be described; thence Southerly along the dividing line between said Lots
3 and 4 a distance of 130 feet; thence East deflecting to the left at an angle of 90
degrees 14 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Northerly along shore of
said lake 160 feet, more or less, to the dividing line between Lots 2 and 3 in said
subdivision; thence Westerly along the dividing line between said Lots 2 and 3 to
the angle point in last said dividing line; thence continuing Westerly, in a straight
I;ne to the actual point of beginning; except the Westerly 20 feet thereof, said 20
feet being measured at right angles to the dividing line between said Lots 3 and 4:
Also on undivided l/IS Interest in Lots 10 and 11, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 349
Hennepin County. Minnesota" according to the plot therof on file or of record in
the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County.
Page 5 of 6
l.r
m
n IN OLr� yM. Y. w• trr.. rwu..•......
.r.uru� W �ru w Y. w rr
pJw.♦. M.Ywwn wM W
xrlH �Mrw.Y.r.M rm ww x/r rr
x.W .n. M ww wy m wrx.m Y wYm. Y .r 1
M. 4wnl w w Mu. Yr wr.w W \m
l n.• NYrY rw wn. lm uMrlYMrlx wxY.YN
♦rY�rwa ^'I wrwW wrwiw w. wJiwJw
• r.W w Mr wur.r rwn . n�r
�4m l'ur.'M1}w.yrr..^ YI
w.ur Y m r,..rx w .xrr � w r. mr M1n.
LAKE
\i wVry,y
lam. t
MIDNETO�K+
,L L✓� S� r
_ Page 6 of 6
rnrFN x• rprta
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
612-249-4600
TO: Dennis Anderson
1720 Bohn's Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances
ZONING FILE # 2652
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: January 18, 2001
COPIES: Ron Lauer
401 E. Lake Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
DATE OF MEETING: January 17, 2001 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval as submitted with condition that hardcover remain at 13,045 sT (48.7%) in the 75-250'
setback area.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council on February 12,201 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.
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: January 10, 2001
SUBJECT: #2652 Ronald Lauer for Dennis Anderson
1720 Bohn's Point Road
Variance -- Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-lB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre)
Lot Area: 64, 830 sf. (1.48 acres)
List of Ezbibits
A Analysis
B Application
C Site Plan/ Survey
D Plans/Elevation View
E Hardcover Resolution #4006 (Regarding plastic and landscape fabric)
F Plat Map
O Location Map
H Property Owner's List
i Permit Record
Pertinent Code Section:
1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2 ): Hardcover in the 75-250'
setback zone: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no -reater than 25%hardcover.
To permit a variance to allow 13:045s.f. (49.3%) of hardcover where 13.045 s.f. (48.7%) exists and
6,687.5 (25%) is allowed. Jc(l
2. Section 10.22, Subdivision l (B)and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore
Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average
distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit a variance
to encroach 88' and 92' into the average lakeshore setback.
Application Summary: The applicants are seeking approval to add a second story to the existing
residence, a concrete paver walkway, and to enlarge an outdoor stairway.
• The second story addition is located in two different areas of the residence, it does not cover
the entire residence. One section is 22' x 32' located on the sou•h side (over the master
bedroom) and the other is 22' x 34' on the northeast side (over the guest suite).
#2652 Ran Lauer (Dennis Anderson,)
1720 Bohn's Point Road
Variance
111012001
Page I
• The stair addition is to add 17 s.f onto the existing stairs located between the driveway and
residence.
• The paver walkway will be between the house and the driveway. It is in two different
locations, south and east of the driveway. Combined they will total 147 s.f These areas are
currently grass.
The entire house is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line as drawn between the two
adjacent residences. The house sits on a point of the lakeshore. (Exhibit C).
The adjacent residence to the west is on higher ground, and may currently enjoy minimal views over
the existing residence, which may be reduced by the second story addition. However, the main
views of the lake for that house are to the south and not affected. Existing vegetation will also act
to limit neighbors' views hence it is unlikely that average Lakeshore setback is a significant issue for
this property. No neighbors have indicated a problem to staff as of this writing.
Lot coverage by structures currently is approximately 7.9%, will remain the same and well within
the 15%limitation.
The paver walkway and stair addition will increase the hardcover in the 75-250' setback area by 164
s.f. The applicant is proposing to remove 393 s.f. The 393 s.f is landscape fabric under rock. This
is considered nonconforming and should not be included in the calculations. (Exhibit E). The
amount of hardcover currently in this setback area is 13.045 s.f ( 48.7%). The additional 164 s.f
brings it to 13,209 s.f. (49.3%).
The residence was built in the early 1950's in its present location, prior to current zoning ordinances.
There have not been any additions or variances to this property.
Staff has reviewed the addition in regards to city ordinance code requirements. Lyle Oman, Building
Official did conclude it does meet the 2 Vi story or 30' criteria, measuring 29.5 feet.
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
r Cons
1. The second story is not changing the f--tprint of the existing residence. It is increasing living
space but not increasing structural cover..;, r hardcover.
2. Is the shape of the lot and the curve of the shoreline, as well as the fact that lake exists on both
the east and south sides of the property hardships that are unique to the property?
e2632 Ron Lauer for Dennis Anderson
1720 Bohn's Point Road
Vyiance
1/1N2001
Page 2
3. Are any neighbors' views of the lake negatively impacted by construction of the second story?
Is the shape of the shoreline sufficient hardship to justify the granting of an average lakeshore
setback variance?
4. Structural lot coverage will remain at 7.9%, well below the required 15%.
5. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will increase by 164 s.f.
6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the average Lakeshore variance.
Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area if hardcover is
removed elsewhere in the setback areL o maintain the current amount of 13,045 s.f. (48.7%).
#2632 Ron Lauer)or Dennis Anderson
I720 Bohn's Poim Road
Variance
111012001
Page 3
I
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area:
LR-lB
Lot Area
Required
43,560 s.f. (1 acre)
Actual
64,830 s.f. (1.48 acres)
Structural Coverage:
Total Lot Size
Total Structural Coverage
64,830 s.f.
Allowed: 9,724.5 s.E (15%)
Existing: 5,148 s.f. (7.9%)
Proposed: 5,148 s.f (7.9%)
Hardcover Calculations:
Distance from
Total area in
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
shoreline
setback
hardcover
hardcover
hardcover
0-75'
38,080 s.f.
0 s.f
932 s.f
932 s.f.
(2.5%)
(2.5%)
75-250'
26,750 s.f
6,687.5 s.f
13,045 s.f.
13,209 s.f.
(25%)
(48.7%)
(49.3%)
I
DateApplReceived
a 2�
Date Receh�ed 1 z a o 0 0
Amount Paid JZ SO
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non -conforming structures $250.00
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address 1720 Bohn's Point Road
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) I6-111-2 3
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired (month/year)
I (do) (do not) also own thvgacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: residential _other (specify)
Zoning District: C R - /
APPLICANT— I�t1Y-US Phone (home)
Name Ronald Lauer Phone (work)
Address: 401 E. Lake St. City: Wayzata Zip: 53391
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)
Name Lennie Anderson Phone (work)
Address: 1720 Rohn'a Pt. ad. City: Wavzata Zip: 55391
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $
Describe request in detail: Variance for Average Lake Setback
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
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:
The hardship is caused because the house site on a point.
(attach additional ler if.wessary).
,
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
w
-der for your applocalion to be considered complete;
1. _ Completed Application Form
2. _ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
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 are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i' x I I" for reproduce
5. _ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8%" x .
6. _ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interes.
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
7. _ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
8. _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true tr cony! to he bestgf his/her knowledge.
(f r
Applicant's Signature e�44/ � / ' L{y'\ Date ne
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.
Owners Signature
Date
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& -oning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
.N
i
41Ho
NF"_ Jfb4� tw--
1<
m
s rtlrs+
w ltl sW rw_w Y+ �Y.Y Wr. rrrr
MtlnwA r W'1N�rw rr YlNwwrr
wr l r4 r 1w w rNww wnrr YrgN w F
rw.r♦ �q\lr.r Y9F w�Y1irYrr\YFrw �
wrfwf w+F YYNF rr\w
lw r.r�N.Y �b FV M(w Yw�.NYNMwww4rYtl
N \F vNMr. wrrn � 'r^ l wMn
rw.wwwwr� rur1+ w N +rqY w M+ N+wr i N l u
w YI+ N, wr �M NruM1 n + qwN
rw rr n Yn Y uw"Y rw F rgwr H rrx Frrr. w N
4w wr+w� wNnTUN.r.w Y+Yr Nrf Nr
.4 rrnNn Nwr rYFrq MrYr
�rW`YM+' tltlY+ N r. rY wY w F
F MprwYr.w .uq tlr Wr ,1C ��y ,�
MwT w wr Frr aw w wN tlrr+ _•/j{�/y� NIr<j Q,
O • !�
J
q'
1 i j S�•� f
P�
LAKE
Lq
F.�l
C
G
W
r
° ? r
gEff� m.eiac.cen
aim
Ors
U
l'
r � a
LZ
�IR
�
uwun
all"Il
1
�
J
oNoDERSOo RESIDENCE
11 I ��iill!
�'✓ � ((1 � of ' e O 0 �( 1" (� � it
71
.
!!� l i,i
-P,
- ,
1 ,
+I;i1'il
IIl�ii�ll it;11i�ji' ! I � ff��"''�•t, "'�a.i+, J
ANDERSON RESIDENCE
ORONO. MINNESOTA
e
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4()OB
A RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING POLICY
REGARDING THE HARDCOVER STATUS
OF PLASTIC AND FABRIC LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
AND DEFINING THE DISTI iCTION BETWEEN
STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER
WHEREAS, the City of Orono since 1975 has regulate( the use and placement of hardcover
on land within 1000 feet of lake shorelines; and
WHEREAS, City Ordinances define hardcover as "Any structure, blacktop, or other
material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground"; and
WHEREAS, the City Ordinances placing limitations on the use of hardcover divide the
1000-foot regulatory zone into four tiered "hardcover zones" which are commonly referred to as
"the 0.75' zone", "the 75-25V zone", "the 250-500' zone", and "the 500-1000' zone'; and said zones
are respectively allowed 0% hardcover, 25% hardcover, 30% hardcover, and 35% hardcover; and
WHEREAS,.the City Council has long considered that plastic sheeting and weed contrul
fabrics (hereinafter referred to as'plastic or fabric') shall be considered as hardcover for the purpose
of administering the hardcover ordinances, regardless of the extent to which such materials are
actually permeable; and
WHEREAS, the City has never issued permits for placement of plastic or fabric on private
or public property, and all such material where it currently exists in excess of the allowed hardcover
percentages on any given property, is considered as non-conformina; and
WHEREAS, the City is continuously faced with requests for variances to the hardcover
ordinances wherein applicants are required to provide calculations identifying the various types and
square footages of hardcover within a property; and
WHEREAS, hardcover variance requests are commonly reviewed by the City with the
underlying intent that the percentage of hardcover be reduced from the pre-existing condition; and
Page I of 3
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 40()R
WHEREAS, property owners commonly request hardcover variances for which their
proposal includes a reduction in the overall hardcover, but typically by an increase in the amount
of 'structural hardcover' with concurrent removals of'non-structural hardcover; and
WHEREAS, the City has not previously formally defined by ordinance or resolution the
distinction between'structural' and'non-structural' hardcover, but has commonly considered such
a distinction when reviewing hardcover variance requests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be beneficial to formally define the
distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is inappropriate to consider the removal ofWn-
conforming plastic or fabric as a good -faith hardcover reduction when considering hardcover
variance requests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that to the extent practicable, all non -conforming plastic
or fabric should be removed from properties for which a hardcover variance is requested, to reduce
the potential for trading non -conforming non-structural hardcover to gain structural hardcover.
NOW, THEREFORE HE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono,
Minnesota:
1. Structural Hardcover shall be defined as those items of hardcover which require a
building permit, which extend above the ground surface or into the ground, or which
are constructed rather than placed.
2. Non-structural Hardcover shall be defined as those items of hardcover which do not
require a building permit, which exist on the ground surface but do not extend
substantially above or below grade, or which are placed on the ground surface rather
than constructed.
Page 2 of 3
CITY of ORONO
RESOLOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 400A
3. The following items are considered as hardcover:
Structural Hardcover
Buildings
Tennis courts
Pools, Incl. water surface
Decks, regardless of spacing
Roofs of any son, Incl. some roof overhangs
Play structure platforms
Temporary buildings
Any vehicle, material, or equipment which
prevents direct absorbtion of rainfall into the
ground and which is stared for an extended
period of time
Non -Structural Hardcover
Roads and shoulders
Driveways (Concrete, asphalt, gravel, 2 )
Sidewalks, ramps, etc.
Any surface intended to be driven on
Landscape beds lined with plastic shee:::.g
Landscape beds lined with weed-prevendori fabric
Tops of rock or timber retaining walls
Patios, stepping stores
Porous pavements (various)
4. All plastic or fabric located in the 0-75' hardcover zones within the City is considered
as non -conforming unless specific approval for same is granted by the Ct7' Coumi I
at some date after the adoption of this ordinance.
5. All plastic or fabric in hardcover zones other than the 0-75' zone is considered as
non -conforming when the combined structural and non-structural hardcover in said
zones exceeds the allowed hardcover percentages for said zones.
6. For any project that has been the subject of a hardcover variance arproval, no
building remelt will be issued until all non -conforming plastic or fabric has been
removed from the property. Hardcover calculations presented at Cie time of
variance application shall reflect all hardcover remaining on the properry after the
non -conforming plastic or fabric has been removed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 24th day of November, 1997.
orothy M. a in, Ciry Jerk Gabr�Jabbour. Ma
Page 3 of 3
F
nnepin County Taxp er Services Department v
} RUN DATE 12/18/00
•-.F BATCH 511
38 16-117-23 22 0001
PROF ADDR 01600 BURNS POINT RD
OWEN NAME COWIE R SHEEN
TAXPAYER CONNIE R SHEEN
NAME/ADDR 1bBR BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 16-117-23 22 0004
PROP ADDR 01720 BONS POINT RD
OWEN NAME DENNIS D ANDERSON
TAXPAYER DENNIS D ANDERSON
MANE/ADDR 1720 BOIMS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
3B 17-117-23 11 0004
PROP ON 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
OMEN NAME DENNIS D ANDERSON
TAXPAYER DENNIS D ANDERSON
NAME/ADDR UNDIVIDED
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 lb-117-23 22 9002
01640 BOHNS POINT RD
T L TRAFF I E TRAFF
T L TRAFF A E TRAFF
27 CLANCY ESTATES
RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270
36 16-117-23 22 0006
01725 BOMS POINT RD
R L WEFT ■ A D WEFT
N L WEFT 8 A B HOEFT
2125 DOWNS POINT RD
WAYZATA HN SS591
TOTAL BATCH 511 00007
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 31
38 16-117-23 22 0003
01700 ROMNS POINT RD
R 8 C ONENS
ROBERT H OWENS
1700 BOOS POINT ROAD
WAYZATA HN 55391
36 17-117-Z3 11 0002
01655 BUNKS 'POINT RD
G K NENMAN JR C M M C NENMAN
GRAYDON R NENMAN JR
MICHELLE M C NENMAN
1655 BOHN$ POINT RD
ORONO 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 TAXATIN, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. /Y _
OAT /21VA2 BY
PERMIT RECORD
Permit No. Date Type of Permit
nru"'^ll MFETINO
Application Date: 11116100
Completion Date: 11/16/00 FEB 12 2M
60 Day Deadline: 1/16/01
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl I Y Uf• UAONO
Department Approval: DATE: 2/8101
Name Wendy Bottenberg ITEM NO.: �3
Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planner Agenda Section: Zoning
Item Description: N2655 Roben and Nancy Lux
1209 French Creek Drive
Varian.
Zoning District: RR-IB/PRD One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre)
Lot Ann: 59,314 s.f. (1.36 acres)
List of Exhibits:
A Resolution
B PC Action Notice
C Staff Report and Exhibits of 1/17/2001
Application Summary: The applicants are seeking approval to construct a 13' x 36' (468 s.f) addition
to the west end ofthe residence and to replace an existing wood deck that is deteriorating. Boththeaddition
and deck replacement are within 150' of a Natural Environment lake.
The lot was developed in 1995 prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance (1992). The
Shomiand Ordinance created a 150' structure setback from Natural Environment lakes, whereas, 75' was
required before 1992. The ordinance was adopted with the understanding it would create non -conforming
lots in the French Creek Subdivision. The subject property owner's house now encroaches into the required
150' setback. Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance the lot was conforming.
The property is served with a septic system. The septic system is currently compliant and has a capacity for
4 bedrooms. This addition will not add to the total number of bedrooms, but rearranging them within the
residence and add a room off the master bedroom suite, labeled office on plans. Therefore a larger septic
system is not required at this time. Orono septic code requires structures meet a 20' setback from a septic
dreinfield. The addition does not meet this requirement, and applicant plans to relocate portions of the septic
system in order to remain in compliance.
1. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (Cxl ): Structural setbacks for Natural Environmental Lakes: To permit
an addition to the west end of the residence and replacement of an existing deck,
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to:
Approve the application as presented to replace wood deck.
Approval as submitted for addition with condition that septic design showing primary and alternate sites is
submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the enclosed resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIN7SION 16(C)(1),
FILE NO.2655
WHEREAS, Robert C. Lux and Nancy N. Lux, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the
owners of the property located at 1209 French Creek Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the
City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 1, French Creek, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the
property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied ,o the City for a variance to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(1) to allow replacement of a deck and addition to
the west end of the residence that are both located within 150' of a Natural Environmental lake.
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2001, at which time all persons desiring to be
heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 42655.
2. The property is located is the RR-1 B. Single Family Ryrral Residential Zoning
District, where 2 acres is the minimum lot area. The property consists of
approximately 1.36 acres.
3. The Orono Planning Commission retiewved this application on January 17, 2001 and
recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0.
4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact
Page 1 of 3
A. The 150' Natural Environment lake setback was adopted after the residence
was built.
B. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone will increase to 12,349 sT (24.8%),
below the allowed 25%.
C. Hardcover in the 250.500' setback zone will increase to 726 sT (17%),
below the allowed 30%.
D. The structural coverage on the property will be 12.6%, below the allowed
15%.
E. Theexisting septic systemmust bepartially relocated to avoid encroachments
by the planned room addition.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to
it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting
the variance will 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 applic.mt;
and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code ettd
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
6. 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
wclfare 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 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(I) to allow replacement of
a deck and addition to the %%est end of the residence that are both located within 150' of a Natural
Enviromnental lake. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
Page 2 of 5
I . Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to this
resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further
Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. Issuance of a building permit for the addition wil I occur after a septic design showing
primary and alternate sites has been submitted by the applicant and approved by City
staff. The existing septic system shall be modified concurrent with the addition so
that the septic system remains in compliance with City requirements.
3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants,
but are permissive only and most 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 12, 2002).
4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate
any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of
this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of tha property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on
the 12th day of February, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Property Owner (s)
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Page 3 of 5
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of February, 2001
by Barbara A. Peterson 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
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _ day of , 2001, before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared known
to me to be the person(s) described inand whoexecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged
that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )' Q . .
On this _ day of , 2001, before me a Notary Public within
and for said County, personally appeared _
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
z
a
a
49
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
612-249.4600
TO: Robert Lux
1209 French Creek Drive
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances
ZONING FILE # 2655
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMDIISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: January 18, 2001
_—.—'................ —_______._�.._
COPIES: Bruce Knutson Architects
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55403
DATE OF MEETING: January 17, 2001 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval as submitted to replace wood deck.
Approval as submitted for addition with condition that septic design showing prbnary and alternate
site is submitted and approved by city staff prior to issuance of building permit.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council on February 12, 2001 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.
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
i�
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: January 10, 2001
SUBJECT: #2655 Robert and Nancy Lux
1209 French Creek Drive
Variance -- Public Hearing
Zoning District: RR- IB/PRD One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre)
Lot Area: 59,314 s.f. (1.36 acres)
List of Exhibits
A Analysis
B Application
C Site Plan/ Survey
D Floor Plans(Views/Elevations
E Septic Report
F Plat Map
O Location Map
H Property Owner's List
I Permit Record
Pertinent Code Section:
1. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(t ): Structural setbacks for Natural Environmental Lakes: To
permit an addition to the west end of the residence and replacement of an existing deck.
Application Summary: The applicants are seeking approval to construct a l3' x 36' (468 s.f)
addition to the west end of the residence and to replace an existing wood deck that is deteriorating.
Both the addition and deck replacement are within 150' of a Natural Environment lake.
The lot was developed in 1985 prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance (1992). The
Shoreland Ordinance created a 150' structure setback from Natural Environment lakes, whereas, 75'
was required before 1992. The ordinance was adopted with the understanding it would create non-
conforming lots in the French Creek Subdivision. The subject property owner's house now
encroaches into the required 150' setback. Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance the lot was
conforming.
02655 Roberr/Nancy LuT
1209 French Creek Drive
Variance
100/1001
Page I
The property is served with a septic system. The septic system is currently compliant and has a
capacity for 4 bedrooms. This addition will not add to the total number of bedrooms, but rearranging
them within the residence and add a room off the master bedroom suite, labeled office on plans
(Exhibit D). Therefore a larger septic system is not required at this time. Orono septic code requires
structures meet a 20' setback from a septic drainfield. The addition does not meet this requirement.
However, septic inspector, Chris Pence, granted a variance so the addition may be located 10' from
the drainfield.
Structural lot coverage and hardcover is not a problem with this application. No neighboring
residences will be impacted by the addition or replacement of the deck.
Statement of Hardship:
The property was developed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance. A large portion of
the lot, including the existing home encroach into the 150' structure setback from Natural
Environment Lakes.
Issues for Consideration:
1. The 150' take setback was adopted atter the residence was built.
2. The addition meets side yard setback requirements.
3. The proposal does not exceed structural lot coverage or hardcover requirements.
4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commisaiun.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance for the addition and replacing the existing deck
Staff has notified the property owner and architect that the addition to the west end of the
residence is on the septic drainfield. City ordinances require a 20 setback. They have stated they
are to put in a new septic system. This application may proceed to the City Council for approval
with the condition that a building permit for the addition will not be issued until a septic design
showing a primary and alternate site is submitted and approved by city staff.
The building permit for replacing the deck can be issued once the proposal is approved by the
City Council.
02655 Robert and Nane3- Lin
1209 Frer:rh Creek Drive
tarl"me
1.10 2001
Page 2
I
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Are:
RR-1B/PRD
Lot Area
Required
PRD
Actual
59,314 s.f.
Structural Coverage:
Total Lot Size
Total Structural Coverage
59,314 s.f.
Allowed: 8,897 s.L (15%)
Existing: 6.752 s.f. (11.4%)
Proposed: 7:273 s.f. (12.6%)
Hardcover Calculations:
Distance from
shoreline
Total area in
setback
Allowed
hardcover
Existing
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
0-75"
5,456 s.f.
0 s.f.
0 s.f
0 s.f.
75-250'
49,708 s.f.
12,427 s.f
(25%)
10,664 s.f.
(210/6)
12,349 s.f.
(24.8%)
250-500'
4,150 s.f
1,245 s.f
(30%)
415 s.f.
(10%)
726 s.f.
(17%)
500.1000'
1 0 s.f.
0 s.f.
0 s.f
0 s.f.
D
Application t! 7(05 (v
Date Received t z )i t o o
Amount Paid -4 2 C 0
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non -conforming structures $250.00
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address 1709 FRENCH CREEK DRTVF
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 10-117-23 23 002
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired DECEMBER 5 199a (monthlyear)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use ofproperty: ,residential _other (specify)
Zoning District: RR - 1B
APPLICANT Phone (home)ro521449-o121
Name Robert d Nancy Lux � 't � Phoa.. (work) (952) 545-1419
Address: 1209 French Creek Drive City: Orono Zip: 55391
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)
Name Phone (work)
Address: City: Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ $100,000
Describe request in detail: Replace existing wood deck that has deteriorated wt eh
new patio and deck. We are also proposing to add 13 feet onto the west end ol. I
o the house or a mach additional sheets if necessary) Q qz
kids bedrooms.
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area _ Lot Width _ Hardcover
Setback: _ Front _ Side _ Rear
_ Other (specify)
_Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
HARDSHIPIDESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITION'S
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Any addition to the gxiatiaa a r rture_
squires a variance because the entire home is within 150 feet of the lake
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information n be submitted by the nnnlication deadline date in
order for your application to be considered complete:
1. -x— Completed 4pplication Form
2. g Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Deg=rnnent of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 345-5910).
3. g Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 81/:" x 11" for
reproduction.
4. x Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes is existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8%d' x 11" for rerroduetion.
5. x Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'"' x 11").
6. x List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with a,1 interest in
— the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not curter:: owner(s).
7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
04 persons you wish notified of this application.
8. _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remembe- that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomtation required or requested by :`e Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff «me not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifes that the
information supplied is true ayd correct to the best oc his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature "/"v+ G4 _ Date November 1, 2000
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants. agents. Commission members. z.d Council
members for purposes of investigation and vcrilication of this request.
Owner's Signature ��✓ "`� 2— Dare November 1, 2000
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pl=r ng
C tmmission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants roust be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled mee::ng, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise e.- Built _rg
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
1 11 n � 'v �/moo. _."' __� \ .LL. /-,• .� ; %
�` R ` ..lL✓.�FRSIWG BUIID'rvG $ / .�
'� v / / ,.� . Y :'sC ' � /'m.,ey� -tip O•::.
�;,, TM�( 1 Y ' rweosm oarvi'— __Y r- #,::. 'IF.�., •-A �0.,.
F RENCH CREEK --l<
E
J
Y
0=morNENT DATA
puNTINO NOTES
2 W -
. n MAIL y GREEN DETAM m1m10 DR4L
f_
o�� l
.La
r
lialal�
yw
scc,nM nw +w .vom�+
i / II IIII--'III
r
mil+, 4
'vim ... �� @�. , '••.
I-
SEPTICSYSTEMINVENTORY .
Adds: 1209Freneh Creek Dr. PID: 10-117-23 230002
Address:.
Building Typ residence #BRs/GPD: 4 #Systems 1 Units Billed I
Permit#: 7916,122I4DateofPemtit: 5/13/85,11/30 Installer: WestonkaPlbg.,Sullivan
System Type standard trench Experimental: no Appliances Indry,dshw
SYSTEM CONDITION
Conformity: I Tank Condition: 5 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: low
SEPTIC TANKS
Material: precast concrete Capacity: 500,600
Setback to Bldg: 20 Cesspool: no
DR4INFIELD
Length of Lines 330 # Lines: 5
Treatment Area: 1000 Type of Fil
Tile Size: 4 Under Tile 12
Setback DF-Bldg: 20
Soil Type: sandy loamm ,loa
ter rock
Pere Rate: 7
DF Ht above Wt:
Limitations:
Trench Width: 3
Soil Boring: no
3
none
WELL DATA
Setbacks - Well -Tanks: 50 Well-DF: 75 Report in File yes
pump Type: subm. Depth: 160 Diameter: 4 Method: drilled
INSPEC77ONRECORD
DATE
DESCRIPTION
520/85
installation
8/4187
no surfacing -need ristas
7/9/90
no surfacing
7/9/92
no surfacing -need risersm
5/10/94
no surfacing -need risers,pup tanks
I1/8/96
no surfacing -pump tanks
424/97
no surfacing -pump tanks
12/4/99
added 600 gpd aerobic unit
6/7/00
no surfacing
PUMPOUTRECOAD
COMPLIANCE
DATE
GALLONS
1
911/90
2000
I
10/6/93
2000
1
8/7/97
2000
1
102/99
3000
1
1
1
I
1
E
E
ll
4nppl �el Tr.sk T..k
n�iMNo
A `T. sirs
Lf V
f NON ctrx'� D2ivE
/a09 Frf,i G,,Y Dom.
io-i�� a3 F
�NWEAR CM g rNW #A m e s MAP lE LA •i �{ h i b� `Op0M0
0 0 i 'u
y WATERTOWN n COG RD O THOROUON REO k� '(t. •' Jrry 3,`!E
COUN 7
os a lA DEWN EA OR ( - - -. fkono,
3 N OR 1t 1 BiYinE..
J tpE ! IONEWEW CUI'� ((_ NO
SO MEflSFT ► teYNR' 310j "�1 1` Course
o \y;Wn6,.......... 000
FO# A106E RDHILL
AVE
V fER
-•�4 Lilt.• -,. •'- •-• ABINGDON WAY o
tM
c
Elm O R O N , ySYE u r WHITE er 400 a
M
Ce �i
EUSSf#� H I 15r
o g a�
FOX ET o $ F A ET
w NaGt /Oq / t§r;
$ W i� RO
.. _ jt4MEr 80J S 1$ 1 -
NOertabCf$ RO r FRENCH LAKE
dea; RD N Tanager t r
A
Erk": 84 e
T
.. > << g .Lake
146
LIN 7 f
French 4tfyF 4�0/t EREENT REFS J
y\•� ___— _ Lake r �.4k. zI .YEI RUP
r
3
51 + r <� 51 • /
Smith B
ORONO'
t tq#r NN Brackens Point I.
1600
Bohm Point Crystal Bay
LAteyet
'�COUntryC ub
i 000
6 tad E• �� °X'--�A� _.r e e � e��T�33cu1 � � . - r
UNNETONKA r
' 1 B PAC H
Lafayette Ba 6
RUN DATE 20/51/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401
-a1 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 5
-` BATCH 502
56 10-117-23 23 0001
PROP ADDR 01205 FRENCH CREEK DR
OWNER NAME C J WINSLOW A S L WINSLOW
TAXPAYER SHARON L CLARK WINSLOW
NAME/ADDR 1205 FRENCH CREEK DR
NAYZATA MH 55311
M 10-111-23 23 0004
PYOP AUDB 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNCD
OWNBR NAME CLAM J WINSLOW CT AL
TAXPAYER SHARON L CLARK WINSLOW
AAHE/ADOR 1205 FRENCH CREEK, CIR
NAYZATA MN 55391
38 10-117-23 32 0018
PROP =4 40038 ADDRESS UN.ASSICNED
OWNER NAME CLARK J WINSLOW ET AL
TAXPAYER SHAR0N R CLARK WINSLOW
NAME/AODR 1205 FRENCH CREEK CIR
WAYZATA HN 55391
S3 10-117-23 23 0002
01209 FRENCH CREEK DR
R C AN LUX
ROBERT C R NANCY LUX
1209 FRENCH CREEK DR
NAYZATA MN 55391
38 10-217-23 32 0012
01210 FRENCH CREEK BR
B H NYCE A J V NYCE
JAMES V A BEVERLY N NYCE
1260 FRENCH CREEK OR
NAYZATA HN 55391
TOTAL BATCH S02 ROBOT
38 10-112-23 23 0093
02280 FRENCH CREEK CIR
J 5 PETERSON R J C PETERSON
JAMES L JULIA PETERSON
2280 FRENCH CREEK CIR
NAYZATA MN 55391
38 30-L17-23 32 0013
01250 FRENCH CREEK DR
J F ADAMS A R L ADl91S
JOHN F L RONDA L APANS
1250 FRENCH CREEK OR
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 COR(TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPARTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE / - J' �� By l'✓�L'Z.' Jl�a.(./ L r
PERMIT RECORD
Permit No.
Da[tte�
T�YP�e ofw Permit
STJO—
Go_
SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL
0
a4 4�O.
F
��L9kE880¢�G`
CITY of ORONO
Isturicipal Vices
Street Address: Mailing Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 65
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Owner f)09 (.heS
Phone (Home) NY %-0111 (\Cork)
}
Address y , , &T /-'Uh
('r /.• ..City :Xf� `State Zip
Site Evaluator 5- -
State License 14ona'-' u"'- --! ^ F
Type of Establishment: Single
Family �J _ Multi Family
Commercial
Garbage Disposal Yes — No=
No. Potential Bedrooms
Est. Gallons Per Day '—
Water Meter Required: Yes_
No_ Soil Sizing Factor '
Perc Rates P-l_ P-2
P-3_ r-4_ P-5_ P-6_ P-7_
Restricting Layer Depth B-1_.
—
B-2_ B-3_ B-4_ B-5_ B-6_
Tvne of Treatment System:
Srandard_)�_ Experimental_ Alterative_
Pressurized Mound System
_ At -Grade System
Gravity Trenches System
Pressurized Trench System_
Gravity Trenches W/ Lift
Pressurized Bed System
Holding Tank W/ Alarm
Septic Tank Size�a 0x i d),11 , Al of Tanks / Lift Tzk Size_
r
Pump Brand
GPM Head
Treatment System:
Minimum
Square Feet with '— inches of rock celow pipe
Type of covering Fabric
— Other=
THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a des• a approval form which mu. :ompany the site plan.
A permit must be issued to a licensed sepu.:antractor prior to installation.
NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans must have prior approval of the
inspector (249-4600) Call for inspection 24 hours in advance.
ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to build+ag site excavation and
fencing must remain in place until final site grading. Approval to poor footings will not be granted
until the Inspections Department has verified the primary zrd alternate sits are protected.
NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF ANY KIND is allowed within 20' of te4ed dminfield sites ever.
s
ACCEPTED DENIED_ _ By the City of Orono sub'ect to existing mjg.! uions and
the fol!;'xing conditions: — —
t, )1
B �faJ Gicc/'
Chris ?ence On -Sire N(ems manager
Telephone (612) 249-46M . Val (612) 249-4616
10,20,99 11:30 FAX 01249750/1 S P TESTING INC VJul
S-P TESTING, INC. Steven B. Schirtners • MPCA Cert,No. 627
951 Krydid Lane NE - St. Michael, MN 55376 • (612) 497.3566
FAX - (612) 497-5011
State License #394
11-00.411 :•9 �� •�
TO:� at,;=:m PA, FAX NUMBER `I9 - lc
ORGANIZATION_ � +) a/ Crcr,,
SUBJECT_ Lu - C" c), .
REMARKS
PAGES TO FOLLOW -�
A0120,99 11:36 FAX 6124975011 S P TESTING INC P,i.:
S-P TESTING, INC. Steven B Schirmers - MPCA Cart. No. 627
176 • (612) 497-3566
FAX (612) 497-5011
State License #394
October 20. 1999
Bob Lux
1209 French Creek Dr,
Orono, Henn. Co., MN
This site has an existing on -site sewage treatn ant system, a trench system for a four
bedroom home. The system is classified as i•, compliance with chapter 7080 rules
according to Steve Weckman with the City r , Orono.
The proposal is to add a Class 1 f.iulti-Flo, Aerobic Wastewater Treatment System.
which Is classified as standard under Minnesota Chapter 7080 rules to the existing
system. The highly treated, filtered effluent produced by the Multi -Flo is over 95% free
of the normal sewage contaminants that cause the progressive failure of conventional
systems. The unit will be a 600 gal/day. A trash trap is installed in front of the Mufti -Flo.
The unit requires to be serviced 2 times a year which will be done by Schirrners
Wastewater Treatment Systems. Inc A 2 year service8 parts warranty comes with the
purchase of the unit After that time, the homeowner Is required to carry a Service
Contract at $125.00 a year (2000 price). A report is sent to the homeowner, city, MPCA
8: Multi -Flo yearly. The trash trap. Multi -Flo and pumping chamber will need to be
pumped when the salable solids reach 50%. This will be determined at the time of
service.
The 15t 1000 gallon septic tank could be convened to a 500 gallon trash trap by
pumping out the tank and filling with sand to 500 gallon capacity and —pouring a 2" to 3"
concrete slab in the tank or a new 500 gallon trash trap could be installed end abandon
the existing 1st 1000 gallon tank whichever is more cost effective. The existing flow line
at the 1st tank is 951.8 with the approximate flow line of the isrUftch at 951.0 and the
flow outleling the Multi-flo Unit at 951.5. The effluent will flow gravity to the 1 at drop
box.
3
10�20100 11:05 FAX 6124975011 S P TESTING r]C ram'">
Nothing other than human waste, toilet tissue, laundry, showers, water softener etc.
should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Iron fitters must be diverted out of the
system. Garbage disposals are not recommended, due to adding more solids & fine
solids passing through to the system. Excessive amounts of soaps, anti -bacterial
SOWS, cleaning agents & chlorine agents may kill the bacteria needed to treat septic
effluent. Additives are not recommended.
Svz.
Steven B. 5chirmers
AP�K
sis•cCwt
` � sy.�
j� �• .. Lr. �,rsAi, tc��E . \
�1 �Jtf• �
Q
QFd4Ab6o Fviti4ti= 5\S� �`
,o l000 SOY( Y�y+sr.-moo _
•� •M'I4vIG b6'O.
`"�`'`- Bpaedalipl Tests Scote;
..f, ®ft?. Mmk
.+j.. hate, T* sr Wm is to be a "mcW to med
- the fimesda Pd v-50A tocg d
Agmq
Chapter 7080 a Local
Ordinance
Check/all underground
4tilities
GyS-P TESTING /
:�
0dt:ie/l7YlJ� Ptt,612-497-3566
COngre. fatF.ETINO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 12 2000
CITY OF URUNO
Date: January 29, 2001
Item No.: /�
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Zoning
Name: Michael P. Gafrron
Title: Planning Director ,u -
IS
Item Description: #2657 Clifford Otten. 2350 Wa) zata Boulevard - Easement Vacation -
Resolution
Zoning District: B-6 (PUD-I) Highway Commercial District, Planned Unit Development
List of Exhibits
A - Resolution
B - Memo and Exhibits of January 11, 2001
Summary of Request
The City is requested to vacate a portion of the Drainage and Utility Easement granted along the
perimeter of the Plat of East Willow Woods, in fulfillment of the conditions of the Road Agreement
executed by and between the City, Otten and Green Valley Associates (Service 800) in February
1999. The Agreement resulted in Otten's acquisition of the "Brimhall Triangle", a small parcel of
land in the City of Long Lake adjacent to Highway 12 across from Brimhall Avenue. This land was
encumbered by Highway Easements which MnDn T concluded were no longer needed, and Otten
was enabled to acquire the parcel from the underlying owners, subject to conditions which gave the
City and Service 800 certain drainage, utility and road easements to make this a useful vehicular
access point for Service 800 and the adjacent properties in the future.
As part of the Agreement, the City agreed to vacate the i0' Drainage and Utility Easements in
Otten's property adjacent to the triangle, in exchange for new easements along the new Highway 12
right-of-way line. This application is in fulfillment of the City's obligation under the Agreement.
Existing Utilities
Please review Exhibit B of the January I I memo. City sewer and water lines fall within the new
easements granted by Otten adjacent to Highway 12. Existing power lines are located along the
right -of--way of Highway 12 and are not affected by the proposed vacation. Minnegasco, NSP and
U.S. West have confirmed no objection to the vacation.
#2657 - Otten Easement Vacation
January 29, 2001
Page 2
Replacement Easement
In addition to the easements granted by Otten via the Road Agreement, a replacement easement is
requested by the City along the east line of the triangle (see Exhibit B-3). This would be a reasonable
extension of the existing 10' O&U easement along the east line of Lot 2 and provide continuity of
the width potentially needed for future drainage purposes if not for utilities. However, granting of
this easement by Otten was not a condition of the Road Agreement. This easement would actually
be in the City of Long Lake. Otten has indicated he will grant this easement.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On January 17 Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the proposed vacation,
with a request that Mr. Otten grant the replacement easement as noted above.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation as presented, per the attached resolution.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE VACATION OF
A DEDICATED DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
WITHIN LOT 2, BLOCK 1, EAST WILLOW WOODS
- FILE NO.2657
WHEREAS, the Cih, of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Clifford and Louise Otten (hereinafter the "applicants") are owners of
Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS,the applican:shave requested thatthe City of Orono (hereinafter"City")
vacate a portion of the drainage and utility easements dedicated to the public within the plat of East
Willow Woods, such easement portion to be vacated legally described as follows:
The following portion of Drainage and Utility Easement granted to the public
in the plat of East Willow Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
That portion of the 10 foot Drainage and Utility Easement located
along and abutting the south line of Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow
Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that portion located
within 10 fat of the east line of said Lot 2, and except that portion
lying within 150 feet of the south right-of-way line of U.S. Trunk
Highway 12 as shown in the plat of LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL -
INDUSTRIAL PARK
(hereinafter "the drainage easement"); and
WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 2001 regardinp said easement vacation, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were b,ven the
opportunity to speak thereon; and
Page I of 3
WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the requested easement vacation and the City Council of the City of
Orono finds that said easement vacation, as pruposed, is in keeping with the public interest in
consideration of the following findings:
The easement vacation is in fulfillment of the conditions of the Road Agreement
executed by and between the City, the applicants and Green Valley Associates
in February 1999. That Agreement resulted in the applicants' acquisition of the
"Brimhall Triangle', a small parcel of land in the City of Long Lake adjacent
to Highway 12 across from Brimhall Avenue. This land was encumbered by
Highway Easements which MnDOT c mcluded were no longer needed, and
applicants were enabled to acquire the parcel from the underlying owners, subject
,o conditions which gave the City and Service 800 certain drainage, utility and
road easements to make this a useful vehicular access point for Service 800 and
the adjacent properties in the future.
2. As part of the aforesaid Road Agreement, the City agreed to vacate the 10'
Drainage and Utility Easements in Otten's property adjacent to the Brimhall
Triangle, in exchange for new easements along the new Highway 12 right-of-way
line, which have been granted. This application is in fulfillment of the City's
obligation under the Agreement.
3. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property.
4. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the easement
portion to be vacated.
5. The appropriate utility companies have been contacted and none are opposed to
the vacation.
6. The easement portion as it cdrrentiy exists serves no public purpose.
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFOR3 BL IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Clifford and
Louise Otten is hereby granted and that the portion of drainage and utility easement as legally
described above is hereby vacated.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held tltis 12th day of February, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vec, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Barbara Peterson, Mayor
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12d a) of
February, 2001 by Barbara Peterson & 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.
Notary Public
Page 3 of 3
To: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: Mike Gatfron, Planning Director+
Date: January 11, 2001
Subject: #2657 Clifford Otten, 2350 Wayzata Boulevard - Easement Vacation --Public
Hearing
Zoning District: B-6 (PUD-1) Highway Commercial District, Planned Unit Development
List of Exhibits
A - Plat of East Willow Woods showing Proposed Easement Vacation
B - Drawing showing Proposed Vacation Relative to Adjacent Properties and ROW
B-2 - Legal Description for Vacation
B-3 - Suggested D&U Easement to Eliminate Gap
C - Documentation from Brimhall Triangle Road Agreement
D - Plat Map
E - Property Owners List
E-2 - Utility Companies Mailing List
F - Letter of Request
G - Letters from Utility Companies
Summary of Request
The City is requested to vacate a portion of the Drainage and Utility Easement granted along the
perimeter of the Plat of East Willow Woods, in fulfillment of the conditions of the Road Agreement
executed by and uetween the City, Otten snd Green Valley Associates (Service 800) in February
1999. The Agreement resulted in Otten's acquisition of the "Bnmhall Triangle", a small parcel of
land in the City of Long Lake adjacent to Highway 12 across from BrimhaB Avenue. This land was
encumbered by Highway Easements which MnDOT concluded were r i longer needed, and Often
was enabled to acquire the parcel from the underlying owners, subject to conditions which gave the
City and Service 800 certain drainage, utility and road easements to make this a useful vehicular
access point for Service 800 and the adjacent properties in the future.
As pan of the Agreement, the City agreed to vacate the 10' Drainage and Utility Easements in
Otten's property adjacent to th• triangle, in exchange for new easements along the new Higl..ay 12
right-of-way line. This application is in fulfillment of the City's obligation under the Agreement.
tten Easement Vacation
1.2001
Muties
iew Exhibit B. City sewer and water lines fall within the new casements granted by Otten
Highway 12. Existing power lines are located along the right-of-way of Highway 12 and
ected by the proposed vacation. The only other potential utility use of the easements to
arc for gas, telephone and cable TV, all of which have been asked to comment on the
vacation. Asofthis writing, only Minnegasco has confirmed no objection to the vacation.
ent Easement
t to the easements granted by Otten via the Road Agreement, a replacement easement
requested by the City along the east line of the triangle (see Exhibit B-3). This would be
le extension of the existing 10' D&U easement along the east line of Lot 2 and provide
of the width potentially needed for future drainage purposes if not for utilities. However,
'this easement by Otten was not a condition of the Road Agreement. This easement would
in the City of Long Lake.
mmendation
tofirmalion that no utility companies have existing or expected needs for the easement
be vacated, staff recommends approval of the easement vacation as presented, subject
tinting the replacement easement as shown in Exhibit B-3.
(, N . n ..W
•ulfyr ' ya ran'... » I^ Q , 6! : ')J )t fae (Z0)
0
i4
'fie �t',P nl.xa t"n :• � p.kP1 (ZO) 6199 s us g , sr
L0,!) 13 L' MI•]t'DI'E - I `J.7 TAw ((9) wed V0� eU •..4.-
(I6. y a"J�xizv s aop • Clei (li) sJa?
1¢DPSi a n'rh r (16)
*16
' 20) q - �(d ~ is(SUCARiY00D i t I r
(2q la +: j lol os 9:'4.
5)99an y1. U�iP aunoi c
( I.) �� 1 (ifil q » ).'". 44Ss° (i;A%•� a.f�) ASG ��r ¢ 3'D S.p'J
q� 4 s4(D6i �?iatbr 9a5 (i4) (%) T3cx
e
(.� A MOT D' 11 I I I FM.i3
U x (ll) J.AOOL.: MOT
C�Ip� diRNO (IS) �i b• $
I
MN/DOT ___ _ __'t t., w32)
1.lzr Rm Fr. PLAT
piWAYZATA r''— No4(,: — — —
R IA! I1.03 yoi •% .. 0 C !„ xb. b]•rl'C 8 O(58) i
Wi p
'pI 1p,,�1I I/'�� - ' (56) I u \ �'• roux an m »•nw
LY oYV I`Y I l• _-_ _•
u3) °or ar WAYZATA BLVD
15) (4)44 (57) A �` (53) re R/W iA L LA P
tl f
i3) I (40) ! (41) �` a w (9) D n _—_
log
14)
R rn------------- (� (� /�/nIj$ (�1 j9�/�
g �(S '- 1FP 3 1653 w
46) �T 1 (SS) RI (SB) 1. (2) N i
w -AND OF
(47) ,wb• u 3 w (36) (60),�g. -
! ) P... A'v... a fi(IT) i„ i (67)
IIID ......... . DANIELS " ' Illf
: Iw
......... .......3 ... N
SO
N
�. I pR M omn
NI. a
pN1. 11
N
AL HANK �
1°0
'x \
'eo��.Ir� eT(y0
N0
T
8o
/ /0 I
3
�•Syy•. �3 r fp:,
- 6s
3
i O r s turbo' [ 1\
I
RyaV.0 of D Lk I I -
Eld�r
Sir VRCA'ftD I i of moo'
I
p e/J. B9
N
QL r ` IM•+Ddi_R�W �ar.�oesre.• I
�eF / �� I F LOT 1 BLOCK 1 I
i I I
I° I gg
�F.re z30. �.ri a+ -a., I p Igo
/ . I 5{YMe� PKA Is
NEW DS U E65u.r E
�� ` .--NBB• � �g,E; B-%r - rteec. fnverir 'I r� erc'f 9�
✓(M se/Per %rrens
e Cer• ,K. /6092 M er%r. nr
\ •....nn �' y4 ygra �� CIF ���f O/J 1i r• ID�
1M. 312A rp{W M
rur NO. n �D �S
\ \l yJl;l...
6-2
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
IN LOT 2, BLOCK 1, EAST WILLOW WOODS
The following portion of Drainage and Utility Easement granted to the public in the plat of East
Willow Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed to be vacated:
That portion of the 10 foot Drainage and Utility Easement located alone and abutting the
south line of Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that
portion located within 10 feet of the east line of said Lot 2, and except that portion lying
within 150 feet ofthe south right-of-way line of U.S. Trunk Highway 12 as shown in the plat
of LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL PARK
328.618==t
. t,
Q A-f
ors` o.
. ....
`a°
UtMI1TY
�• RDR� EASCrhT --
'ro G t
�P er' % rr�r-� F
_.
/ 3 6; nd
n
14
6... r:
� . Fd. MnDOL(21W
i� 229.-no
14,5.92
.
92
SW CORNER CF �`-\V]5`
d1 OVTLOT E ----- - �' \ •7
S u (Ge
D 4 (ALASE-%uWAJRCCEL 342A
MnPOT R/W PLAT NO. 27-701
Td ettmiduAi-6 45f400
• 4
GxGeTP� r:E,.n �.,Jt•,It$L�-i�ti ,'='z t. irA%tL-,it a•, •,,� r -12�1
9i et�Cs4itr n^_.f,.,� ari-N �C :u:� 1"ALt.ay ACsret•ic. 'lice,,
i
d Often hereby grasp to the City of Orono perpetual, nonexclusive easements through
the Brimhall Triangle for p public road and public utilities. The easements shall become
effective if and when Otten acquires fee simple tide to the Brimhall Triangle free of the State of
Minnesota's highway easement There shall be a north -south right-of-way and an east -west
right-of-way. The north -south right-of-way shall be 70 feet wide and its centerline shall be the
northeasterly extension og the centerline of Brimhall Avenue, as platted in LONG LAKE
COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL. PARK The east -west right -of --way shall be that part of the
Brimhall Triangle lying within 150 feet of the south right -of --way lime of U.S. Trunk High%ry
12 as shown on the plat o� LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL PARK Within the
north -south right-of-way, ithe City's easement shall be for a public road and public utilities.
Within the eut-west righ"f-way, except its intersection with the north -south right-of-way, the
City's easement shall be for public utilities only. See the sketch of Option 1 attached as Exhibit
E.
e. Otten hereby gra4ts to Developer a perpetual, nonexclusive easement through the
Brimhall Triangle for a p ate road and private utilities. The easement shall become effective if
and when Otten acquires ree simple tide to the Bdmball Triangle free of the State of
Minnesota s highway easement The easement area is the 70-foot wide right-of-way described
in the preceding subpara*aph and that portion of the Brimhall Triangle lying easterly of that
70-16ot wide right-of-wakt. See the sketch of Option 1 attached as Exhibit E.
f Within four months after the Option I easements become effective. Developer shall
build its private road as shown onxhibit B at Developers expense and the City of Orono
shall vacate the 10-foot sspde utility and drainage easement along the south line of the Otten
Parcel.
3. Option 2 -- Turnbaek of Brimhall Triangle.
Le Oneo does not acquire fee simple title to the Brimhall Triangle by March 15. 1999, or if
MnDoT does not approve reconvcyance of the Brimhall Triangle to Otten by April 30, 1999, than
permanent access between the Semce $00 Parcel and Wayzata Boulevard shall be acquired as follows:
a The City of Orono shall apply to MnDoT for a permit to install a public road in the
Brimhall Triangle as shown on Exhibit C. Developer shall provide all plans and specifications
required by MaDOT at Developer's expense. The plans and specifications shall be revised as
necessary to meet any reasonable demands by MnDoT, such as extension of the public road to
reach the Otten Parcel as well as the Service 800 Parcel.
b. Within four months after MnDoT issues the public road permit, Developer shall install
t:.e public road at Developer's expense and shall dedicate it to the City of Orono. The City of
Orono shall accept the dedication if the road complies with the requirements of this Road
Agreement and the requirements of MaDoT. The designation of the road as public and the
acceptance of the dedication of the road shall not change the maintenance and repair obligations
set forth in paragraph 6 bilow.
Ix- u
FEB 21 '-q `- -n
xor
i I
1 r_ 8 R. lel n
.yv , ,: un/ p \ ! (SUGA20)
RNgOD k
I. w 'b .v :o.
1 3
a e k ! (1� (t3l (24)
V
(14)
i w e 'ly.'e lan ' 1 Issn
N s awwr o We xo amni an:a E 31) m.x r I
y
C
.1' p bl, • I lit...`
`Y. ......'.. ... OS t3 .... Mal HL V : _ x 1r v or and . .. o ewEw-F o
' _ M'° R I AN 0T •sl. R/W A_ PLAT <2)
. •»;« ......... ...... alWAYZ TA z.>e....ry' R� — Q. T
A tl.31 `/
O� R. _ { (•' 6
(q (2) (3) (es) 2 (44)lre
aaIIb ,? .....
Sx� M � )3
x re
RA
u.3
a
eY.,IA 1 ';b•N• W : : s _ nt (4B)
it
Ele•le'W[ ... .._ n ---- x - us)
I czn
(40) (41)
-Lf-Aa 6�J�• 6IIAL
(341
dR•- ___
1_ 1- ?-
GA -sr WILLOW
(OmrN)
i
4N4
w� Y�
2
DuriOr
('"y WVL�L.) i -
0 UT-Lo-r T
T1f OF
J
01%0
oev¢io goo
{INNILDIN4
Jil.\y.
V
rO a
EXHIBIT B
OPTION 1— RECONVEYANCE
TO OTTEN
FEB 24 '99 IS:IC
E- I
8 2657 Otten Brothers 350' Property Owners List
34-118.23 22 0014
34.118.23 210033, 0034
34-118-23 22 0015
Green Valley Associates, Inc.
34-118-23 22 0017
2190 West Wayzata Boulevard
34-118-23 22 0018
34.118-23 22 MOLong
Lake, MN 55356
34-119.23 23 0057
Clifford & Louise Otten
34-118.23 210002
Box249
William W. Wear
Long Lake, MN 55356
2160 West Wayzata Boulevard #306
Long Lake, MN 55356
34-118.23 22 0006
34-118.23 23 0023
Patrick & Karen Pugh
34-118-23 23 0053
725 Dickey Lake Drive
Perry's Ventures, Inc.
Long Lake, MN 55356
2205 West Wayzata Boulevard
Long Lake, MN 55356
34-I19-23 22 0016
Joel & Diane Walvame
34-118.23 23 0056
710 Dickey Lake Drive
John S. Sheldon
Long Lake, MN 55356
P.O. Box 274
Lorig Lake, . IN 55356
34-118.23 210031
34-119-23 22 0019
34-118.23 23 0044
City of Orono
Georgayn C. Kramer
P.O. Box 66
2990 Somerset Lane
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Long Lake, MN 55356
34.118-23 210028
Sugar Woods Homeowners Association
c/o Rebers Construction Co.
3525 Webster Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55416
34-118-23 210021
Todd M. & Anita E. Kimmes
2102 Sugar Wood Drive
Long Lake, MN 55356
34-118.23 210022
Gretchen Z. & Francis S. Gill
2104 Sugar Wood Drive
Long Lake, MN 55356
34-118-23 23 0045
Elite Auto c/o Richard Ruud
2325 West Wayzata Boulevard
Long Lake, MN 55356
34-118-23 24 0043
Gregory M. Shaughnessy
c/o Long Lake Ford Tractor
2073 West Wayzata Boulevard
P.O. Box 697
Long Lake, MN 55356
i
E- 2
Notice to Utilities Mailed 1-5-01
Minnegasco
Steve Von Bergen, Real Estate Specialist
700 West Linden Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165
U.S West Qwest Communications
5910 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Triax Cable Co.
Ann. Robert Craig, Plant Manager
2381 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, MN 55364
Excel Energy/NSP
Alto. Lisa Rainbolt
5505 County Road 19
Shorewood, MN 55331
CITY OF ORONO
2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, -MN 55323
Phone (952)249-4622 Fax (952)249.4616
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley
Parkway on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 to review application #2657, a petition by Clifford Onen
requesting vacation of certain drainage and utility easements located within Lot 2, Block 1, East
Willow Woods adjacent to Outlot 1, Long Lake Commercial -Industrial Park.
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written
comments are solicited. A map showing the easements to be vacated is available at the City office
for review.
City of Orono
By: Planning Commission
Michael P. Gaffron, Planning Director
To be published the weeks of December 30, 2000 and January 6, 2001.
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD t
VIIOFLSSIONAL ASSOCIATION
November 18, 2000 Hugh M. Maynard
612-335-1562
hugb.maynard@leonard.com
Michael Garmn,
Senior Planning Coordinator
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, Minnesota 55323
Re: Road Agreement for Brimhall Triangle; Our File 15251-1, Subfile B.D
Dear Mike:
Enclosed ate copies of the February 12, 1999 Road Agreement and both amendments. The parties
proceeded under 12 of the Road Agreement (Option 1— Reconveyance of Brimhall Triangle to
Otten).
Pursuant to 92.a, Mr. Otten purchased fee simple title to the Brimhall Triangle from the heirs of
Franc P. Daniels. See the following deeds, which are enclosed:
• June 23, 1999 Deed of Distribution from the personal representative of the estate of Franc P.
Daniels to Helen D. Cochran, Franc P. Daniels, Jr. and Katherine F. Billman;
• March 26, 1999 Limited Warranty Deed from Helen D. Cochran and her husband to Mr. and
Mrs. Cliff Otten;
• March 26, 1999 Limited Warranty Deed from Franc P. Daniels, Jr. and his wife to Mr. and Mrs.
Cliff Orton; and
• March 30, 1999 Limited Warranty Deed from Katherine F. Billman and her husband to Mr. and
Mrs. CliffOtten.
Pursuant to V-a and 12.b, Mr. Otten successfully petitioned MNDOT for the reconveyance of the
Brimhall'I riangle to him wee the enclosed Quitclaim Deed Easement from the State of Minnesota to
Mr. and .Mrs. Often dated May 23, 2000.
Pursuant to 12A and 12.e, the public road and public utility easements from Otten to the City of
Orono and the private road and private utility easements from Otten to Green Valley Associates (the
owner of the Service 800 EMilding) automatically became effective when Otten acquired fee simple
title to the Brimhall Triangle free of MNDOT's highway easement. Those easements became
effective on May 23, 2000.
Pursuant to 921. Green Valley As-ociates built its private access road through the Brimhall Triangle,
so it is now time for the City of Omno to vacate the 10-foot wide utility and +.rainage easement along
the south line of the Otten Patcel pursuant to 121
1-t0 SOUTH Fura SnuT SUIT 3100 MINNI"0111, M(NnuoTA Sr6Ot Tu 693-33f I SOO FAX 612-M-1417
220V' .&I LAW OIIICLL IN MINNIAIOLM SAINT PAOL ANZ MANSATO
November 18, 2000
Michael Gaffron
Please consider this letter to be a petition from Mr. and Mrs. Otten to the Orono City Council asking
them to vacate the platted utility and drainage easements along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1,
EAST WILLOW WOODS adjacent to Outlot 1, LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL
PARK. Please ask your City Engineer to prepare a precise legal description for the easement area to
be vacated that assures that the remaining public utility and drainage easement in Lot 2, Block 1,
EAST WILLOW WOODS, dovetails with the new public utility and drainage easement in Outlot 1,
LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL -INDI JSTRIAL PARK. I would like to review the City Engineer's
legal description and sketch before you present this matter to the City Council.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Hug% M. Maynard
Real Property Law Specialist
Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association
Enclosures as stated.
cc: Clifford Otten (Often Bros. Nursery)
Stephen R. PEaum, Esq.
201569"1
O
04 �O
ay..:,-�,,._ CITY of ORONO
Municipal offices;
Street Address: Mailing Address:
�E880$�.;• 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 _., 1i rjrystal Bay. MN 553230066
January 5, 2001
Minnegasco _ ",Cxo
Steve Von Bergen, Real Estate Specialist
700 West Linden Avenue
Minneapolis. MN 55440-1165
re: Proposed Vacation of Utility Easement, 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard
Dear Mr. Von Bergen:
The City of Orono has been requested to vacate a portion of drainage and utilities easement within
Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods. This property is located at 2350 NN est Wayzata Boulevard.
Enclosed are drawings identifying the proposed easement vacation. as well as the proposed
replacement easements. Because the property owner, Clifford Otten, has acquired a parcel of land
between Lot 2 and Highway 12, he is proposing to vacate a portion of the easement in Lot 2 and
grant a new easement to replace it along the Highway 12 frontage of the newly acquired parcel.
Please advise whether you have any objections to vacation of the portion of easement shown. This
item will be on the January 15 Planning Commission agenda for a public hearing. so receipt of your
comments before that date would be appreciated. Please contact meat 952-249-4600 if you have
any questions. Thank you for your input.
Sincerely, /
Michael P. v ,-.t v
Planning Directs,
Reliant Energy Minnegasco has no facilities within the above -described area and has no
objection to its vacation.
Thank you for the advance notice.
Steven Von Bergen
Rightof-Way, Administrator
Rwlianf Fnwnv Minnaaaeco
COnstnit tdF.ETiNO
FEB 1 2 2WO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY or otior o
DATE: eT — % 0 /
ITEM NO: 15
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Ron Moorse '-n City Administrator's
Title City Administrator 11? Report
Item Description: Scheduling of Council W,6rrrkksessiion
The Long Lake Fire Committee, which is made up of representatives of the Cities of Long Lake,
Medina and Orono, as well as representatives of the Long Lake Fire Department, has developed a
proposed preliminary design for the new Long Lake fire station. The proposed preliminary design
will need to be reviewed and approved by the city councils of the three cities before the design
process can move to the next stage. The proposed design could best be reviewed in a worksession.
One option for scheduling a worksession would be just prior to the February 26 regular council
meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to select a date and time for a council worksession to review the preliminary design of the
Long Lake fire station
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION QOi Peru wFTING
FEB 12 p2Mp.
DATE: FeCITrov7ir8b2I NO
ITEM NO: /P
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Lin Vee uu) Licenses
Tnt. rav ri. i A�%%%n,'
GAMBLING PERMIT - RESOLUTION
Orono Ice Arena, Inc.
Bantam A Regional Hockey Tournament
Orono Ice Arena - 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road
March 4, 2001
SPECIAL EVENT
Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.
Half Marathon Race
Race Route: Start at Norwest Bank Wayzata, Lake Street to Ferndale Road to County Road
15 to Orono Orchard Road to Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay Road to County Road 51
to County Road 19 to Norlhview Road to Lake Road to County Road 15 to Old
Beach Road to County Road 19 to Beehrle Avenue to the Southwest LRT Trail to
Water Street. Finish at Norwest Bank Excelsior.
Sunday, May 6, 2001
8:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
CIGARETTE LICENSE
1. Kenneth Galloway
4. Daniel Scherven
Wayzata Country Club
Navarre Lanes, Inc.
200 W. Wayzata Boulevard
3425 Shoreline Drive
2. Timothy Ivory
5. Grant Wenkstem
Spring Hill Golf Club
Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc.
725 Sixth Avenue North
710 North Shore Drive West
3. LeRoy Koehnen
Navarre Amoco
3360 Shoreline Drive
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF
ORONO ICE ARENA, INC. FOR A
MINNESOTA ONE DAY LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPT PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. is licensed to conduct lawful gambling
activities; and
WHEREAS, the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. has proposed to conduct a one day gambling
activity (raffle) as part of its "Bantam A Regional Hockey Tournament" at the Orono Ice Arena
located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road on March 4, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Orono Ice Arena, loc. is required to obtain approval ofthe gambling
activity from the city in which the activity will occur; and
WHEREAS, the Orono Police Department has reviewed the application and has no
objection to the issuance of a one day gambling permit, providing that all vehicles will be legally
parked at the "Bantam A Regional Hockey Tournament" at which the gambling activity (mfBe) will
occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does
hereby approve the application of the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. to conduct a one day gambling activity
(raffle) at the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road on March 4, 2001.
Adopted at a regular meeting of the Orono City Council this 12th day of February,
2001.
ATTEST:
S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Page 1 of 1
Date: January 31, 2001
To: Lin Vee, City Clerk
From: Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police
Re: Special Event Permit
1 have reviewed the application submitted by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota for their annual Half
Marathon event to be held May 6, 2001.
Providing the conditions are met as in past applications, I have no objection to the issuance of
this permit.
PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION?:;r D
CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA
Cll Y of
Permit k:
Fee: 550.00
Date Received: I Dl
Phone Number: 61
Name: Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.
Address: 900 E. Wayzata Boulevard
City, State, Zip: Wayzata, MN 55391
Location of Parade or Event: Please see the attached race route
Date of Event: May 6, 2001 Hours of Event: 5:00 A.N. - 11:00 A.M..
Type of Event: Race - Half Marathon
Insurance Company: c.. ntr.rh.A—=ifl—a . Amount:
(Copy of insurance certificate, on which the City, its agents and employees are named as
additional Loured, must be submitted with this application.)
I am aware ofall applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events
and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all
liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade or special event
approved by the granting of this permit.
I understand some events may require off -duty or reserve officers and a fee may be
required for these services.
C - .1/23/2001
Signs a Sandra M. Pesheck, District Manager Date
Approved: 11 Denied: ❑
Addendum to City of Orono Special Event Permit Application
Race Route
Start: Norwest Bank Wayzata
Lake Street to Ferndale Road to County Road 15 to Orono Orchard Road
to Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay Road to County Road 51 to County Road
19 to Northview Road to Lake Road to County Road 15 to Old Beach Road
to County Road 19 to Beehrle Avenue to the Southwest LRT Trail to Water
Street.
Finish: Norwest Bank Excelsior
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO
SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND
TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
(o,dlOmseNo. Ids, Seeond Sedea-Ado,kd 12=177) RECEIVED
Make check payable to: City of Orono ,J„pi 2 2 2001
Mailing address: P.O. Box 66 CLI Y u- ;,ONO
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January31) DATE
1. Applicant's Full Name ^ / G&
�oHaPfll er ( l
FIRST MIO LAST /
2. Applicant's Home Address -7yY7
S9d 0 6Ly rCX Vim— HOME PHONE
HOUSE NUMBER
6t%f fe �2ar {lilt) S. //0
CITY STATE ZIP
3. Applicant's Business
�nN ui-.v Cub
TYPE OF SUSIN /SS r
BUSINESS NAME
Pp, 6ox lSI
MAILINOADDRESS
Qsa - y7s- 97s3
BUSINESS PHONE
STREETADDRESS
Cfn' LP
4. Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes
I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO, TOBACCO
PRODUCTS, OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT
TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF ORONO.
/'/' - 6ZA'DW/7%
epnatun oellx
TM Inuanpa Ora Scaroa OrMar Oia ordinance shell be caneidbnd a pddlege en0 not an absolute right of the eppdcaW
OM ahW not Intl. Ne holler to an..Pomade nt Be.l of the license.
,an»
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO
SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND
TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
(ordle mNe. IM, Sm dSerla -AdspM MOM
Make check payable to: City of Orono
Mailing address: P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
FEE: $100.00 (February 1January3l) /- �•r' O
DATE
Full Name
2. ApplicanYs Home -Address
(J 9lG oAK l(DUe. ?16c e
HOUSE NUMBER STREET HOMEPHONE
Sf. Pau I 'a) ssivi
CITY STATE ZIP
3. ApplicanYsBusiness
PAIVAf< 4/f Clci13
TYPE OF BUSINESS
SPait16 /,kl/ Gail CM3
BUSINESS NAME I /
V. . f e6I, A A/ Rd Xlo
.,ma:rn;a:i� x
9sa - `173 - /So v
BUSINESS PHONE
7as I— o
STREET— ADDS
OkbA)o SS29/
CITY ZIP
4. Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes
place. F2D In &-A ♦-e,J e4 fo mem3ek
I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO, TOBACCO
PRODUCTS, OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT
TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF ORONO.
/J - G
Signwum Owe
TM bsuan ofa r"nse under Mis o ,renw sheAPa coeskY:edaPMllePe endnotw ebc_'e dghtof Me awkent
uM Manmlenda Me WderM en euf ftnne"Iofthe&nse.
im•ns
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO
SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS A
TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
10rdlaaece No. 164, Second Series - Adopted 121061971 , �,j;' (! to.
Make check payable tns City of Orono
Mailing address: 11.0. Box 66
Crystal Bay, AIN 55323
FEE: $100.00 (February Wanuary 31) I— r -I -D l
DATE
1. Applicant's Full Name
2. Applicant's Home Address
Lt I) o 2d `1 Iv 7*3 - 917?- to `i77
HO SE NUMBER STREET HOMEPHONE
nnDuW tMttl ,5�3(a4
CITY STATE ZIP
3. Applicant's Business /�j 9
CG /I57't—r' �f 71 %
TY yOFaUSINE55 BU INESS PHONE {
BUSINESS NAME STEM-ORESS
?bn s&aF��A,Ks 90X A AIH� a� .5 -aaa�
IMILINO ADDRESS CITY ZIP
4. Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes
place. QdAk I! 1 /259 2 —
I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO, TOBACCO
PRODUCTS, OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT
TO THE LA WS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES Or .THE CITY
OF ORONO.
2 �i _ I-2t�-o/
SgnaNm Date
TM issoanro of a Ikensa order this o nanee shall W corsWared a p&*V er d naf an absolute fight of fha applkenf
arW shag wt anb'Oe Me holder I. an soforhaeo renewal of fAe gnnse.
121lar 1
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO
SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND
TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
(Ordinance No. W. Second Senn - Adopted I2Jgrl97)
Make check payable to: City of Orono
Mailing address: P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, 14I1N 55323
FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January31) //,?, 0
DATE
1. Applicant's Full N me
7?M-j1,l- 7 GGa
2. Applicant's Home Address
/}j--y-GPPgA-) 205 /C7.5Z Z177, /sz(y
HOUSE NUMBER STREET HOME PHONE
CITY OCA Q TE 5 S3 k
3. Applicant's Business `�7i/
%�d111 lGj dQNt,�S �%�Z �1/
TYPE OF BUSINESS'BUSINESS PHONE
� ' Dtt;
BUSINESS NAME STREET ADDRESS
PO r>ejr'-' .5( 09OK-6 SS M—
MAILINO ADDRESS CITY ZIP
4. Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes
place. 2��g D OVi; fL -71A COL",mg --
I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO, TOBACCO
PRODUCTS, OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICESAT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT
TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF ORONO.
Signature Date
The Ingaroe oI a tlnnse under this ordinance shag be conadered a p gege and not an aDsoluh, fight ol0a nPokcant
and shag not enlid, U. holder to an ad mabc nnawal orihe Iroense.
121ra
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO
SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND
TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
(0N1 e,a No. I W, Seal S,,I. - Adopted W0111"
Make check payahle to: City of Orono
Mailing address: P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31)
DATE
1. Applicant's Full Name
Grant RLi iSi ✓Ne K5leily
FIRST MIDDLE LAST
2. Applicant's Home Address
710 A). SNorc- Qr- 0 • (9Sz) '-17.1 - ysz�
HOUSE NUMBER STREET `� HOMEPHONE
mo LLt.d( /' /S
y,.�,,,�t 'j S3L-- 7
CITY STATE ZIP
3. Applicant's Business
GDI� COursfi
TYPE OF B SINESS
),aKed,c 1 Go 14 a( Orna _nc.
BUSINESS NAMq
710 A)• Jhora Or•
nldunal, MN ssscY
MAILINOADDRESS
rz) `17d • 3vs9
BUSINESS PHONE
Yo s- /V• Rrn, 4r •
STREET ADDRESS
(/fCrlo , r'/rl/ SSj6`i
CITY 21P
4. Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes
nl�ro C`,.,4... ,, u,k, Jn Dar-1-- � i-d lrttr(O dadu �' 1,( :4a44M, 4,
I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO, TOBACCO
PRODUCTS, OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT
TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF ORONO,
,lyi'R• Wed'-r#a /- 17-d
Sgnature Date
TM Issuanw ora ibenss under this ordinan atnEg W mnsldarada pdMPope and nW an absolute right Wthe ePprrcant
and shall rc l and& Me hald.,W an sutasalk nmnral OEM@ rcense.
CrrnlmnB AePETWG �
FEB 12 2000
CITY OF ORONO FHCaY, Fahraary 09. 2001
Cl I Y LJr JHONC Page 1 of 3
Check Summary Register
Name Cheek Data Cheek Amt
10100 Primary Cash
Pak ChM 070526
A J. GALLAGHER & CO OF MN. INC
2 I22001
S1,800.00
Pak ChM 070527
A0.WA.
2J17J2001
$137.50
Pak Ch A 070528
A T.O.M.
2J=001
$25.00
Paid ChM 070529
ALDRICH, ROBERT D
2/122001
S158.64
Pak ChM 070530
ALL STAR ELECTRIC
2 122D01
$1.761.10
Pak ChM 070531
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC.
2J122001
554.95
Pak ChM 070532
ANCHOR PAPER
2J12J2001
$57563
Pak ChM 070533
AT&T-
7JI2/2001
SISS8
Pak ChM 070534
AT B T WIRELESS SERVICES
2J12J2001
$40.49
Pak ChM 070535
BIFFS INC.
2/122001
$70.26
Paid ChM 070536
BONESTROO ROSENE& ASSOC,
2/122001
$5,711.54
Pak ChM 07007
BUDGET PRINTING
2/172001
$230.37
Pak'ChM 070538
BUDIG, STACIE
2/17J2001
$25.00
Pak ChM 070539
CARGILL SALT
2/122001
S2,129.69
Pak ChM 070640
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO
2/122001
S2A11.33
Pak ChM 070541
Vold
21122001
$0.00
Paid ChM 070542
CLASSIFIEDS
2J122001
$ 0.00
Pak ChM 070543
COFFEE MILL
2/12/2001
$303.00
Pak ChM 070544
CROWN MARKING INC.
2/122D01
$10,02
Paid ChM 070545
CYS UNIFORMS
2J172001
$77.65
Paid ChM 070M6
DAHLGREN SHARDLOW
2JI2r"1
$135.00
Pak ChM 070547
DAHLKE TREE SERVICE
7112/2001
$31500
Pak ChM 070548
DAVIS, MARK
7J12J2001
$131.07
Pak ChM 070549
DCA-WIRE ONLY
D1212001
$388.00
Pak ChM 070550
DE SAERE. DON
2/122001
$52.79
Pak ChM 070551
DELL
2/122001
S4,25509
Pak ChM 070552
DELTA DENTAL
NI22001
$1,054. 16
Pak CKM 070663
DEMBOUSKI, JAY
L122001
$29.60
Pak ChM 070554
DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP
2/172001
$193.GO
Paid ChM 070555
ONR WATERS
2/122001
$308,59
Pak ChM 0706%
DOSO'S
7J122001
$457.30
Pak ChM 070557
EQ RECYCLING
L122001
$5.820.12
Pak ChM 070558
E.H. WACHS COMPANY
2/122001
S4,57076
Pak ChM 070559
E.S.G. COMPANY INC.
2/122001
$118.00
Pald ChM 070560
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS
2/172001
$545,13
Pak ChM 070561
FARNIOK, CORREY
2/122001
$25.00
Pak ChM 070562
FEDEX
L1b2001
$16.73
Pak ChM 070563
FORTIS BENEFITS
2/12/2001
$693.95
Pak ChM 070564
G & K SERVICES
7J122001
$727 73
Pak ChM 070565
Vold
2/1220D1
50.00
Pald ChM 070566
GALL'S INC.
2/122001
$154.82
Pad ChM 070567
GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL
2i2aw1
$11.20
Pad Chka 070NS
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE
2/122001
$400.00
Pak ChM 070569
HALDEMAN HOMME, INC
2/122001
S79875
Paid ChM 070570
HANSEN, STEVEN C.
Z1122001
S5218
Pak ChM 070571
HAWKINS CHEMICAL
2J1212001
$913.85
Paid ChM 070572
HENNEPIN CO-0P SEED EXCHANGE
2J122001
538.13
Pak ChM 070573
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT
V12=1
SSI.02
Pak ChM 070574
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF
V122001
$23424
Pak ChM 070575
HERB BAULDWIN
PJ12/2001
$2500
CITY OF ORONO Frmar,Febtua,yo9,2001
Check Summary Register Page 2 of
Name Check Data Check Aml
Pad Chka 070576
KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOC
2/122001
$5,255.00
Pad Chkp 070577
KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
2/1211001
56,829.07
Paid ChM 070678
LAKE MTKA AREA CHAMBER OF DOM
W122001
$12,00
Paid Chkp 070579
LASER LABS
2112/2001
$57.00
Paid ChN 070550
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
2/1212001
$21000
Paid ChM 070581
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST
21i=001
$24.869.00
Paid ChM 070582
LOGIS
2/122001
$1,329.39
Paid ChM 070583
LONG LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
211w(Kil
$110.00
Paid ChM 070584
LONG LAKE NAPA
W122001
$35.30
Paid ChM 070585
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT
2112=01
$172.881,89
Paid Chke 070586
MADSON. ADRIENNE
VIM=
S40.00
Paid ChM 070587
MCCOLLISTER & CO
W122001
S22078
Paid ChM 070588
MEDICA
2/172001
$18,188,98
Paid ChM 070589
Void
2/122001
$0.00
Paid ChM 070590
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER
21122001
$3,26700
Paid ChM 070591
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS
20122001
$10000
Paid ChM 070592
MINNETONKA SPORTSMEN INC.
W122001
$35.00
Paid ChM 070593
MLEFIA&AA
2F722001
$41.00
Paid ChM 070594
MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC.
W122001
$13A0
Paid ChM 070595
MN DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
211=01
$10.00
Paid ChM 0705%
MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
W722D01
$96148
Paid ChM 070597
MN GOLF ASSOCIATION INC.
2/122001
$9000
Paid ChM 070598
MN STATE TREASURER
21122001
$3.90864
Paid ChM 070599
MITI DIST CO.
W122001
$4.15
Paid ChM 070600
MUNICILTTE CO.
W122001
$689.59
Paid ChM 070601
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS
2J7220)1
$166.00
Paid ChM 070602
NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY
21122001
$54401
Paid ChM 070603
NSP-
2(122001
58.70090
Paid ChM 070504
OFFICE DEPOT
2/122001
5890.2E
Paid ChM 070605
Void
21122001
$0.00
Paid ChM 07OWS
OFFICE ENVIRONMENT BROKERS
W1212001
$6.639.73
Paid ChM 070607
OLSON,RON
W122001
$34.16
Paid ChM 070508
OWN, LYLE
21122001
$145,46
Paid ChM 070609
OMEGA INDUSTRIES
21122001
$1,986,98
Paid ChM 070010
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
21122001
$95.00
Paid CAW 070511
PIONEER
21122001
$193.25
Paid ChN 070612
POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC.
21122001
f115240
Paid ChM 070613
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS
21122001
$6918
Paid ChM 070814
PRESS& NEWS PUBLICATIONS
W122001
58850
Paid ChN 070815
OWEST
21122001
$1.303.79
Paid ChN 070616
OWEST INTERPRISE
2/122001
$42247
Paid ChM 070617
RATHBUN. BARRY
2/122001
$52.79
Paid Cake 070818
RC IDENTIFICATIONS
21122001
$190,73
Paid ChM 070619
RELIANT ENERGY
21122001
$8.91053
Paid ChM 070620
RICHARD JOHN MILLER
2J122D01
$400.00
Paid ChM 070621
RICKS SUPERVALUE
2)12/2001
$17.29
Paid ChM 070622
SIGNS OF THE SEASON
21122001
$5d 62
Paid ChM 070623
SKYWAY PUBLICATIONS
W122001
5144.00
Paid ChM 070624
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC
21122001
$25236
Paid CbkY 070525
STAR TRIBUNE
21172001
$49240
Paid ChM 070626
SUBURBAN TIRE INC
WI22031
$133.62
CITY OF ORONO Friday, February 09, 2001
Check Summary Register Page 3of3
Name Check Data Check Amt
Pak ChM 070627
SUN NEWSPAPERS
2J12200/
$2T7.20
Pak ChM 070828
TKDA
V122001
$209.90
Pak ChM 070629
TRACY TRIPP FUELS
2122001
$5.84808
Peal ChM 070630
TREESCAPES
2/122001
$550.00
Pak ChM 070631
TRI CITY PUBLIC LABORATORY
2/122001
$13000
Pak ChM 070632
TRI STALE PUMP
21122001
54,106.95
Pak ChM 070533
TRUXSTOR
W122001
$73A9
Pak ChM 070634
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
2/122001
$58.%
Pak ChM 070535
UNIV OF MINNESOTA
21122001
$60.00
Pak ChM 070536
UNIVERSAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT
211220C1
$149.63
Pak 01"070837
VERIZONWIRELESS
2/122001
367004
Pak ChM 070538
"KING INDUSTRIAL CENTER
7J722001
$131.15
Pak ChM 070639
VILLAGE CHEVROLET
2JI212001
$143.90
Pak ChM 070640
W.W. GRAINGER INC.
N122001
$6,126
Pak ChM 070541
JOHN WINBERG
N122001
$400.04
Pak ChM 070542
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
21122001
535.44
Pak ChM 070643
XCEL ENERGY
2/122001
$1,323.94
Pak ChM ^70844
JACKIE YOUNG
21122001
3825.00
Tom ehake $328,131.08
NkffitelaflaG311141
02/07/01 7:07 AM
Page 1
Pay
Period
payroll register
Check M Employes Name
Check Date
Check Amount
U8766 CHESWICK. GARY 8.
1/31YJ1
$9,160.97
048767 CHESWICK, GARY S.
217107
$1.284.39
048768 VOID
wr01
$000
041`769 JOHNSON. WRY ANN
N7r01
$718.78
048770 DODGE, RACHEL M.
217MI
3904A5
W8771 MOORSE, RONALD J.
2,7101
$1.76918
040772 VEE, LINDA S.
wr01
31,270.14
048773 KUEHN, THOMAS M.
2r7/01
$1.346,60
048774 OLSON. RONALD J.
W7101
$36,32
048775 PETTIT, SANDRA K.
2r7101
$397.90
048776 ANDERSON. BRUCE L.
217/01
$390.77
048777 BOBZIEN, SUE A.
2r7/01
$725 82
048776 BORIS, SCOTT W.
217/01
$1,087.19
048779 BUDIG, STACIE M.
wMI
$885.35
048780 CARLSON, MICHAEL B.
217MI
$59.33
048782 .;ORNICK, JAMES L.
2(7/01
$1,484.W
048783 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C.
2T7/01
$1.432 90
048784 ERICKSON. KURT R
277/01
$1,26623
048785 FARNIOK, CORREY L
Willi
$1.634 B5
048788 FISCHENICH, DAN T.
2/7/01
$1,297.15
046787 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K.
2/7/01
31,208.74
N8788 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P.
217/01
$1,394.55
0-'789 JOHNSON. JEFFREY
2J7101
$966.23
0487M MADSON, ADRIENNE M.
277/01
$509.17
048791 MCNALLY, STEVEN A.
2O/O1
31.251.81
048792 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L.
217/O1
$560.40
048793 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES
V7101
$1.584.08
048794 PERSELL, WILLIAM R.
2R101
$221.17
U870 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B.
2J7101
$1.288.32
U87M TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F.
2r7101
$37924
048797 TOMCZYK, MARK W.
2T7N1
$1,279.84
048798 WITTKE, ANTHONY A.
20101
$1.051.61
048799 HENDRICKS, RONALD J.
2(7/01
$709.14
048800 LEE, JOSEPH P.
27/01
$236.98
048801 BOTTENSERG, WENDY C.
217101
$1.00&W
048502 DAVIS, MARC L
20/01
31,084,11
046803 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P.
217101
31,260 33
N88U GAPPA, GREGORY A.
2r?101
$1.683.37
N8805 MEYER, WILLIAM C.
217/O1
322548
N88M OMAN. LYLE E.
277101
$140.19
048807 WEINBERGER. PAUL E.
2/7N1
31,29960
048808 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F.
2J7/01
$1.231.92
049609 DEBAERE, DONALD L
277/01
$1,03235
048610 GREGORY, JAMES D.
2r7101
$704,64
048811 HANSEN. STEVEN
27101
$1,046,24
048812 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G.
2RMI
$614.93
048813 OBRIEN, RANDY L.
L7/Ot
SUI 47
048814 PALMER. GREGORY A.
2f7AH
$79027
CITY OF ORONO
02/07/01 T.OT AM
Page 2
Pay
Pedoe
Raped Total
payroll register
Check a Employee. Name
Check Date
Check Amount
048615 RATHBUN, WRY J.
WMI
S1,24242
048816 SKREEN, DALE S.
Wmi
$1,18742
048SU ROSS. JOHN A.
2/71D1
$9124
U8818 STEFFENHAOEN, RONALD E.
29101
S1,270.89
$55,891.53
CITY OF ORONO Wednesday, January 24. 2001
Check Summary Register Pagel of
Name
Check Data
Check Amt
10100 Primary Cash
Pad ChkN 070503
CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION
1124/01
$7,534.00
Pad ChM 0705M
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES
1124/01
$18.298.53
Paid ChM 010W5
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST -457
112401
$30000
Pad Chid 070WS
LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE
124101
S46200
Pad ChM 070507
MN DEPT OF REVENUE
1/24/01
$3,732,41
Pad ChM 07a508
ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST
124101
$1.949.66
Pad ChM 070609
PEBSCOIOBRA
1124101
$9.22
Pad ChM 070510
PESSCONS CONF OF MAYORS
1R4/01
$2782.00
Pad ChM 070511
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
1124/01
$10.566.25
Pad ChM 070512
UNITED WAY
124101
$24,00
Pak ChM 070513
WISCONSIN SCTF
1124101
$184.62
Total Checks
S45.84231
CITY OF ORONO
payroll register
O V 23f01 7 05 ANI
Page I
Pay
PeHoB
Check S Employee Name
Check Date
Check Amount
U8710 VEE, LINDA S.
1124101
$1,270,14
048711 DAVIS, MARC L.
1124101
$1,211.61
046712 STURMAN, HEIDI N.
124/01
$771.79
046713 VOID
124101
$0.00
048714 VOID
12U01
$0.00
048715 JOHNSON, MARY ANN
1/24101
$606,33
048716 DODGE, RACHEL W
124101
$957.12
048717 JOHNSON. NAOMI K.
124101
$498.20
048718 MOORSE. RONALD J.
124/01
$1,789.28
048721 KUEHN, THOMAS M.
124/01
51.346,50
048722 OLSON, RONALD J.
124/01
$213.05
048723 PETTIT, SANDRA K.
124101
$527,69
048724 ANDERSON. BRUCE L
124/01
$497.86
048725 BOBZIEN, SUE A.
124101
$73447
048726 BORIS. SCOTT W.
12"1
$1,021.08
U8727 BUDIG, STACIE M.
124/01
S672.91
048728 CHESWICK, GARY B.
124101
S1,625.14
348729 CORNICK. JAMES L.
124101
$1.043.06
048730 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C.
124/01
$1.365 63
D48731 ERICKSON. KU, T R
124/01
$1.26623
048732 FARNIOK, CORREY L
124101
$2,028.89
U8733 FISCHENICH, DAN T.
IM4101
$1,297.15
U87M FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K.
M2 l
$1,178.78
048735 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P.
124101
$1,260.67
048736 JOHNSON, JEFFREY
1124101
$966 23
048737 MADSON. ADRIENNE M.
124101
$564 80
048738 MCNALLY, STEVEN A.
124101
$1.219,51
048739 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L.
1/24101
$56040
048740 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES
124/01
$1.679.09
048741 PERSELL, WILLIAM R.
124101
$106.25
U8742 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B.
1124MI
$1.288.32
048743 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F.
124101
S322.24
046744 TOMCZYK, MARK W.
124101
$1,279,84
U8745 WITTKE, ANTHONY A.
124101
51.051.61
048746 HENDRICKS. RONALD J.
12"1
$711,17
048747 LEE, JOSEPH P.
1124101
S243.79
048745 BOTTrNBERG. WENDY C.
124101
$I.008 58
D48750 GAFFF.ON, MICHAEL P.
1M/01
$1.250.23
U8751 GAPPA, GREGORY A.
124/01
S1,683.37
048752 MEYER, WILLIAM C.
1124/01
$555.20
W8753 OMAN, LYLE E.
1124101
$14019
048754 WEINBERGER, PAUL E.
1/2"1
$1,29950
N8755 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F.
124101
$1,231.92
U8756 DEBAERE. DONALD L
124/Ot
$1.378,37
048757 GREGORY. JAMES 0.
124/01
$810.05
U87H HANSEN. STEVEN
1124101
$1.08164
048759 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G.
124101
$72030
046760 OBRIEN, RANDY L
1124101
$444.34
CITY OF ORONO
payroll register
01/23/01 7 05 AM
Page 2
Pay
peHoC
Check 0 Employee Name
Check Data
Check Amount
2
048761 PALMER. GREGORY A.
1/24101
$1,014.73
2
048762 RATHBUN, BARRY J.
In,1101
$980.66
2
048763 SKREEN, DALE S.
1124M1
$1.058.02
2
W764 ROSS, JOHN A.
1124101
S95.93
2
048765 STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD E.
124101
$1.270.89
INFORMATION
ITEMS
COUNCIL MEETING
rr...... I .MrI NG
FEB 1 2 2WO
OFGll T V VMONU
I^.mu...e.rrTl NO
FEB 12 20M
February 9, 2001 t,hury0
To: Mayor Barbara Peterson and Council Members
From: Greg Gappa
Subject: State Legislation Regarding Trails
Attatached you will find a Minnesota House Bill that proposes new regulations regarding
publicly funded recreational trails. The Parks Commission reviewed this bill at their February
meeting and has some serious concerns about this bill. The major concern is a provision that
requires "a minimum distance of 1,000' feet from all business, residential, or agricultural
buildings on adjacent property, unless the building owner waives this requirement." This
provision would essentially stop any new trail construction in the entire state including the
proposed DaKota Rail Corridor Trail.
This bill has been introduced as House File Number343. The bill was authored by representative
Dehling from Steams and Morrison Counties. The first reading was completed and it was
referred to the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee. No further action
has been taken at this time.
A companion Senate Bill, Senate File Number 62, was authored by Senator Fisbach. This bill
was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. On February I"
the bill was withdrawn from the committee and referred back to the author.
Information on the status of legislative activities is available at the State of Minnesota North Star
web site at Ai_i r state.mn.us'
,-F No. 343, as introduced
s 1 0 6 z
�In��le }F15t h�G Gh (L St CI<v�l prrr.
Minnesota
House of Representative!
page I of 2
-:-1-0 I�111 L1 lihayAwt
Legislature Home I Search I Help I Links to the World
Icy: caai-ion - old language to be ramovel H rl!M\,]5 o 1 5gAA
underscored - new language to be added
t0 )Nf ah MAn,',l Il-QSUUr(es
NOTE: IC j9u cannot see any difference in the key above, you need to chance the disnlav ofatricken and/or underscored
/�� lagguage. h
C` LnrveraiolL9G1li CnV\T'llnY' ef1i1
5�¢eL: nS i1MHrUe, �annl�v
BY No. 343, as introduced: 82nd Legislative Session (2001-2002) Posted on Ian 25, 2001
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.10
1.22
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.is
1.16
1.17
1.38
1.
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
5
2.2
2.
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5 a
2.
2.]
3.8
2.9
2.30
2.1
2.12
2.13
2 .1
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.19
2.9
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
A bill frr an act
relating to natural resources; establishing
construction, administration, and use requirements for
Public trails; proposing coding for new law in
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 85.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. (65.0163) [PUBLIC TRAIL REQUIREMENTS.I
Sabdivision 1. (DEFINITION.I For ourcosea of this section
AND CONSTRUCTION; NOTICE.)
http9/w .rcvuor leg.state.=.uslcgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill-H0343.0 session-Is82 211/01
�alnea Yle- -Npy uvyv[nu- _��r
Bill Information
Enter Bill number (e.g.
Environment and Natural Resources
Policy Committee Membership
hfl)
Meets: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 10:15 a.m. In Room 10 of the State Of a Building.
Leglslsdor.
PM Numes E-man Adit.
gYaM11Y�
les0 aru teas
Chair: Dennis Ozment (GOP)
2aed3a8 (ap,QaappJyppplQ•uv.0 lm n,emn •x
Committee Information
Vice Chair: Kathy Tinoelstad(GOP)
21)ea69 me s�eIfts emn,,s
Lead-DFL: Jean Wmanius (DFL)
29e4mo maJeaaw""""""^"^"ra'=[L_,*
Member Information
George Cassell (GOP)
2u.a312 rr e
Find who represents
Tim Finseth(GOP)
2se N%a teoim lirjei mnaaesun m"•.
youl
BIII Haas (GOP)
zssssn rco do Ieevan,uxa 1, n, e '
Representatives by
Tom Haekbarth (GOP)
M-xae r om m xn nn(mn,,,a Y,, .em" •.
district:
Mark Holden (GOP)
2seae16 rso n ae, red[ edanv S [, [i r,,,�„ u,
gaerrn-. ,.,.
Lam Howes (GOP)
M-2451 u u, �,. ,,1 , -11,m^ i
Bud Nome (GOP)
2 048 ,eo tr^.�etSl •xe k"[y_m".j
Representatives by
Howard Swenson (GOP)
2e8a63ces.lasarosrenwn®
name:.
p��yR •:
Ray Vandeveer (GOP)
n"124 1, u e
Tom Workman(GOP)
2seseee mel,m w,wmnmmm•[ _
U 1tive News,
Thomas Bakk(DFL)
2s8-2100 reo xmn,es[Ye,gem
Alice Hausman(DFL)
29w24 ,ar.�le"mn;�ne"e�eo sue
Loren Jennings (DFL)
22so518 rm kmn v"e"" "n� [_
Audio Q Vldeo
Ruth Johnson (DFL)
2eo-20e5 re •n um,emmmn„
oeerkFe
Margaret Aneirsgn Kelllher(OFL)
M4171 meeatwu-Y,,,u mm•=
Tom Oath "(DFL)
2s n4 ree wm,e..,nmim�ee Y,. e. coree
General Information
Doug Petepsog (DFL)
na+22e me a o-ry„ml.,•.. Y,..ro„",
House Staff
House Employment
Hod Skoe(DFL)
Edueationat Programs
Scott Waslluk(DFL)
226nee—e.a,1.w^m:•d^-1W, "e,
About the House
Permanent Rules
Joint Rules
Committee Staff
Session Slats 1995.
Committee Administrator: Marilyn Brick
296.8893
1990
Committee Legislative Assistant: Mary Telega 296-5994
Session Slats 1997 -
1998
(AI Alternates
Session Stets 1 ens -
2000
House Departments
Administration
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation
Chief Clerk
to your House
Member or Slate Senator.
hupJ/w 3.home.leg.slate.®us/comMcommiuecmemben.up?com 10 2/1/01
132 JOURNAL OF THE SENATE IIOTH DAY
Reports the same back with the recommendation that the bill do pass and be placed on the
Consent Calendar. Report adopted
Senator Johnson, Doug from the Committee in Finance, to which was re -referred
S.F. No. 228: A bill for an act relating to education; appropriating money for school district
energy costs.
Reports the same back with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Report adopted.
OF SENATE BILLS
S.F. Nos. 229, 7, 172, 225, 44, 104, 289, 201, 58, 142 and 228 were read the second time.
I1"[011 iFLl Ak"ig4l"W&
Senator Betuild moved that the name of Senator Fischbach be added as a co-author to S.F. No.
179. The motion prevailed -
Senator Krentz moved that the ,lame of Senator Hottinger be added as a co-author to S.F. No.
369. The motion prevailed -
Senior Scheevel moved that the ^xme of Senator Langseth be added as a co-author to S.F. No.
392. The motion prevailed
Senator Scheevel moved that the name of Senator Langseth be added as a co-author to S.F. No.
393. The motion prevailed
Senator Oliver moved that the name of Senior Rest be added as a co-author to S.F. No. 396.
Senior Fischbach moved that ed t its 62 he withdrawn from the Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources and returned m its author. The motion prevailed
Senator Vickerman moved that S.F. No. 375 be withdrawn from the Committee on Finance and
re -referred to the Committee on Telecommunications. Energy and Utilities The motion prevailed
Senator Foley Introduced —
Senate Resolution No. 50; A Senate resolution honoring lames D. Gibbs for 19 years of
dedicated service to the people of the state of Minnesota
Referred to the Committee on Ruies and Administration
Senators Hottinger, Lourey, Sams, Berglin and Higgins introduced —
Senate Resolution No. 51: A Senate resolution recognizing the years 2000 through 2010 as the
"Bone and Joint Decade."
Referred in the Committee on Rules and Administration
Senator I.augseth moved that S.F. No. 26 be withdrawn from the Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources and re -referred to the Committee on Finance. The motion prevailed
Senator Moe, R.D. moved that H.F. No. 421 be taken from the table. The motion prevailed
H.F. No. 421: A bill for an act relating to the energy assistance program; allowing the
expenditure of certain federal funds.