Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2004 Council PacketC0( INCH MEETING FED 9 2004 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, *$^4,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend PRESENTATION 2. Safe and Sober Program Grant APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Council Meeting of January 26,2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS -Rick Rice, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS — Jeanne Mabusth, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. #03-2958 Judson Dayton, 2885 Little Orchard Way - Variances - Resolution 5. #03-2962 Robert and Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road-Variances-Resolution * 6. #03-2965 Scott Sennes of Sennes Design Build on behalf of Franz and Kersten Jevne, 819 Brown Road North - Variances - Resolution 7. #04-2967 Sharon Rae Guimond, 2900 Watertown Road — Conditional Use Permit - Resolution * 8. #04-2968 Custom Structures Ltd., 440 Stubbs Bay Road North-Preliminary Plat- Resolution * 9. #04-2972 Bob Knuth and Mary Thompson. 2700 White Oak Circle - Variances - Resolution * 10. #04-2976 James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road - Conditional Use Permit- Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 1 1. Adopt Assessment Roll - North Long Lake East Sewer Extension - Resolution CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 12. Pay Request - Navarre Fire Station 13. Settlement with Mn/DOT Regarding the Acquisition of the Lurton Property 14. Lease with Mn/DOT Related to the Lurton Property 15. City Administrator Compensation Adjustments AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT 16. LICENSES Special Event Permits Tobacco Licenses * 17. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2SM 02/09 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 02/11 - Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 02/16 - HOLIDAY. Presidents’ Day 02/17 - Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:00 p.m. 02/23 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/01 - Park Commission Meeting. 7:15 p.m. 03/03 - Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 03/04 - Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. 03/08 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/15 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 03/22 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. ' : ( !i I ' < 4 1 ’■ i r < } mmimi Public A ttendance Meeting D ate >' / |3-C ouncil □ Planning Commission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please filloutthe infor>iation reqi'esteo BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.‘NL'O iT UL- S//r CtTCLjn.;' D /Ifrty 2.. CrtLi J£/S r(A‘ :>/r/“«/<^j 4J- 3.o3-2.^i'^S 4 / t' ■ :> T* --------------------j. / ?0( U'Ci T f*U^t \oi .3 ■/ 7 d- 5.T la / S )6>»p l^d o •.«. 6.pAWt.ivivv^i cRri«AJ 7.^GJx r'^C'JHCf- 8.OJl^ Uiiht(.„L A-V- ,:)S 7i C /<- n?i' c: / ?761-' j^fz/4,/- 10. 1 f ^ 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. WiSAMaiMratiet tBppnmfnmapPnBii •H mi -■•-S' ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. COIJMCII MEETING FED 9 2004 CITY OP ORGi^Q ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Jim White; Council Members Jim Murphy, Lili McMillan, and Bob Sansevere; City Attorney Thomas Barrett: Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson was absent. Acting Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amcnd Items #4, S, 6,7, 8, 11,12, 13, IS, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda, while item #3 was removed. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. 2. Annual Public Hearing for NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Gappa reported that the City applied for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water permit, and one of the requirements of this permit is that the City must hold an annual meeting to obtain public comments on this permit and the activities associated with this permit. Gappa explained that this permit requires that the City develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which includes a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) describing the City’s program for storm water runoff control. He indicated that Orono ’s SWPPP established 43 BMPs to address the required six minimum control measures which include: 1) Public Education and Outreach 2) Public Involvement and Participation 3) Illicit Discharge and Detection 4) Construction Site Runoff Control 5) Post Construction Runoff Control 6) Pollution Prevention and Housekeeping Gappa pointed out that the City's long-standing development philosophy of low density 2 and S- acre zoning development and wetland protection to protect Lake Minnetonka, and the other lakes in the City, is the best method of reducing stormwater pollution. With regard to the status of compliance with the permit conditions. Gappa stated that the City is in substantial compliance with the permit conditions and has continued to maintain the programs and PAGE 1 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 2. Annual Public Hearing for NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Continued policies described in the Best Management Practices. He noted that there had not been any substantial changes in the factors that were considered in the development of the original BMPs that would cause these BMPs to not be applicable anymore. Gappa concluded by stating that the City is making progress toward achieving the measurable goals Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to open the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. There were no public comments. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to close the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. While he did not have the literature with him this evening. White shared the content provided to him by the Metro Transit Commission about a new concrete pervious surface designed to help with runofr As a potential solution for parking lots and hardcover issues, Gappa stated that these potential runoff solutions continue to be evaluated. McMillan questioned whether the NPDES Storm Water Permit would be evaluated annually. Gappa stated that the permit is renewed and updated every S years with annual ongoing review. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Regular Council Meeting of January 12,2004 P.2 under Public Comments section paragraph 2. Acting Mayor White asked that the Tinal line be amended to read, “.. .preservation, but there are other pressing priorities at this time." Acting Mayor White moved, Sanseverc seconded, to approve the Amendment to the Minutes of January 12,2004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of January 12,2004, as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Paul Pesek No Representative was present for comment. PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS Although the recent Planning Commission meeting ran late, McMillan reported that she stayed to observe and hear what the public had to say regarding Walgrecn ’s and the Navarre Bowling Alley proposals. She stated that these items would be coming before City Council in the coming months. PAGE 2 of 10 liamca i i t. t ^ I Idtilulaaait MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. LMCD REPORT • LUi McMUlao McMillan reported that the Carson's Bay Bridge is higher; therefore, larger boats can now gain access to the Lake, thus increasing boat density. In response to Deephaven’s request for more municipal docks, McMillan slated that the LMCD has begun to form a subcommittee to examine boat density on the Lake. She pointed out that a formula to measure boat density was presented in 1973; however, was not put to use and the subcommittee would like to determine whether the formula has merit today. McMillan indicated that the LMCD Board has appointed Tom Skramstad, of Shorewood, the new Chair. She also noted that Lt. Brian Johnson would be moving on as head of the Water Patrol. Acting Mayor White felt measuring density could be difficult, since many lake residents often put their boats in the water, and seldom use them. He felt it might be hard to gauge density, simply by how many boats are parked at docks. McMillan pointed out that the LMCD has seen stacking problems at the Gray’s Bay landing when boats are leaving the Lake. She stated that it would be interesting to compare the density of boats by City, since Orono has the most shoreline, but also the most restrictive regulations. McMillan added that the subcommittee would also evaluate whether the rules regarding contiguous shoreline for individual cities are reasonable. Although he agreed something needed to be done, Murphy contended that, since all citizens own the lakes, it would not be feasible to restrict the number of boats on the lake. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ralph Kempf, 367S Togo Road, thanked the City Council for responding to his inability to hear in the audience by speaking into the microphones. Having attended at least 6 meetings, he stated that he had been impressed with how responsive the Council has been to the citizenry. Kempf complimented the Cour;ciI on how well they work together, how their hearts appear to in the right place as they evaluate applications, and for their appropriate discussion of the issues. Sansevere thanked Mr. Kempf for his comments and invited him to apply for one of the openings on the Park and Planning Commis.sions. Kempf stated that, thus far, he had a passive interest in how the community was run. He indicated that he was surprised that more citizens don’t take an active or interested role in their community. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *4. #04-2970 ROBERT P. MACK, IS2S BAY RIDGE ROAD > VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5105 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5105, granting side setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances to replace a flat roof with a pitched roof and construct a carport at the front entrance of the home at 1525 Bay Ridge Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 3 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. *5. #04-2975 REVEREND LOREN D. DAVIS ON BEHALF OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT • RESOLUTION NO. 5106 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5106, a Resolution granting a conditional use permit amendment for 3745 Shoreline Drive in order to change the roof structure from flat to pitched on the existing classroom portion of the church. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *6. #04-2979 DR. DONALD RISTAD AND KENT CASSIDY, 1005 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 5107 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5107, a Resolution granting a lot area variance and conditional use permit with variance to allow the existing pool to remain on a through lot and encroach into the 5!.” setback of Highway 12 for the residence located at 1005 Old Long Lake Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. •7. #04-2980 ORFIELD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INC. ON BEHALF OF MARILYN MCCLASKEY, 2693 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5106 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5108, a Resolution granting a front yard setback variance in order to add a second story over a portion of the existing home 20’ from the front property line where 35’ is required for the residence at 2693 Kelly Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT McMillan reported that she had received a call from a citizen in the Crystal Bay neighborhood who was concerned by the increase in the variance fee. She believed the increase from $200 to $600 to be an excessive jump and prohibitive for small remodel jobs. McMillan asked if staff had received similar conunents and invited Council members to comment. Gaffron stated that a half dozen new applications had been filed since the first of the year and he had not received complaints. He agreed that, for smaller neighborhoods, which often need to go through the variance process for any type of project, there might be alternatives. He questioned whether the City should consider rezoning the smaller neighborhoods to match the neighborhood’s size in reality. Sansevere questioned whether the fee schedule had been changed to mirror the work load staff goes through in the variance process. He indicated that he had felt the fee jump was too high to start with; but, had gone along with the recommendation. McMillan questioned whether there was an innate fairness issue when a small lot is zoned 2 acres, and obviously does not fit that description, to be charged the higher fee. PAGE 4 of 10 1 I * k MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. MAYORJCtTYCOVSCIL REPORT, Continued Murphy suggested the City monitor the public’s reaction to the increase, noting that the increase might deter people from asking for variances, to a certain degree. McMillan queried the potential of offering a separate breakout based on the number of variances requested for an application. Gaffron stated that, administratively, some applications begin with 1-2 variances, which under further examination turns into 4-S variance requests. McMillan asked if other neighborhoods were affected this same way in the Orono area. Gaffron stated that many neighborhoods were zoned differently than what is in place in an effort to protect the lake in the 1970’s. McMillan pointed out that rezoning these pockets might, in fact, reduce the workload for the Planning Commission and staff. Since the reality is that, many areas are zoned differently than actually exists, she questioned the amount of time and resources spent trying to obtain a balance. Acting Mayor White suggested this discussion be continued during an upcoming work session agenda. While he had many concerns to add to the discussion. White pointed out that, often, the smaller neighborhoods are where the lower to moderate income residents reside in Orono and questioned how the fee schedule might impact their ability to improve their housing situation. Murphy set forth an altogether different perspective, the option of not considering variances at all. He believed, though cumbersome, the process was effective. Sansevere questioned how the City ’s fee structure compared to other communities. Gaffron stated that, while the new fee structure put Orono on the high side, Orono entertains more variance requests due to the restrictive zoning and number of nonconforming properties. Council member Murphy gave a progress report on the Highway 12 project, stating that MnDOT is in negotiations with Ames Construction to renegotiate the contract for construction, in an effort to recalibrate the accompanying timeline and road closures. Murphy recommended staff and Council do its best to remind citizens that over the next 3-4 years all the major thorough fares will be closed at alternating times. He stated that Old Crystal Bay Road was expected to be the first to close in mid spring for the next few years, during which extensive rerouting of the public and school system will be necessary. Murphy indicated that weekly meetings and updates are ongoing with MnDOT. He mentioned that the City of Long Lake would be asking Orono to join them in a series of discussions about the turn back of Highway 12. PAGE 5 of 10 tuaium MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *8. REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT - COUNTY ROAD 6/BROWN ROAD NORTH SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Murphy moved, Sansevcre seconded, to Approve Request for Final Payment, Brown Road NyCR6 Sanitary Sewer Project to Red Pederson Utilities Inc. in the amount of $8,889,25. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 9. CITY OF MEDINA REQUEST FOR SERVICE - KELLER ESTATES DEVELOPMENT Gappa stated that, over the past year, the land in Medina west of Willow Drive and South of the Medina Momingside subdivision has been in the process of being planned for development into 21 units of single-family housing. Since the proposed development will result in additional traffic at the intersection of Willow Drive and County Road 6 and the intersection is in need of major improvements, the developer has indicated that he is willing to pay $200,000 (2S%) towards the cost of the intersection improvements. The developer has requested that the $200,000 be paid at the time the intersection costs are incurred, since the improvements may not occur for 2-3 years. Gappa stated that staff is willing to accept this timing, subject to sufficient security to ensure the full amount will be available to the City w'hen it is needed. With regard to the 6 Orono neighbors affected by the development. Gappa stated that each was notified. While density did not seem to be a concern, drainage concerns were voiced by several neighbors. Gappa stated that staff would recommend that the Council approve the request to add the sewer flow from the proposed additional 21 housing units to the trunk sewer line that currently serves the Medina-Momingside development, subject to the developer’s contribution of $200,000 toward the intersection improvements. Moorse reported that the proposed Willow/County Road 6 improvements would not likely take place until 2006 aftei the Highway 12 construction project is complete. Murphy questioned what level of support had been shown by Medina, since he believed there was some question of their commitment last year. Moorse felt there was support from Medina. Steve Bohl, of BohLand Development, interjected that he was available for questions. He explained that, after receiving approvals from Orono, he would be returning to Medina's Planning Conunission. As the proposal complies with Medina’s current zoning standards. Bohl felt that he had sensed optimism for the project expressed by the City. He mentioned that consideration with regard to drainage would be given. Gappa asked that the Council include in their motion the condition that the City of Orono gets an opportunity to review the proposed drainage plan. PAGE 6 of 10 _jiai » <■ N Ji MINUTES OFTHE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 9. CITY OF MEDINA REQUEST FOR SER VICE - KELLER ESTA TES DE VELOPMENT, Continued Murphy questioned whether the $200,000 would be paid when the costs were truly incurred. He felt the motion was too loose and should require the payment be made ahead of time. Moorse indicated that the City would also require a letter of credit so that it could obtain the money when needed. Bohl stated that they had also considered this question and would be willing to work with staff to determine the best way to process the claim. He suggested an assessment be applied to the construction in 2 years for the future development of the road. Murphy objected to assessing funds over a 2-3 year period as homes are developed. Bohl stated that the devriopment would likely be built out in 2*2 Vi years, with hook up to begin late summer. Sansevere suggested that the approval be contingent upon the money being available and a letter of credit for security being obtained prior to the first hook-up. all be added to the motion. Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the request to add the sewer flow from the proposed 21 adfUtional housing units in M^na to the trunk sewer line in Orono that currently serves the Mcdiiui Morningside development, subject to the developer contributing ^/200,000 toward the cost of the intersection improvements at 'Willow Drive and County Road 6 and contingent upon the City obtaining a letter of credit or other acceptable form of security prior to the first sewer hook*up, and review and approval of the proposed drainage plans. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 10. PAY REQUEST • NAVARRE FIRE STATION Murphy expressed his concern with regard to ongoing problems associated with the Long Lake Fire Station and their relationship with Constructive Ideas representative Bill Wolters. Murphy maintained that there are a series of ongoing minor irritants that have not yet been resolved at the Long Lake Fire Station. Although a great facility. Murphy questioned the commitment of Rochon to correct things. He suggested that, if the City's concerns are not addressed and irritants repaired by the next Council meeting, the City hire someone other than Rochon to complete these and deduct the cost from what is owed Rochon. Sansevere stated that the Council could move to approve the funds owed to BKV Group only. Murphy maintained that the offender is Rochon. and hoped the Council could send the message to everyone that in no more than 3 weeks, just such a motion would be entertained. PAGE 7 of 10 i 1 i 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 10. PA Y REQUEST • ^A VARRE FIRE STA TION, Continued Murphy moved, Sanscvcrc seconded, to approve the requests for pajment in the amounts of $1,620.00 to Conkiruedve Ideas, and $2349.95 and $331$*00 to BKV Group, to be hmded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *11. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT NO. 6 AND 7 • NAVARRE FIRE STATION Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Application and Certificate for Payment Numbers 6 and 7, in the amounts of $165,187.00 and $U,188.72, to be paid from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *12. ADOPT HENNEPIN COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 5109 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5109, a Resolution approving the Hennepin County Haiard Mitigation Plan as written. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. ACCEPT HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GRANT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept Hennepin County Division of Emergency Management reimbursement grant funding for $1,233.16. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 14. ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE OFHCER JOHN HERMAN Murphy wished to acknowledge the work of CSO John Herman, stating that he was both delightful and responsive to the needs of the citizens. Murphy wished him well. Sansevere indicated that, to him, John Herman was the template of what a CSO should be. He stated that Herman was a good guy to the public and to pets. He wished he could have stayed to become an officer. Sansevere suggested an acknowledgement or thank you be given to Herman. Acting Mayor White concurred, stating that Herman was an effective CSO and would be missed. Moorse indicated that the Council could honor Herman with a Resoiutio.i. Sansevere moved. .Murphy seconded, to accept the resignation of CSO John Herman effective March 1,2004, contingent upon his being fully accepted and placed in his new position. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. * 15. HIRE FULL-TIME COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER Murphy moved. Sansevere seconded, to authorize staff to advertise for and extend offer of hire to CSO candidate by February 16,2004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 8 of 10 i; I i ¥ Vi . ! I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. CITY ATTORNEY ’S REPORT Attorney Barrett had nothing new to report Moorse had two updates to report to the Council. While one of the seats would be up for reappointment, Moorse stated that the MCWD had 2 openings coming up and encouraged the Council to recoiTunend anyone else they could refer to these positions. Sansevere suggested Purk Conunissioners be queried to see if any interest exists among the members to join the MCWD. He believed McDermott would make an excellent candidate for the MCWD, as his background and knowledge would be a perfect fit. Moorse also reported that, while a 3.2 beer license had been approved for Navarre Lanes contingent upon a background check, some concerns have surfaced and need to be addressed before the City Council considers the new application for a full on sale liquor license. Based on what the police department will recommend with regard to the background check. Moorse suggested that the Council discuss the topic further in the upcoming work session. Sansevere stated that he felt it would be premature to plan to hold a Public Hearing at the next City Council meeting without devoting adequate time to discussing the background check. Sansevere suggested the Public Hearing be moved untii the 2"' meeting in February, in order to examine the information further before moving forward with a public meeting. Attorney Barrett stated that the Council must make reasonable progress on the application; however, would not be out of line postponing the Public Hearing two weeks to allow for adequate review. In addition, McMillan stated that she would be reluctant to approve a full liquor license before the improvements have been made. Attorney Barrett suggested the Council take time to e.xamine the background information and make a recommendation on the whole application, including improvements at a later date. *16. LICENSES Kennel License: 1. Colleen and Gabriel Jabbour 985 Tonkawa Road PAGE9oflO MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. KO Lkcuc Renewal 1. Lake view Golf of Orono, Inc. Grant Wenkslem 405 North Arm Drive Rick's Market Richard Bloomquist 3333 Shoreline Drive 2. Navarre Citgo LeRoy Koehnen 3360 Shoreline Drive Spring Hill Golf Club TomDalum 725 Sixth Avenue North 3. O'Sullivan John O'Sullivan 2420 Shady wood Road 7.Wayzata Country Club Ted Thie 2002 Wayzata Boulevard West 4. O’Sullivans (Culver's) John O'Sullivan 3340 Shoreline Drive 8.Western Convenience Store Mohamed Hamoude 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Murphy moved, Sanscvcrc seconded, to approve all licenses, VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *17, BILLS Murphy moved, Sanscvcrc seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE; Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Orono CHy Council Meeting of January 26,2004 at 8:22 PM. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays a ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson. Mayor PAGE 1 of 10 . Mdau ■aiMu ! AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOE MONDAY. FEIRUARY 9,2004,7.^ Pit ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO. MINNESOTA (^} Aftmk items ue contideiKi to be routine items to be enectsd upon by one tDodonby ite City Cam imdif the Consent Item* on the tfendt. Mcmosiegirding etch of the Agendi items sresveitsble at public Packet • located on the couocer near the sign in sheet ROLL CALL •(I 1. T AGENDA Aftprove/Ameod PRESENTATION 2. Safe and Sober Profram Gnat COllwrii fJrFTING FED 9 2004 CITY OF OROfvO AmOVAL OF MINUTES • 3. RegularCouncUMeedngof January 26.2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS -Rick Rice. Repcesentative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeanne Mabutth, Repcesentacive PUBUC COMMENTS - (Limits Mbuitce PwPanoe) 5. 6. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. «03>2958 JudaooDaytoit2U5 Little Ofchad Way-VmmKca-RaaQbsdDa •03-2962 Robert and Joipne Switt. 1740 Shady>u^ Road - Vacmcea - keeoiution •03-296S Scoa Sennet of ScnneiDeai|n Build on behalf of Franz and Kenten levae. S If Brown Rood North - Vsciancca - Reaolution •04-2967 Shvon Rat Outmond. 2900 Watertown Road - Conditional Uae Permit - Raaoludon •04-2968 Cuatom Smicturei Ltd. 440 Stubba Bay Road North-Preliminary Kit- RaaoJudon •04-2972 BobKnuthandMaryThompson. 2700 White Oak CiicJe-Vtrimcei- Refoltdo •04-2976 Jamea and Judith Pierpont 1801 West Fsm Road-Conditional UicPensil- Resolution 7. 8. 9. 10. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11. Adopt Asanssment Roll - North Long Lake East Sewer Eictiniiet •Resoludon CITY ADMINISTRATOR S REPORT 12. Pay Requatt - Navine Fbe Staboo 13. Settiemeot with Mh/DOT Regarding the Acquiaitioa of the Luiton Property 14. Lease with Mh/DOT Related to the Lurton Property 15. City Admtmatiator Compensation Adjuatmanta AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9.2004,7dM PJl ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MDfiESOTA OTY ATTORNKTS REPORT 16.UCENSES Special Even: Pennita Tobacco Lioeoaea • 17. BELLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS an (QA)F - Couaetl MM(xn|, 7.-00 pm 02/U - PiMBin. Conminloa Woric Setiion, S: 30 pa. 02A0 - HOUDAY, Piwidnitt’ Dty 02/17 • PUmuai Conuniwioo Ma«in|, Tnudaf, 6:00 p.m. 02/23 - Cooncil MiMiuf. 7:00 p.m. 03/Dl-PakConoiiiion7:1S PA. 03/03-FlmiHCoDBUAM^odiScHion. WttMtdaj.i-ti pA 03/D4 > Council Wok Smmo. 7WaAq». 3 30 p A 03WI - Council Mwitin.. 7J0 p.a. 03/13 -Ptmitv Coaomit.ion MMin|, 600 p a 03/22 - Council MeocinA 7:00 p.m. COUMCII MFETING FED 9 2004Date Application Received: 9-29*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9-29-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-2^03 extended to 1-27-04 extended to 3-27-04 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: February 2,2004 Item No.: ^ Dep«u f ment Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2958, Judson Dayton, 2885 Little Orchard Way - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: LR - 1 A, One Famiy Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre minimum) 2.0 acres (87,120 s.f.) List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 1-22-04 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 1-14-04 Applkalion Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to keep an existing bam, which is currently located at 2885 Little Orchard Way: 1 . A variance to allow more than 6,000 s.f. of accessory structures on a single lot, and 2. A variance to allow more than one oversized accessory stmeture on a single lot. Planning Commission Recommendation Approval of the requested variances in order to keep the existing bam in its current size of 1 ,152 square feet stipulating the following: 1 . The lot containing the bam, 2885 Little Orchard Way, be combined with 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road, and 2. That the lots are combined and the bam is moved to the location shown on the submitted plans by July 20, 2004, or the bam shall be removed in its entirety. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. ________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1434 (1) & (2) nLE NO. 03-2958 WHEREAS, Judson M. Dayton and Elizabeth J. Dayton, husband and wife, (hereinafter “the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2885 Little Orchard Way and 825 Old Crystal Bay Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: 2885 Little Orchard fVay: Lot 3, Block 1, LITTLE ORCHARD, Hennepin County, Minnesota 825 Old Crystal Bay Road: Refer to Exhibit A, attached to this resolution (hereinafter the “property ”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1434 (1) & (2) to allow the existing bam, currently located at 2885 Little Orchard Way, to remain in its current size of 1,152 square feet. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2958. The property located at 2885 Little Orchard Way and 825 Old Crystal Bay Road are located in the LR - lA zoning district, which requires minimum lot sizes of 2 acres. 2885 Little Orchard Way is 2.0 acres in size and 825 Old Crystal Bay Road is approximately 21.0 acres in size. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at public hearings held on October 20, 2003 and January 20, 2004 and recommended denial Page 1 of 5 4. 5. of the requested renewal variance to allow the bam to remain on the property absent a principal structure but recommended approval of accessory structure variances to allow the bam based on the following findings: a. The bam is over 100 years old. b. The bam holds historical significance in the area, although recognizing that it is not listed on the historical registry of the MN Historical Society. c. The reduction in size required to eliminate the need for variances would lessen any historical significance the bam may currently have. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 Aversely a^ect trafhc 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1434 (1) & (2) to allow the existing bam, currently located at 2885 Little Orchard Way, to remain in its current size of 1,152 square feet, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. Any Page 2 of 5 J 'Vjr mit\ fm mi 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. The property currently known as 2885 Little Orchard Way must be combined with the property known as 825 Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicant shall move the bam in question to the location shown on Exhibit B, attached to this resolution. A lot combination of 2885 Little Orchard Way with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road must be filed with Hennepin County and the re-location of the bam to the location shown on Exhibit B, attached to this resolution, must be completed by July 20, 2004. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, and are permissive only. If the conditions of this resolution are not complied with by July 21, 2004 this resolution shall expire on that date and 2885 Little Orchard Way shall fully comply with all Zoning Ordinance regulations, which would require removal of the bam in its entirety. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants ’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9'*’ day of February, 2004. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of __, 2004 by Linda S. Vee, 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 S ! i I I State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Judson M. Dayton, husband of Elizabeth J. Dayton. day of ,2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Elizabeth J. Dayton, wife of Judson M. Dayton. Notary Public Page S of S day of ,2004 EXHIBIT A That part of Lot 35. In Auditor's Subdivision Ho. 230, Hennepin County, HinnaaeUr. and of Govemnent Lot 7. in Section 9. Township 117 Hortb, Ranga 23 West of the 5th Priacipal tie* rldian, described as follows: Befinnin* at a point 302.81 feet South of the Horth line^ e«?.00 feet West of the last line of said Goverment l^t 7; thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot 7 a dleiance of 462,IW feet u> the East l^i^f ^Id Lst Tt Horth along the Zast Hoe of said Govemnent Lot 7. a diatance of 302.81 feet to the north­ east comer of said Lot; thence continaing North along tne North and South eeoterlina of Section 4. Townahif U7. Range 23. a distance of 216.7 feet w an ^tornection with ^ Easterly extaneion of the South line of Lot M In above aentioned Auditor s Subdivision W. 230. Hannapin County. HlnneaoU; thaaoe Westerly along the Southerly boundary line of said Lot 34 «id extaneion thereof to tne Southwent comer of said lot; thence Southerly along the extenaioa of the fteat line of said Lot 34 to a point 1071.18 feet Southerly aeasured along the Meat line of said Uit 34 and the extanaion thereof, free the Horthewat eomar of said Lot 34: tbcKO Hestarly deflecting 81 degrees 08 einutes to the right €rom last de- •cribed course. 158.66 feet; thence continuing. Westerly. deflecting 2 degreen 30 Bicutes to •>e right-froB laat described course a dlatanca of 124.65 feet; thence Southwenterly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 388.66 feet, a distance of 193.75 feet to the point uf compound curve; thence Southwesterly on a tangential curve to the left with e ra- olus of 212,81 feet, a distance of 160.52 feet; thence Sout.Swesterly In a straight line. tang0f\t to said last dsscribod curve, a diataacs o£ 2#69 feet to the Southed/ line aforesaid Section 4; thence Heat ilong the South line of said Section. 285.29 feet, said laat described pouit 'oeing the Southeast comer of Covemaent Lot I In said Section thence Southwesterly deflecting 35 degrees 17 ainutea to the left froa said last described ccurse. a distance of 110.3 feet; thence Southwesterly deflecting 45 degrees-23 nlnutes w the left froa said laat described course, a distance of 115.00 feet; thence SovstijweeterlV deflecting 21 degrees 40 ainutes to the right froB said last described course, a distance of 174 00 feet, sore or leas to the shore of Sawall's B«y, lake llinnetonka. ^b**>^* S«th» easterly along the shore of said lake to ita intersection with a line running Southerly parallel with the Saet line of above aentio^ CovenwMt Lot 7 in point, bearing South 12 degraea S4 ainutea 40 and diataat 7^.76 point of beginning, aaid Uat da:icribed course being: hereinafter referred to and deei^taa 4g "Une X**; thence dorth ptrallal with tba ieet line of aald .. point! bearing South 12 degreea 54 Binutea 40 seconda Heat and distant-TB0.76 wt eald point of beginning; thence Horth 12 degrees 54 alnuto# 40 seconds tot 766.76-feet W the point of beginning said last described course being hereinafter referred to M deslgmtod S.S "Line T": ej®epting froB above described pmises, the following described tract, (Hert- Saftar eoB;tii»rr^rmd to as the "excepted tract") to-wit: Begia^ i«^sS^ 35 SSeroTainutoe Heat, 194.4 feet; thence South 13 degrees 57 i^t« West, 167.65 feet; thence South 5 degreea M eiauto Heat, 265.M feet, ahor^ of Baxwell's Bay. Lake binnstonka. thenee Southeasterly along the show of m an Intereectlon with said "Lina X" hereinebove dexrib^; then^ *S!!5.*i2fk'i2*dB!iSIo >r to Its Intersection with said "Uns Y" es hareiaabove deecrlb^;..tha« If^ff-ets 54 Biaitaa 40 aaeonda tot along aaid "Line T* • 766.76 feat to the point of toginBiac. That part of OowamBent Lot 7 in Section 9. Township 117 Horto. Ka^ Princl^'Heridlan. described as fbllowa: Btgtoaisg at a point being 302.81 feet S HoS line and 462.00 feet West of the tot Use of 62 degrees 13 ninutes Heat. 290.2 feet; thence South 39. degrees 05 ■i»**»* feet; thence South 13 degreee 57 ainutea West. 167.» tot to t^ of the tract of land to bo daacrlbed; thence Horth 13 degreea 57 ■toutoe *^J;f:.i**** thence North 35 degrees 05 nlnutes tot. 194.4 feet; thence North 82 Aegre^ 13 aiJWtos tot. 193.2 feet; S^e South 31 degreea 07 elouus lO aecmda 261.39 South 13 degrees 25 ainutea 37 seronds West, 167.65 feet; thence South 3 degKOt w ainuus 30 seconds Meet. 286.14 feet: thence due South to the shore of Haxwell Minnetonka; thence Westerly along aaid shoreline to «n interjection ui^ e 2^ 9._h 5 degreea 23 aiautas Heat, free the actual point of beginning: ihenm Nortli 6 egreea 23 ainutea last to the actual poli.t of beginning. . For the purpeae of tblj deecription the tot Une of said Covernaent Lot 7 i. a«ai»«i to J... • \1-«eV e«<4 1 4 §' EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ^ nm, toniir §t imu oioumo/ I • I VOHOiMO V ^ "\ naavcisyr 24a.oo 'r /> % / / li N 2.0 Ac. / /, / M v< .m VC |,l51,S.f. BAWl-/wn\/0p / ■/ To -mis WtATlcM BY T|1«10^ A UT ■ COMB in a TioN op 1M5 Lime OKHAj-p WAY y/ , W7 OID CA-Y^TAt. BAY I il f' srtAU/ Be fitep WI1W BeHNBPlM avWTY 5Y *imo4. !'^C77 // /j /, /; \V \ \ X \ PROPERTY OCSCRIPHOM: Let A Block t. UTU ORCHWO. Htnntpln C«unty« UW^Mota eeeordbig le Uit rtcord plot thcrcef V"(’ ■' ^ \ .'»! rr -“i: I PtAiky tirWy IPtI INt |f«<w w rtptM «•• §f9p^ti I7 ma m MM4tf M tfrici tA4 M I 9m • PiA Ilc^tUfVtf U a ^ iiA4«A %vB 9I IM Si«l« (! A'//n k < / Un« l«»»»TO' yft/if- _o^. ka. I4J4J • tftAAlpt |p*A .1 I««0 ir- 0«A«Us propoaU c«s»tP4iir OtneUa cilaUnp conlovr ,• ******— OtnolfJ buR^p aatbadi En« *"*“*•■•Oantlf# ^obiapf k ylKljr mamenl iNivtsta: ir /•’ o CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Perkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 03-2958 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 22,2004 TO: Judson M. & Elisabeth J. Dayton COPIES: 825 Old Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Renewal Variance DATE OF MEETING: January 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion by Commissioner Mabusth, seconded by Commissioner Hawn to recommend approval of the request to move the bam to the location shown on the submitted plans wMch includes approval of: - A variance to allow more than 6,000 s.f of accessory structures on the lot, and - A variance to allow more than one oversized accessory structures on the lot. Stipulating that: - The lot containing the bam, 2885 Little Orchard Way, be combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, and - That the lots are combined and the bam is moved to the location shown on the submitted plans by July 30, 2004, or the bam shall be removed in its entirety. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Couocil - Monday, February 9,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application. The City has made an initial 60-day extension which will expire on January 27, 2004. The applicant is required to request extensions beyond the initial 60-days. Because the application will not be heard by the City Council until Febmary 9, 2004 meeting, p/eose submit to the City your request in writing to extend your projea's review period another 60-days so that your project can be heard at the February 9,2004 City Council meeting. i M3-29S8 January 20,2004 Pa|t 1 afO Date Application Received: 9-29-03 Date Application Considered at Complete: 9-29-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-20-03 extended to 1-27-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ Date:January 14,2004 Subject:03-2958, Judson Dayton, 2885 Little Orchard Way - Renewal Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR -1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) 2.0 acres (87,120 s.f.) 2885 Little Orchard Way: 825 Old Crystal Bay Road: 2.0 acres 21.131 acres Application Summary: Applicant requests a renewal variance to allow the existing oversized accessory structure to remain on the lot and for it to be relocated to a conforming location in the rear of the lot. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request because the existing conditions are not representative of the conditions that resulted in the original variance approval. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-1432. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Section 78-1434. Area Restrictions. See attached Exhibit C. Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of PC Action dated October 20,2003 Exhibit B - Plan for Re-location of the Bam Exhibit C - Section 78-1434 of the Zoning Ordinance Exhibit D - Plan of Existing Accessory Stmetures at 825 Old Crystal Bay Road Exhibit E - Photographs Exhibit F - Plat Map m MI3-29SS Jaouary 20,2004 Pagt2of4 Background This {plication was originally heard at the October 20,2003 Planning Conunission meeting. At that time the Planning Commission had encouraged Mr. Dayton lo combine parcels and move the bam to make it conforming. Doing this raised questions about whether or not the parcel would be conforming as to the amount and size of accessory structures on a single property. Therefore, the application was tabled so staff could research the existing accessory structures and whether or not moving the bara would alleviate the current situation. The application was then to be heard at the November 17, 2003 meeting but was delayed to January to allow the applicant time to consult with his attorneys. Existing Accessory Structure Analysis The applicant ’s property aside from 2885 Little Orchard Way consists of 3 tax parcels, i.e. a large main parcel and two smaller parcels. Only the main property, 825 Old Crystal Day Road, is eligible for combination with 2885 Little Orchard Way in regards to the bam issue, because it is the only parcel with a principal stmcture. Because of this, a total accessory structure analysis was done for all the existing accessory buildings to determine if the existing bam on 2885 Little Orchard Way can be added to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road without additional planning actions. The following is a list of the accessory stmctures located at 825 Old Crystal Bay Road: Bam/Stable: 5,168 square feet Care Taker House: 1,940 square feet The property is allowed 6,000 square feet of accessory structures with a maximum size of one singe building of 3,000 square feet by City Code Section 78-1434. The care taker house was left out of the accessory structure figures as it is allowed by Section 78-303 (8). The square footage in excess of the 3,000 allowed for a single building was allowed by a variance approved in February, 1992. Combining the Lots and the Feasibility of Adding the Barn To combine 2885 Little Orchard Way to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, or simply moving the bam to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road would require the following planning actions: [Bam (48 ’ x 24’)» 1,152 square feet] Variance: Variance: To allow the accessory building total to exceed 6,000 square feet (5,168+ 1,152 = 6,320 s.f.) To allow more than one oversized accessory structure on the lot due to the existing bam/stable. Feasibility of the Above Planning Actions The chart in the accessory structures section of the Zoning Ordinance, Exhibit C, only extends out to 9.01 acres or more. This sets the limit to 6,000 square feet of total accessory structures allowed for any property 9.01 acres or more. The chart starts as 0 - 1.99 acres allowing a maximum of 2,000 square feet of accessory structures and increases «K)3-29S8 January 20, 2004 Pagc3of4 by approximately 400 square feet w'th every additional acre. If this chart were extended out to include the applicant ’s property, which is 2H- acres, it would allow for 10,800 square feet of accessory structures and the applicant could conceivably add the bam to his parcel and be within the allowable limits of square footage, should the Planning Commission deem this appropriate. However, the same section of the ordinance states that a property is only allowed one oversized accessory building (any building in excess of 1,000 s.f.). This requires that an additional variance be granted to allow more than one oversized accessory structure. The Planning Commission should discuss whether there are any hardships to grant two variances; one to allow more than one oversized accessory structure per property and also to allow more than 6,000 square feet of accessory structures. Hardship Analysis It is staffs opinion that there are no convincing hardships to allow the bam to remain at its existing size requiring two variance approvals. The "Little Orchard ” subdivision has eliminated any context the bam pre\ iously had in relationship to its sunoundings. Further, the bam has already been reduced in size, further lessening is historical significance. The bam could still be allowed, without any planning actions, if it were reduced to 832 s.f and either moved to 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road or if 2885 Little Orchard Way were combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road and the bam is moved to the location shown on the plan (E.xhibit B). Possible Options Planning Commission should discuss the following options: 1. Require that 2885 Little Orchard Way be combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay Ro^ if the applicant wishes to keep the bam. This action would also require the bam be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and the following planning actions: a. Variance to allow the total of all accessory structures to exceed 6,000 s.f.. b. Variance to allow more than one oversized accessory structure on a single parcel 2.Same as above but requiring the bam to be reduced to be under 1,000 s.f to alleviate the need for a variance to allow more than one oversized accessory structure. A variance may still be required to allow for the accessory structure total to exceed 6,000 s.f if the bam isn't reduced to 832 s.f or less. 3.If the applicant doesn ’t wish to combine 2S85 Little Orchard Way with 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road, the bam must be reduced to under 1,000 square feet and it must be moved to 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road in a conforming location. If the bam isn’t reduced to 832 s.f or less a variance would still be required as noted above. 1 * : ? r A i M3-29SI January 20,2004 faga 4 of 4 Issuci for Co0sidenitioB 1. Should any variances be approved to allow the bam? 2. Does the bam have any historical significance? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Require the bam to be reduced to 832 s.f. or less to alleviate the need for any planning actions, and if the parcels are combined the bam must be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and if they are not combined than the bam must be moved to a conforming location on 82S Old Crystal Bay Road. ■ 4i ' * I EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 03-2958 2750 Kelley Parlcway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: October 20,2003 TO: Judson M. & Elisabeth J. Dayton COPIES: 825 Old Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN SS391 TYPE O F ^ PIJC ATION____Rencwd Variant_______________________ DATE OF MEETING: October 20,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Table. The applicant must explore the option of combining the lot containing the bam, 2885 Little Orchard Way, with the lot which contaiiu his residence, 825 Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicant must also determine if the bam can meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements, including Oversized Accessory Structure limitations, and Building Code requirements in moving the bam to a conforming location in the rear of the existing lot. VOTE: 3 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is tentatively set for: Planning Commission - Monday, 11-17-03; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. • If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the Cit>' Recorder after review and approval by the Plarming Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY EXHIBIT B FRCPERTY OeSOb^nON: lot 3, Beck 1, UTH£ MOlWO. MtnntpVi C«wnty. UinoMola eeeertfini lo Ui« rtcard l^vcaf 7r I ttfUV tfitl Mt «r MfCtft %«i |P« «r *Y tfrtti 1^4 M I am • UM ^ ai IM S1«U af *fM±ZjU^U >a«f. Ha. 14)41 • #taalaa Iraa R«qutsltd By: OcR^ltt ffop^fid Cd^tour OcAOltf talsUif ceatHuf r ^ OtrtHltj buldWig tftooek But ***“**"*•• Oenotfi tiO>Q$4 k ulSly toscrcnl t daaalM aai Ha^ ANCO CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. •«•••(«**•• taal k •(< 0«U: T f O fflO !•« iyt ISccIt: khtclicd By; ^ n cr I 4 8 —r ^ 11 TTO 5?isS-i rsa/m '**’ m-ub 1 i; O' ,■ iir.-J:M > W* w- '5 \£i V, n j NextPage LivePublish Page 1 of2 EXHIBIT C Sec. 78*1434. Area reetrictione. In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 'square feet, except that the foliowing nonroofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 square feetsquare leei, eAuepi uiai uic ^ footprint area are not considered as oversize accessory structures, but are subject to the special setback restrictior^s of section 78-1404; 'a. Tennis courts. Jb. Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding nonencroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 square feet. 'c. Paddocks or arenas. (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table; TABLE INSET: lolArM (•cm) Mnimum IndMbuO AocaMory SMtun Foo^ Atm (squmM) MaOmum A80W8d ToWorAI Acomory StuctiTi Footprint ArMt*ona napanir (iquiftlNO 0-199 1,000 2,000 2.00-300 1000 2.400 3.01-390 1.400 2,500 3.51-400 1.500 3000 4.0MjO 1J00 3.600 401-500 2.000 4.000 501-000 2000 4.400 S.01-7.00 2.400 4.500 7.01-500 2.600 5000 801-9.00 2.500 5.600 901 ormoft 3.000 6.000 ■* Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas ‘(3) Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions; a. No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. J). The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants In writing with the city as follows: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has hftn-//1iwr»nKli«h mnni<*nrift cnm/25/lnext.dll/Infobase99/l/104c/2089/2l99/21a3?fh«docu... 11/6/2003 NextPage LivePublish Page 2 of2 no principal atructure, except that the dty in Ha aubdiviaion approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized acceaaory atructure may remidn wHhout a principat •atructure, in order that a principal atructure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal stnjcture has been constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure 'will be located toother within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required fbr the oversize accessory structure shall remain. •Such covenant shall be binding on current and fbture property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. httD://Uveoublish.inunicode.coin/2S/lf)ext.dll/Iiifobase99/l/104c/2089/2199/21a3?&-docu... 11/6^003 [ • A; EXHIBIT D * Sat/^h'ncof Lof >3e^ l69.*jL t ••aiS' o.w ‘, 0•9^ »* 4 aa-is /.28 < >) A • «r-, • t « • •• % # I ^ •• I • • • # •— • I*% • I•% • f •{'»t • I i V » * ,.-^ ... / V ^0 Sou ih Unc o/ St'Kt of SV5# of Sec. 4 -m'Z3‘'. fosf tine Sol Vo o^S t ----Y A/o/'M t/^ of 6au'f ! of 7 ) Sec.9-ll^-Z3 ' A/£ Ga^ quo CftV&TAU g^»f jncfudhrii 23.7 tacres not in '• no oo aj f^c/udin^ *9 S roa^ « • • • % • •( CMif2^X».U\r :Easi 7, Sti \ \ i « • •• ••• •• ••••i Vaniand^*!-ct/p ^rov-c^ Ftb. /^12. di’nc parallel wiffi North Unc of Serf Lot 7^ /^^^5sor\f Shn/cA\Jr^s (S %Vb OLD dl^YST/C 6AY fJD N '' ?»-M tftAs Xl.l3\04r«S -.liiiiiiiiiiM S’- - '. ■ *• V''^ r^** %♦ l,''-;i pjvm» i ' - '-’v•’ 4 I!.AIillill IL f I Vi III 1 V:. < , .■'C ; t • • * ' . . V • 1* fi *; > ii,' Wii ^ -®i '• rWiWT I ■ ''I ■ \ ■! ■'m ife- m r.aa-’ •Ji« ,* ♦wir-x »i Ai.\ ' ^ ^ r^ST j ;v ,7 - ' . - •' i! •* ' • • • -.'i ' r .V % '* ,. ; • *•'•1 'V'.■ ' • ■■. .. ^ .V, ..•- . .smf r •■ I f v. |l^ ., )/* • — — . t| « %** \ ■ Date Applicition Received: I0>22>03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10-22-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 12-21-03 extended to 2-19-04 ^^FETING FEB y 2004 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Febniary 2,2004 Item Noa • Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2962, Robert & Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Rd - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR- 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/a acre minimum) 0.47 acres (20,624 s.f.) 120 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - Memo from Planning Director Mike Gaffron dated 2-2-04 C - PC Action Notice 1-22-04 D - PC Memo and Exhibits of 1-16-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed (also removing 2,050 s.f. hardcover from the 0 75’ zone). Planning Commission Recommendation Approval of the following by a unanimous vote of 6-0: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75’-250 ’ zone when 39% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation While Planning Department staff has prepared a resolution consistent with the Planning Commission ’s recommendation, staff would like the City Council to recognize the following when determining if the Planning Commission ’s recommendation should be upheld and whether the resolution should be adopted: 4 I d 1. The lot is nearly conforming at a size of 0.47 acres when 0.50 acres is required a discrepancy of 1,156 square feet. The lot width at 120’ is conforming. 2. This project is a rebuild situation where Planning Commission and City Council have consistently expected the property be brought into full conformance. 3. Does the shape of the lot and the hardship demonstrated justify the magnitude of variance that was recommended for approval? 4. Should the magnitude of hardcover variance be closer to 3,609 s.f or 32% as discussed in the Planning Report (pg. 4) as the optimum hardcover allowance based on lot sh^7 Does removal of 2,050 s.f. of existing hardcover from the 0-75’ zone justify approval of 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone? 5. Reference memorandum from Planning Director Mike Gaffron, attached Exhibit B. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council shall rule on one of the following options: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution granting a lot area and hardcover variance for 1740 Shadywood Road at 38.6% or. 2. Direct the applicants to further reduce hardcover on the property which would consist of one of the following two options: a. Refer back to the Planning Commission; or b. Have applicant return a revised plan to City Council V-.'-I I A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-350 (B), 78-282 AND 78-1288 FILE NO. 03-2962 WHEREAS, Thomas B. Swanson and Marilyn L. Swanson, husband and wife, are the owners of the property located at 1740 Shadywood Road and Robert E. Switz and Josephine L. Switz, husband and wife, have interest in the property located at 1740 Shadywood Road, (hereinafter “the applicants ”) within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City ”) and legally described as follows: Lots 14 & IS, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property ”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 (B), 78-282, and 78- 1288 to allow construction of a new residence on an existing lot where the lot area is 0.47 acres whe . 0.50 acres is normally required and 38.6% hardcover is proposed when 25% is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2962. The property is located in the LR - 1C zoning district, which requires minimum lot sizes of 0.50 acres. The applicant ’s lot is 0.47 acres in size. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at public hearings held on November 17, 2003 and January 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the lot area and hardcover variances based on the following findings: a. The lot is sub-standard in area at 0.47 acres when 0.50 acres is normally required. Page 1 of 6 r 4. 5. b. The lot as it exists is more shallow than deep. An optimum shaped lot of the same acreage would be allowed 3609 s.f. of hardcover. c. Due to the lot ’s frontage on Shadywood Road, a drive-way back-up apron is required for the purpose of safe egress and parking. d. The lots 15% allotted structural coverage, when maximized, puts the property over its hardcover allotment for the 75’-250* zone. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoring Code Sections 78-350 (B), 78-282, and 78- 1288 to allow construction of a new residence, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan vihich are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.All hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall be removed and not allowed above 0%. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 4,409 s.f. or 38.6% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Page 2 of 6 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reductions in existing hardcover. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. Required removals of structure and hardcover, including all structure and hardcover in the 0-7S* zone and the shed located in the northwestern comer of the lot, shall be completed by footing inspection for the new residence. Authorities granted by this resolu ’.on run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (February 9, 200S). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned ^plicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9“' day of February 9,2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Linda S. Vee, 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 6 I r i State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instnunent was acknowledged before me this by Robert E. Switz, husband of Josephine L. Switz. day of .2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Josephine L. Switz, wife of Robert E. Switz. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 I •I i i J 75f • tXlST WXJS£ - 2665 SK sitPS - t*o sr WAIK - 88 SF ORIVt - 1200 SF LANDSC - 335 Sf har Scover 11474 Sf X 25* - 2856_SJ( HC ALUW) _» \ ^1' I 1L \\ T^r\A1---------------------vt—- X rr^\v lOIAL - 4428 SF (38 BX) EAST 125.46 0-75 - 9200 Sf tWST Tiobsr^ 3040 Sf (14 8X lOT) HOUSE - 450 Sf STOOP - 53 SF OCCK - 6/0 SF WALK - 60 Sf ^ BOATHSE - 370 Sf SF LAFOSC. - 560 SF lAJSIWC House __SI (> ATHOUSE - M^Sr V- \-^ \-X% £Q5L O^x ToIaL - 2050 sr (22 3X) 'A scription :' '' ^ lOTS 14 & 15. SHAOYWOOU. HCNN. CO. MN > 20600 Sf 0 47 AC PO f 17-117-23-21-0020 AOORESS - 1740 SlUOYWOOO ROAD I ■! a III! ~f~^ .7 . Memorandum Date: To: From: RE: February 2,2004 City Administrator, Mayor, and Council Mike GafFron, Planning Director Planning Commission ’s Recommendation Regarding Project M)3-2962 - Hardcover Variance The Planning Commission, at their January 20,2004 meeting recommended ^proval of a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75 ’»250 ’ zone. Because this project is a rebuild, I would offer the following comments: From staff’s perspective, approval at 38.6% is somewhat inconsistent with Council’s pattern of approvals for total rebuilds within the past S years. While the applicant has reduced the proposed house to meet the 1 S% lot coverage limit, that fact in itself does not justify the level of hardcover proposed. It is not uncommon that homes are reduced to a level significantly less than 1S% lot coverage to meet the 2S% hardcover limit. Staff feels the lot shape justification (top of pg. 4 of Jan. 20 Memo) for 32% hardcover, is a reasonable method to quantify the hardship based on lot shape. A further hardship, based on the limited parking area and need for a back-up apron to access Shadywood Road, perhaps justifies an additional 15 ’ x 15 ’ in driveway, or perhaps another 225 s.f. At best, we don’t find a justification to go above 3609 + 225 = 3834 s.f. or 33.6% for this rebuild. To approve it at this level without additional unique justification will make this £q>proval stand out as an anomaly and as a precedent. I -T CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE; 03-2962 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 22,2004 TO:Robert & Joanne Switz 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Lot Area & Hardcover Variances DATE OF MEETING: January 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion by Commissioner Hannaford, seconded by Commissioner Mabusth to approve the plans as submitted which consist of the following; 1.Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone when 39% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled for: City Council - Monday, February 23,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application. The City has made an initial 60-day extension which will expire on February 19, 2004. The applicant is required to request extensions beyond the initial 60-day extension. Because the application cannot be heard by the City Council at the January 26, 2004 meeting, please submit to the City your request in writing to extend your project ’s review period another 60-days so that your project can be heard at the February 23, 2004 City Councii meeting. \ n N03-2962 January 20,2004 Pagt 1 of4 Date Application Received: 10*22*03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 10*22*03 60*Oay Review Period Eipires; 12*21*03 and extended to 2*19*04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Gundlach, Cit>- Planner^ January 16,2004 03*2962, Robert and Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road - Lot Area and Hardcover Variances • Public Hearing Zoning Dutrict: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (Vi minimum) 0.47 acres (20.624 s.f.) 120 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Approval of a hardcover variances as the shallowness of the lot and the need for a back-up apron provide hardships inherent to the property. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78*350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet)Front Yard feet)Side Yard (feet)Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 0.5 100 30 10 30 15 Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0--1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. «03-29(2 January 20,2004 Page 2 of 4 Sec. 78*282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR*1 A, LR- IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78*281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78*1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Survey Exhibit B - Revised Elevations Exhibit C - Revised Floor Plans Exhibit D - City Council Action Form dated January 16,2004 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Action Form dated November 18,2003 Exhibit F - PC Report dated November 14,2003 Background This project was originally heard at the November 17,2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the application was tabled due to the excessive structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant chose to continue on to the City Council. At the January 12,2004 meeting the applicant chose to have the project tabled as new plans were being prepared. Subsequently, the City Council and Planning Department staff brought the tqjplicant back to the Planning Commission for a new recommendation. The applicant has submitted new plans for a house that meets the 15% requirement. Also included is a conservative driveway of 1,000 s.f, a 53 s.f. stoop, 60 s.f concrete walk bringing the proposed hardcover to 36.4%. That applicant had also indicated that a 12’ x 12’ patio/deck would be incorporated into the new plan, however that is not shown on the new survey. If a 144 s.f. patio/deck were incorporated the hardcover would rise to 37.6%. If the proposed 16’ x 16’ patio/deck is added instead, it rised to 4,409 s.f or 38.6%. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET The lot analysis worksheets have been updated from the previously denied plan to reflect the new footprint and hardcover. W3-2M2 Janyary 20,2004 Page 3 of 4 LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (*/2 acre)100’ Actual 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)120 ’ Setbacks LR-IC Required Front 30’ Rear 30’ Left Side (south)10’ Right Side (r.rr;h) 10’ Existing 44’ 9’ Proposed 36 ’ ir 20’ Lakeshore Average Lakeshore 75’ 52 ’ 60’(house) 55’(deck) 12 ’ 75’ 75’ (not including any decks)_____ Structural Coverage Hardcover Calculations After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)Allowed: 3,094 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,040 (14.8%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 9,200 s.f.Os.f (0%) 2,050 s.f.* (22%) Os.f. (0%) 75-250 11.424 s.f.2,856 s.f. (25%) 4,428 s.f* (39%) 4,409 s.f. (38.6%) Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing to remove all hardcover in the 0-75’ zone, including the boat house which isn’t reflected in the revised survey. The shed that exists in the 75’ - 250 ’ zone is also proposed for removal. The applicant is proposing 4,409 s.f. of hardcover, or 38.6% in the 75-250 ’ zone. These numbers include a 16’ x 16’ patio/deck which is not shown or calculated on the revised survey. A hardcover variance must be granted in M3-2962 January 20.2004 P«|t 4 of 4 order to approve the 38.6% hardcover in the 75’ - 250 ’ zone. HARDSHIP As discussed in the earlier PC report, some hardships exists that could support approval of a hardcover variance. The lot is quite shallow if you consider its depth. This is limiting when calculating hardcover. To quantify the impacts of lot shape on hardcover, a lot with the exact same lot area (0.473 acres) would have an optimum 75-250’ hardcover allotment if its dimensions were 250 ’ x 82.5’ which would yield a ISVo hardcover of (175 x 82.5 x .25) = 3,609 s.f. Therefore, the lot shape hardship can only justify a hardcover level of 3,609 s.f., 800 s.f. less than what the applicant h^ proposed. Also, because the lot is located on Shadywood Road, a hardship exists in that more driveway than normal is required in order to allow for a back-up apron. The applicant has proposed a 1,000 s.f. driveway. This is essentially a 3-stall wide driveway that tapers towards the road. Other similar lots have been held to much narrower driveway tapers to meet the hardcover limits for rebuilds. The Planning Commission should discuss to what extent a hardcover variance should be granted, and what hardships allow what level of hardcover excess. Building Height The applicant should be aware that if a basement were constructed on the property, with the proposed elevations is tq)pears that there would be a building height issue. The lot currently sites low whereby substantial fill would be necessary in order to construct a basement. Zoning Ordinance states that building height is measured from existing, not proposed grade. If the applicant decides to propose a basement the plans should be revised prior to building permit review whereby the total height, from existing grade, is 30 feet. Issues for Consideration 1. Has the applicant made a good faith effort towards limited hardcover? 2. What level of hardcover variance might the Commission consider? 3. How can the magnitude of the proposed variance be justified? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuilu on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Planning Commission must determine wliether there is adequate hardship to justify allowing 38.6% hardcover (4,409 s.f.) in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed, for this total rebuild on a nearly conforming lot. i 1 rxiSTINC MOUSE GARAGE 3* J \S 89^57' 48" C 165.95 -__- > % V SCALE IN FEET - EXGTfW SPOT ELEVATlONl ’■ vi«>irTt' X(998.0)- PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION - ORECTION SURTACE ORAMACE I V focrrfitj \ I -< \ \ \ Revi$6^, FooTfWf® ’dC'^ 0 .'-^''5] V VI', 266 \ \ V= — % V----- •7gr^^<_ V R.r\^ -kP''- V ' \HARDCOVER £ASr 125.46 7b* ’• H424 Sr X 25% - 2856 S^ HC ALL WO q-75 - 9200 Sf EXIST PROPOSED EXIST house - 2665 SF HOUSE - 5040 SF (14.8% LOT) HOUSE 450 SF STEPS - 140 SF STOOP - 53 SF DECK - 670 SF WALK - 88 SF WALK - 60 SF bOAIHSE - 370 SF OWVC - 1200 SF drive - 1000 SF LANOSC - 560 SF LANOSC. - 335 SF TOTAL - 4153 SF (36 4%) TOTAL - 2050 SF (22 3%) TOTAL - 4428 SF (38 6%) (20 2%LOI) '■ ' ' ^\\ A existing house PROPOSED boathouse - 370 SF 4.0X \\'\OESCWPTION; . LOTS 14 & 15. SHAOYWOOO. HENN. CO. MN > 20600 SF 0.47 AC PO § 17-117-23-21-0020 AOORESS ■ 1740 SHAOYWOOO ROAD |fo83»H8I* fuP- U;is.» s ^1-, ...............liitniifii' fi Mini m iiKifiii' >1'll iiiiHi»ini[i jmmGaEJm ItntmmiKk ftm tX£imvOk\ r-w-. \ [r \ r--^A. .^11 r, >- I > ■ ifeT 1‘- o CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay* MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #03-2962 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 16,2004 TO: Robert and Joanne Switz COPIES: 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: January 12,2003 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To table, and refer back to the Planning Commission for a new recommendation at their January 20,2004 meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available firom the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. r CITY OF ORONO 2750 Krllcy Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 03-2962 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 18, 2003 TO: Robert and Joanne Switz 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot Area, Structural Coverage and Hardcover Variances DATE OF MEETING: November 17.2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Denial consistent with the following staff recommendation: 1. 2. Appr''- val of the 1 area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, January 12,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was icceived on October 22, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on December 21, 2003. However, due to your inability to attend the November 24, 2003 or December 8, 2003 City Council meetings, the earliest potential date of fmal Council action falls after the 60- day period ends. Therefore, the 60’day reviev period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to February 19,2004. i r M3-29«Z November 17,200} Page 1 of 7 Date Application Received: 10>22-O3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10«22*03 00*Day Review Period Expires: 12-21-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner November 14,2003 03-2962, Robert and Joanne Swtz, 1740 Shadywood Road - Lot Area, Hardcover and Structural Coverage Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR- 1C. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (‘/i minimum) 0.47 acres (20,624 s.f.) 120 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new home: 1 . Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in sire when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% cunently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Sta^Recommendation: Staff recommendations the following; 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed, 2. Denial of the lot coverage by strucnires variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to ailow 44% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone w hen 38.8% currently exists and 25®/o is normally allowed. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: IZ^ }' ¥. » Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet)From Yard (feet)Side Yard (feel)Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (fca) 0.5 100 30 10 30 15 Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lotsofO-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessor^ structures shall not IV03-2962 NovcmNr 17,2003 Page 2 of7 exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. Sec. 78*282. Lakesbore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-1 A, LR- IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281 . Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form Exhibit C — Existing and Proposed Survey Exhibit D - Existing Footprint Exhibit E - Proposed Footprint Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Elevations Exhibit H - Floor Plans Exhibit I - Aerial Photograph Exhibit J - Drawing Showing Building Pat at 15% Exhibit K - Plat Map Exhibit L - Property Owners List Background The applicants have bought this property under the contingency that the appropriate approvals are received from the City. The cunent conditions on the lot consist of nonconforming hardcover in the 0-75’ zone and 75-250 ’ zone. The applicants are proposing to tear down the existing home and construct a new home completely within ^5-250 zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove the existing boathouse. In doing this, a standard lot area variance and a hardcover and structural coverage variance are still required to construct the proposed home. The applicants have met with staff to discuss their proposal and what the City consistently requires with rebuild situations. The applicants are aware that the hardcover t 9 ! 1 M3-2962 November 17,2003 Page 3 of7 and structural coverage proposals are excessive to what has been consistently approved with rebuild situations but have decided to move forward without any re-design. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width; LR-IC Lot Area Lot W idth Required 21,780 s.f. ('/j acre)100’ Actual 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)120’ Setbacks: LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Front 30 ’na n/a Rear 30 ’44’36 ’ Left Side 10’9’15’ Right Side 10’20 ’10’ Lakeshore 75’60 ’ (house) 55’(deck)75’ Average Lakeshore 52 ’53 ’75’ (not including any decks) Structural Coverage! Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)••Mlowed; 3,094 s.f (15%) Proposed: 3,895 (19%) | Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 9,200 s.f Os.f (0%) 2,050 s.f* (22%) 0s.f (0%) 75-250 11,424 s.f 2,856 s.f (25%) 4,428 s.f* (39%) 5,027 s.f (44%) f . ♦ After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds M3-2962 Nevcmbtr 17,200J Page 4 of? Lot Area Variance The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild a new home. Because Ac lot is only 0.47 acres in area when 0.50 acres is normally allowed a lot area variance is required. The lot meets Ae widA requirement of 120’ when 100’ is required. Hardcover Variance Cunently a large home exists within boA Ac 0-75 ’ zone and Ae 75-250 ’ zone. The applicants are proposing to tear down this structure and rebuild a new home entirely within Ae 75-250 ’ zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove Ae boaAouse near Ae shoreline, Acreforc no variance is required for Ae 0-75 ’ zone. However, Ae applicant is proposing a 3,895 s.f. home, 72 s.f. of walk, and 1,060 s.f. of driveway in Ae 75-250 ’ zone which puts the hardcover for Ae zone at 44% requiring a variance. Lot Coverage by Structures Variance The applicants are proposing to tear down Ae existing house and rebuild a structure 3,895 square feet in size. This figure doesn’t include any second story decks. This proposed house footprint puts Ae lot at 19% structural coverage when 15% is allowed Aus requiring a variance. The existing house meets Ae 15% structural coverage limit. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding Ae application. Hardship Analysis tn considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In lltt surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for varlanca from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instanca where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and s'’oll recommend approval only when it is demonstrated t!tat such actions will be In keeping wUh the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that Aerc are no viable hardships to approve Ae hardcover and structural coverage variances as proposed. Staff would consider supportmg a hardcover variance due to the shallowness of Ae lot and Ae need for a driveway tum-around however, not Ae proposed 44%. This 44% also doesn’t include any decking or patio and staff feels Aat the 44% has Ae potential to get even larger in Ae future. Staff has advised the applicants to re-work their proposal to allow for a minimal driveway, front walk and some decking or patio. The applicants have been advised Aat staff is not entirely opposed to a hardcover variance how ever Ae proposal needs to be re-worked to a hardcover percentage much less Aan Ae proposed 44%. The applicants are also proposing a variance to allow 19% structural coverage. Staff advised Ae applicants that variances to this requirement are hardly ever granted on M3-2962 November IT. 2003 PiSeSof? rebuild situations. Staff will hold to this suggestion as new homes have consistently been held to 15%. No hardship exists to allow structural coverage in excess of 15% due to the allowable building pad of 3,093 square feet as shown on Exhibit J. This is more than double what the ordinance allows for in particularly small lots where a minimum of IpOO square feet is allowed. Staff would support a lot area variance as this is a routine variance which is required with rebuild situation.' where the lot doesn’t meet the area requirement for the respective zoning district. The lot is a legal lot of record which requires approval of this variance request. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undt:s hardship” pertinent to this application: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." A reasonably sized home could be placed on the lot meeting all requirements. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property cci created by the landowner.* There are no circumstances unique to this property which would justify graming of the variances as proposed. Staff has indicated that a hardcover variance could be explored due to the shallowness of the lot and the need for a turnaround tia 44% is excessive to what has consistently been approved with rebuild situations, as is the 19% structural coverage. A reasonably sized home could be constructed on the lot meeting all requirements. 'The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localitv'.* The nature of the lot at shown in Exhibit 1 is smaller lots with modest footprirjs and 2-2 Vj story homes. This house as proposed may alter the essential character of the LR-IC zoning locality along Shadywood Road “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an tmdue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicant has indicated that her older parents would be moving in which causes the needfor a larger house. This lot fits within the applicant's budge: however, stafffeels that this lot cannot support the amount of hardcover and structural coverage the applicants feel they need. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a . ------ Ll, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. W3-3M2 Novcmbtr 17,2003 Page 6 of7 variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” Mol applicable “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” Not explicable “The special conditions applying to the stmeture or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." There are no special conditions applying to the structure or land in question which are peculiar to it or immediately adjoining property. Staff had indicated that a hardcover variance may be warranted but not to the level which the applicant has proposed. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." Many of the lots along Shadywood Road and throughout the lakeshore are substandard as they currently exist. The City has consistently required that at the time of rebuild the property should be brought as close to conformance as possible. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The lot can be reasonably developed as a single family home. The needs of the applicant may be beyond what this lot can support. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, coirfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning The granting of this application will be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and be contradictory to standards of which rebuild situations have consistently been held to. ' "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The granting of this variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardships. Issues for Consideration 1.• ^ 1Q2.3 reasonable for this lot when 15% is the limit .^ 2. What level of hardcover variance might the Commission consider if any? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following:1 r M»>2962 November 17.2003 Pa|e7of7 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size vdien O.SO acres is normally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. iiiiiiail^abaib EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original s^plicatioa) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcadon # Date Received f Amount Paid ^^ PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address {*740 SV^ouj ^ A _____ Property Identification Number (P.ID.^ SLi Co-IjO Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______ I (do) (do not) also own the ^jacent parcels of land. Present use”jf property: iXresidantial ___pother (specify). Zoning District:______________________________ _(month/year) APPLIC^rr . , ^ ^ Phone ^49 oTv^ Name Robgrt Q^l^cL JoctyNtne. Phone (work) ^$*3*» ^ i"?» Address:/TQg>o City. SUor«.i^QoA Z‘P- \ Lav\«ie ** OWNER (if different than applicant) * Phone (home) Name ~t?4‘£> ^ fHAMi La»i - T?.«iAM<i>wPhone (work) Address: I -7*4 rs ^t.tCity. Orni^n rAAJ Zip; SiT3lt DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S C,lTC>.ooO, qq Describe request in detail: ^rv>n 1 ;4-,o>o -gw:t«rU^g (attach additional sheets if necessary)' t'-Tkvg TTVi^n -ObEl. ^ n. a ^ 1 I r\cr _________________ f1-. OW»|^ VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Lot Width ]>C Hardcover ot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS undue h^rd^hin or nrartJral diffimli-i/ nr unnenol ICi ^ VTA' U/\JU FlVV/rC. 1\I 1 1 Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual prcpert>- conditions preventing comnliapce with Zoninc Code reouirenientc' l i«wU r , ^ ^ tirLrcompliance with Zoning Code requirements: LoV Siae. 1# r\^'Y\r *TKg- io4- L S cOu^g. Vifff- (attach additional sheets if n^essar>) M-TTVci iri€^ u-> 1 vLve. n {n inn^ y «*jC«-Lg> -irp \ o4- ft (attach additional sheets if nn< jL\'S .1 t4-ft /'A g.oc>g r ' # %o REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. Completed Application Fonn °L°r:,plat map (you must Govt Center, 348-5910) ^ Department of Finance, A-603, ““ “"“O' '“Ocov.rreproduction, '’“““‘e one (1) copy SW x 11- for 5. 6. 7. 8. a. in addition, provide one rr«"Jti,r.’’'T * "«™Uon views (provide one (1) con'v 8V xTfi List of the legdl names (include marital statue^ g\f aiiEKiTrjss'?«rT?!''r?^ *■you wish notified of this aSoo. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. ■ The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this apnlicaticn. PI,,.. „ , airlmt application i, not ,on.n.... In”,,, fo oV ‘„Thee?r^^^^^^ ““ APPLICi^’S SIGNATURE Adni^o,. ^ die ZaaiiiiS2"i,rs “ t'E-.-SKS,"“.Tffss: Appl’cant's Signature Date . I g ^ OWNER'S SIGNAT^ IE tt'X“!^t'or; iteL? ““ «« members for purposes of invettigation’and verificalionTte'^X”!” rr‘ M«&r Co^Sn Me«tgs°^;lld on'fo^ t7u Applicants must be present at all schedul^H r*vt ** * t^itrd Monday of each month. Council. If an applLtu” Me" autd I « d^lS m*'the Hanning Commission nnd have an authorized agent attend in your dace and to ndv* arrangements to change prior to the rneeting. ^ ^ & Zoning Office of this '~a % r .s # 1 iAi nUUiM EXHIBITS Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) lyig S'Mm of HSS> S//Apy£. D [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed imorovement or proposed use of the property located at __/ *7 V6 S //ATfi^^palso referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires CqCmcil approval. _(7cr~ /.P Date Property Owner Per /y Date I (we) A\a»o t^. [print name(s)][print address] hava reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at \"7q<» ____also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (wc) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confim for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner ^ ~^7~Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. , 41 O: '■ iJ % • .S # tXiSTWG HOUSE garage o Kz< r P’ > Ml I .ivll SCALE IN f^EET - EXtSIWC SPOT ELEVATION. PROPOSED SPOT aEVATON DACCTION SURfACr ORANACE EXISTING \ I HOlJJ^l I f who nji I fe; I —r^:: 5S %?■ *o rT\ y garage ' u* /\! \i1 %L\m_--J \ har Jcover 1M24 sr X VSX - 2B5B IIC AllWO751 - EXIST house - 2665 sr STEPS ■ 140 Sf WALK - 68 ST DRIVE « 1200 SF LANOSC. * 3SS SF TOTAL - 4428 SF (38 8X) PROPOSED house •• 3893 SF WALK - 72 SF drive - 1060 SF TOTAL - 5027 Sf (440*) rASr 125.46 • 0-75 - 9200 SF -f^---------------------- EXIST EXISTNC HOUSE house - 450 sf proposed DECK - 670 SF BOATHOUSE ■ 370 SF BOATKSC - 370 SF 4.0X LANOSC. • 560 Sf TOTAL - 2050 SF (22.3X) ■ , ■ v\\\ , '.k 5\ m Vrf*:-' x\'\ OCSCRiPTlON* ' LOTS 14 * 15. SHAOYWOOO. Htl4N CO. Mil 20600 SF 0.47 AC PC I 17-117-23-21-0020 ADDRESS - 1740 SHADYWOCn ROAD <S d 1 2 CXISTINC HOUSE GARAGE S 89^57' 48" E . ■ .............w^ 165.95 UHECTlON SURF ACT ORAtMCi SCALE IN FEET - EXSTNC SPOT EllVATlON. h ' *(5980). PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION Ir— CONC l«l HAU ' har Jcover 11424 SF X 25X - 2856 MC ALLWO PROPOSED HOUSE - MSS SL' WALK - 72 SF DRIVE “ 060 SF TOTAL - 502/ y (44.05) JC*LV:S^ house « 2865 SF STEPS - 140 SF WALK » Bn SF DRIVE - 1200 SF LANOSC. - J35 SF total • 442H ST (Max) EAST 125.46 • 0-7S ■ 9200 y -t------------------------- tAiST EXISTING nOUSE HOUSE « 450 SF PROPOSED " V3. X boatho -jse » 370 y BOATHSE " 370 SF 4 (jji LANOSC. - S60 y TOTAL « 2050 (22.3X) \ W- \- -> nr<irQi:>Tmja LOTS W & 15. S-iAC-AOOO. HOK CO. Wt 20E00 y 0.4 7 t-Z PC r 17-ll7-23-2l-?020 AOCRcSS - 1740 SHiOrwOCD RO ao 27 zy> « * > I r: 5 i r. p)Q (XlSTIfl^ conditions EXISTING HOUSE r r,i '" " 'll ll' 0 l\\ '.ll ;: vx 'f:'\\iu “‘”’“ j - - -I \i - 1\ I \ - ' \ 'uV'' SCALE IN FEET • fXiSTNC SPOT nrVATlON X(998.0)- PROPOSCO SPOT C'.IVATIUI - ORECTKJN SURfACE ORANACE -ii' ..S»-'Vf"•’’’I'Viv \ yi?. 754. tWST MOUSE ■ STEPS WALK - DRIVE - LANDSC. TOTAL • 11424 . 2S65 sr - 140 SF as ST 1200 ST - 335 ST • 4420 SF (38JX) >'* HAROCOVER X 25X o 2856 HC AILWO PHUPOStO HOUSE • 3695 SF WALK - 72 SF DRIVE - 1060 SF CAST f 25.46 r ?• - 9200 SF EXIST Fa ISTING house HOUSE - 450 SF PROf*OSCO ?r BOATHO>jj£ - 3/0 VDOATHSE • 370 ST 4.011 TOTAL - 5027 57 (44.0X) LANOSC. - 360 SF TOTAL - 20S0 SF (22 3*) OTSCRlRTlON' LOIS 14 A 15, SMAOYWOOO. HENN. CO. UN. 20600 SF 0 47 AC PC § 17-117-23-21-0020 AOpikSS 1740 SHAOYWOCO ROAO X k S: 2d ^ qqS: 8 I sk (/) toQ SS (o lo • m J I foolprtVE, 4nV4, 4 proposed EXHIBIT F HARDCQ^EB CALCULATION WORKSHEET ItTBACK 20N1> (CtMCLE ONE) 7^0 ?MS®' ISO-SOC SM>1000* IKMTPIC HA«PCQ\TR IW ZQM A. Hoiii*4-^0 lM0th wum X X X S.F s.f s.f B. Ovate C. Dri'eway X X SF S.F 3. Sidmik E. PtiiaDcck X X ..SB.if S.F 14.^X 1 4S ^7 0 SF. SF. F. LudKspe Uadviaia X X X SF. SF. SF G. OAm 14.0 'h'io SF. A A TOTAL HARDCOVEK IN ZONE total property area in ZOM _____________B ____________ * B ___ X too X t oo ..S3rQOrro SF. A SF. B % BROPOSEn UAQBCovTn IW y/iMT. A. Hottie _____________ * UnfA V>dUi B Cange C. Driveway O. SldewaA E. Paiic/Deck F. Ccdcriain By Punic SF. SF SF. SF. SF. SJ. SF. SJ. Sf. SF. SF. SF. C. Other 14.0 1,10 SF. HARDCOVER IN ZONE A 'hlO TOTAL PROPERTY AREA DC ZONE _ _ _ _ ♦ B _ _ X too - S.F. - 4*0 A B % \^iAr : 'Y/a 1 f4 o - *U \ c- fr ^'ij H . A* ♦ ♦ i'' A HARDCOVER CUCULAHON WORKSHEET fITBACK ZONSt (ClACLE ONI) O-TI' mniMC HAiiiCQ>iR in mm A Houw 190-iir SIO-IOM' - 7.(oC»S s.p »ua X X X SF Sf If B. Qyt^t C Da%cWE> int>. Afipv;!- S'2.X X il££.sf ________S.F D. Sidnnlk X s fiQ S.F. _____S.K. B. P«9«A5^ snoop 1 t U4 VF _ SF. .. i, •• 7 - •. *1 * (0 PWin EUVATloU (ll (ll Pram; StoiWMMtf Pm S«rv«r Ma^TI-OSSB To: City gf Orona Get 91 09 OOsQOa ChPtseifi# N. Kidon Data. lOa 1/2003 Tbna. •.02:3i /UM •9a*44i>ll94 Pigs 3 of 2 F-» iiaj® iKIIJliN'.' — -r-- ^ * ipTi rnHi p X t K\ 3 (4 6'<7 Iz-C?” ir-f/i'* OO !"^ B il T t4 f A»'4Wftl £#r«*vi It,* »ti* 10 'f • t/ fmum> \fr\tT nr-16* V4 <1 £dP^ cWahcJ /*»r* ■“ ^ not ii'ci oo ft O III 0 CO <M M 01 n y 1 in ft 3 3; a 3 !. CO CO fU I «o 01 Iru f. CO ( .A./ • V 0\nw^ '• '‘i-f)*1 « *• .1 trI. V T •I :••m ni ?:• .. ■• ••■ .iiubtei *ifii rr • • • /V s_.•• • ••. ,V*ii h ■■ L— HEAFiH/piamc. *•Lte Ji ✓ ^.WM ■i—>.....-c MVlHtn M — rn^TTr P#W I tfflLAj JT ni»(r fwof- riAiJ "TtJl > < ,t.i ' r ’v. • * ^ * t*II If -0—1— I—1 -'»—il*- bewvH 3 ^/^r>ur> tnmpL, nAVi ^ iiif tiitiArti ■ :*:* • •' L. ■'ll ■ v" , ■ • ■. V /•• ■ •.' ■» • •••:.-•■ ' • ft- *1* '' • •* ' /• •'• •'/ • ■/./• ■ ...........................- ■•^tr -%.nv • . -• y - L---— ■ ^ ^ m / -r ■ ' ri&Ix « •• .• 'S' --J •V,M Rifi r,flV- ;4tr< 2£^r<mmi mk n i V- .'> m ■p'-v B«^H1KK57f3T4m^BU ' ' V' *'ijr •('’• .r-.y-.v,: ^rlHi ■"J • • .»Q>i.n . « V , 4 ,. ' . . j ,v ' . •• ••• ' .■ ■■■.,.■• ■ ■. ••’' •• ,5 . ' ' . . >4 .; 'V ; - •' '•■.>•■• ■5>' Si “• Z?£ \ao UJm I § d «VJ q 5 o ’IT*o i Qj;^ 55* $ CQCl^ s JrU to Q Q» |>)0 sSto (o 754^ tXiST HOUSE - SrtPS WALK - DRIVE • LANOSC. TOTAL - >'’■ ■ HARlkoVER 11424 SF K 2SX - 2856 S\ MC ALL WO PROPOSED2665 ST ■ 140 sr 88 ST 1200 SF - 335 SF 4426 SF (38 8X) HOUSE « 3895 SF WALK - 72 SF 018VE « 1060 SF TOTAL « 5027 SF (44 0X) €ASr 125.46 0-75 - 9200 SF tWST * E>ISTING HOUSE " J52 H HHOPosioDECK - 670 ST OOATHOjiE • 370 SF BOATHSE * 370 SF ^ LANOSC. - 560 ST TOTAL ■ 2050 SF (22 3t) 40X OtSCWPTON: LOTS 14 It 15. SHAOYWOOO. HEWi CO. MN. 20600 sr 0.47 AC PC I 17-117-25-21-0020 ADDRESS - 1740 SHAOYWOOO ROAD K. • ^ i rn gto H tm EXHIBIT K j?rZjSv He.nncj>4n Hennepin CouhW *» ** .,•••■' . • i \ M ^ fc* •* fcParcel Information .'• \f ,.A • •*.. \. . i - ■•'• . . . -'^“arcel ID 1711723210020 >• W' ... A ; ■ . . t ..*.•*•• ouse Numbar 1740 . •••- *. .% . .. ■ * - • - ., -..v • ■• .^J."r StrMt Name SHADYWOOD RD . “ *'v • ■This Is not s IsgslyncofM msp. It rsprsssnts s eemfistfOH’titnhimsbonY snddats from City. County, snd Stats msdauthoiltisssndstkrsouress."'. "1 ----^ llUN0A11::t( 31 1711723210002 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONI-D OWNER NAME A A D FINKELSTEIN j/^p^VER ARTHUR A DOROTHY nNKClSTEIN NAME/ADDR W33 I04TH AVE N MAFLC GROVE MN SS309 3H I7II77UMMNNI |•HUI'AIM)H 3H ADDRESS UNANSKINlit) OWNER NAME IIENNEFIN FORI'EtTI-D LAND TAXPAYER CnYOI'ORONU NAME/ADOR POUOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 3S I7II7232IOOI9 PROPADOR 1720 shady wood RO OWNER NAME ALANRKOZICKY TAXPAYER AI-AN R KOZICKV NAME/ADOR I720SD\OYWOOORO WAYMTAMN 55391 3N I7II73J2I0032 PROP AODR 17«0 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNERNAME DAVID IIEISS A HOUY M EiSS TAXPAYER DAVID IIA HOLLY M BBS NAME/ADOR 17MSIUDYWOOORD WAYZATAMN 55391 HENNEPIN CX3UNTYPROPI INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWi.utS LIST 31 1711723210003 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME A A D FtNKELSTEIN TAXPAYER ARTHUR A DOROTHY NNKELSTEIN NAME/ADOR 9933 MMTH AVE N MAPLE GROVE MN 5S369 31 I7II7232IOOOS PROPADOR 1719 FAGERNESS POINT RD OWNERNAME LAUREENEOARUNG TATCPAYER LAUREEN E DAR1.INO NAME/AOI3R 1719 FAGERNESS POINTED WAV/ATAMN 55391 3P l7ll7732IIHNt7 I'KUPADDH 3H ADDUliSS UNASSHjNi;U OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CIIYOFORONO NAME/AODR P 0130X66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 3H I7II7232IIMIIII PROPADDR 1710 SIIADYWUODRD OWNER NAME JOI IN P FIT/PATRICK TAXPAYER JOI IN P11 IV.PATRICK NAME/ADDR 1710 SIIADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723210020 PROPADDR 1760 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNERNAME TOAMLSWANSON TAXPAYER THOMAS B k MARILYN L SWANSON NAME/ADOR 1740 SIIADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 I7II7232I002I PROPADDR 1730 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNERNAME GRETCHENSSHAW TAXPAYER ORETCI lEN S SI lAW NAME/ADDR 1730 SIIADYWOOD RO WAYZATAMN 35391 38 1711723210023 PROPADDR 1770 SHAOYWOOORD OWNERNAME DANIELPOtX)NOOHUEETAL TAXPAYER DANIEL P ODONOOHUE NAMli/ADCR I770SHADYWOODRD WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY TIIATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TTIUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTI OS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOVYLEDGE ANDBEUEP. DAT e/0~^*^-^ BY m PAGE: I ©I V •• t i 1^.1 t % Date Application Received: 10-22-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12*29-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 03-07-04 f^Ot*^*^** S^FFTING FEii 9 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO Date: Febmary 3,2004 Item No ^ Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner_____ Adminbtrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2965 - Scott Sennes of Sennes Design Build on behalf of Franz & Kersten Jevne, 819 Brown Road North - Lot Area, Lot Width and Side Setback Variances - Resolution _________ Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential 2 acre minimum 1.0 acre 150.03* List of Exhibits: A. Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B. PC Action Notice 01-23-04 C. PC Memo & Exhibits as of 01-20-04 D. Engineering Report from Ulteig Engineers, Inc dated January 23,2004 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, and side setback variances in order to construct a new residence using the existing foundation on a lot which is substandard in lot area and lot width. ____________________ Planning Commbsion Recommendation On January 20,2004, Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the variances as requested. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420, SUBDIVISION B FILE NO. 03-2965 WHEREAS, Franz A Jevne VI and Kersten N Jevne, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the ovMiers of the property located at 819 Brown Road North within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: The North 150 feet of the South 354.75 feet of the East 323.4 feet of the Southwest Quarter except the road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); tmd WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420, Subdivision D for lot width and lot area variances and to allow a side yard setback of 24 ’ when 30’ is required, for construction of a new residence upon the existing foundation. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File »03-2965. The property is located in the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200 ’. The property contains 43,819 s.f. (1.0 acre) and a lot width of 150.03’. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on January 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the variances based on the following findings: a. No additional land is available for acquisition by the applicants to make the property conforming in area or width. Page 1 of 5 ■ ■si.. JJ ‘i 4. 5. b. The property is served with municipal sewer. c. The existing foundation can structurally support new construction of a two story home. d. A reasonably sized 2-stall garage , when using the existing foundation, could not be located on either the north or south sides of the home without variances. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B to allow a new residence to be constructed on a lot with substandard area and width, and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B to allow a side yard setback of 24’ where a 30’ setback is required, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Page 2 of 5 t £ ; ! ! : i 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 9,2005). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9"’ day of February 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownerfs) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Cleric of the City of Orono, a Miimesota-» -----------— , , ^ -------------- ---------------------^ --------- , municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 i % State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by______________, wife of Franz A Jevne VI. day of ^2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by______________, husband of Kersten N Jevne. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 5 of S y 09 H > EXHIBIT B CITYOFORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 03-2965 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: Januaiy 23,2004 TO: Sennes Design Build COPIES: Franz & Kersten Jevne Scott Sennes 4005 W 44*^ Street 7801 Park Drive Unit A Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55424 ^ * TYPE OF REQUEST: Lot Area, Lot Width, and Side Setback Variances DATE OF MEETING: Januaiy 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the requests as submitted. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, Febniaiy 9,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm___________ If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiuiing Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. 1 ( ; i I ( EXHIBIT C FlLEi03>2965 January 7.2004 Page1 of5 7 Date Application Received: 10-22-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12-29^3 6(KDay Review Period Expires: 01-07*04 60-Day Review Period Extended to: 03-07-04 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, City Planner l|j[Q Date: January 7,2004 Subject: 03-2965, Sennes Design Build for Franz & Kersten Jcvne, 819 Brown Rd, - Variances - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum 1.0 acre (43,819 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance in order to remodel an existing home on the existing foundation and to allow a garage within 24.1’ feet of the side yard where 30’ is required._________________________________ SUtff Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the side setback variance to allow a side setback of 24.1 for the garage, and bonus room as designed, where a 30’ setback is required. Hardship:_______________________________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Lot Area (acres) Lot Width (feet) Front Yird (feet)Side Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 2U0 50 30 50 50 List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. Original Proposed Survey D. Existing & Revised Proposed Survey/Site Plan Background E. Proposed Plans and Elevations F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations G. Photos H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map The existing home is on a 1.0 acre property within a 2 acre zone. The applicants are proposing an extensive remodel of the home, adding additional living space vvhile utilizing the existing foundation. Initially, the iq)plicants were requesting a 10.7’ setback from the side lot line where 30’ is required. After discussions with staff, the applicants 1 FILE#03-2965 January 7. 2004 Page 2 of 5 have revised their plan to extend no further into the side setback than existing resulting in the request for a 24.2 ’ setback where 30’ is required. The requested side yard setback variance of 5.8’ is in order to utilize the existing foundation on the south side of the garage and continue the plane of the garage toward the rear yard to change the 3*stall front loading to a 2>stall front loading and a 1 -stall side loading garage. The applicants have propose^ this change as the result of the meetings with staff and their hope to minimize har .cover on the lot Note that while a major driveway expansion is proposed, hardcover limits will not be exceeded. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth; RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,210 s.f (2 acre)200' Actual 43,560 s.f (1.0 acre)150’ Setbacks; Structural Covcrase: RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50’140’140’ Rear 50’110’110 ’ South Side 30’24.7’24.1’ North Side 30’53’53’ Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 43,819 s.f. (1.0 acre)Allowed: 6,572.8 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,876 s.f (6.5%) FILE#03<2965 January 7.2004 Page 3 of 5. Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone 250 - 500 500-1000 Total Area in Zone 18,430 s.f. 25,139 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 5.529 s.f (30%) 7541.7 s.f (35%) Existing Hardcover 407 s.f * (2.2 %) 3.893 s.f* (15.5 %) Proposed Hardcover 643 s.f (3.5 %) 7,938 s.f (31.6%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance The applicants have proposed to extensively remodel their home while utilizing the existing foundation. The proposal is \ inually a total rebuild, but re-using much of the foundation for cost savings. There will be two new areas of additional square footage where foundation will be installed. The new living space will consist of 288 s.f, 24 s.f and 20 s.f additions to the home and a 230 s.f addition to the garage. The applicants are requesting to maintain the substandard setback in order to continue the existing line of the building with the garage addition. The applicants have also requested that the 2"*^ story addition also maintain the substandard side setback. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and antic^ated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall coraider recommending approval for variances from the literal provislotu of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval ottiy when It is demorutrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds potential justification for granting the side setback variance including substantial separation from neighboring homes, and the minor magnitude of continuing the side line of the house at essentially the same setback. Also, if the existing foundation was not being reused, there would be absolutely no need for a variance. The house foundation however is substantially centered on the site with only 15’-16 ’ to the south setback line or 22 ’-23 ’ to the north setback line, so that creating a 2-car garage on either side would be difficult or impossible without a variance, or require the garage to be forward or rearward of the house. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship ” pertinent to this application: F1L£»03«2965 January 7.2004 Page 4 of 5 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.** A reasonable home can be constructed on the lot meeting setbacks. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.** 3. ‘*The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.** The reduced setback would not have any greater impact than that of the existing home. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.** The foundation is being reused in part to reduce costs for the remodel. However, the applicant has not indicated economic considerations as a hardship. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.** N/A 6. **The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.** N/A 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.'* N/A 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.*’ The property is a 1.0 acre parcel located within a 2-acre zone. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.** Many of the surrounding properties meet the zoning requirement of 2-acres. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. ! t I \ ] I 1 FILEi03-296S January 7,2004 PagaSofS 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 11 . “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The applicants' wish to reuse the existing foundation in order to affordably remodel their home could be viewed as a request of convenience. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? 1 . Is an upward expansion to create a garage with a V2 story bonus room above more intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low one-story garage? Will either expansion have negative visual impacts? 2. Should ^s project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If viewed as a rebuild, should it meet all zoning requirements, including setbacks? Under the proposed ordinance this would be considered a total rebuild. 3. Is the applicants’ desire to reuse the existing foundation with a substandard setback considered a hardship? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, to allow a side setback of 24.r where 30 ’ is required, in order to construct an expanded one-story garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: I. All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk envelopes shown on the attached plan. ' d'l mil I I 'iiiiuiiiiltfiift' EXHIBIT A Application # 03*" ^ Date Received lo- Amount Paid ^ Q^O . ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confoiming structures S2S0.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address UM^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired..(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: .^Residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_______ _________________ APPLICANT Name ANT Phone (home) Vi l/JU. Phone (9^) 9^^ 4^/- 357/ Address:1PvM PA«^wg. D>2.We_______ Zio: OWNER (if different than applicant) Namel^t.AAl2»i^ ^TfeJKJic Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address: tpn<’ u) ^ \ )krT A- City: pni/J/t.Zip:jS2£ZZV DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S pg. y/uco €»err fhAdc. -m / Agjsg L jctt _________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover .Lot Coverage Rea’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: \AJILl. gXg/T '2^*g>3 (attach additional sheets if necessity) O'*\ V •• •i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS a’ • All 9f thf feJIgwiog iuformptipffi fnusf t>e submitted bv the applicatioii deadline date in nrrf.r for vour applicatioii tn h> -----.JJl. ----a_ ip 1. 2. Completed Application Form plat map (you must ^ GoTc™^1-J w9iS »f Fi^“. A-603, 3.Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy iVi" x 11" for 4. 5. 6. / reproduction. ■'-Sr5;±?£« 7. 8. K 1 V«r--------- v«7 o/j All lor rcproouction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*/i" x 11") - pX » -h'^ ^------9iaiua; ui au persons ^iin an interest property. Tfos would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addend^ to this appUcation, please attach a separate Usl of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. V8 ri4R?t PPplk8tl9 1LirD^t0^ri^irte7r APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE m .pplicfflt hereby agrees to provide all information tequired or requested by the Zonina Admuust^or, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coveted by original fee payment) and/or consultant «pens« uicuned in review of this appUcation. and cetti^ suppked IS true and correct to the best of his/her tepwledge. Applicant's Signature Date/^> OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable me^bS for^Lmor'^f^^^ Commission members, and Councilmembers for purposes of mvestigauon and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planmng Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning CommissioTand Council. U an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please mJkt arrangemen “to c^Tp“ rhir ” ^ / / / ’-''v •W-' ./>' i #, «vj I I • 7 .V I ij M EXHIBIT B The following itatements are submitted with this variance application to describe the conditions tint exist and will exist as a result of this remodeling project. CURRENT CONDITIONS: The front yard setback is currently non-conforming to today’s ordinance since it was built in the 1960's to the then current ordinance. The set back is, however, consistent with all the other houses in the neighborhood REASONS FOR GRANTING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE: The owners feel that this is a teasomble request because: • The owners like and enjoy the neighborhood and city but have a need to make the home more livable for their needs for now and in the future. • The remodeling project will add character and esthetics while not creating conflict with the other homes in the neighborhood. • The ownen are taking the extra effort to make sure that the home has architectural character and appeal. • The project presents additions to the home, which are both functional and meant to enhance the livability of this home. • All of die elements of this project represent reasonable requests for enhancing an existing home. • The home, even with the proposed changes, would be consistent with the intent of the ordnances that were current when the home was originally built • Keeping the addition in the suite plane, and therefore compact, would not add unduly to the hvdcover of this property. u o n ■ ->• // ^j I mi mm m m m I5 3 o EXHIBIT CAPPED 17725 1016.0 OUNO 1/2" KM PPC NORTW UNE OF THE SOUTH 354.75 FEET S 87*4r24 ’* E 290.46 rs ZO' XlOli.7 X102I.7 { X101SJ X 1013.6 4o’. 16 ’ PINE •J0I4. XIQIO I ^ t _ ___ xW5.0 ^ ^ ^ ' / \ i ^I X10IM / \ X1012\4 o ■ — ...aunira / I ICANmEVER / / I 1 108.9 -?!?!’ •'ors____ X1017.1 proposed ADDCnON 1017.1 ^ ^ V‘ / 2.6 lAPLE id ■'0/a. 1017.0 [1016.0 X1016.S 1017J,DECK .PRL AOOnON (oiat .PROP,ADDITION ^.L FOUND iron #77W ElyOF UNE 00^41 .TONE FAMING WALL OOl.tf 997.1 1016.1001.7 proposed ^ AobnioN/ CF«1016.W driveway 1001.6 [996.4 X 996.0 105.2 1019.01^ \lOl7.1X 101 At X ^ ; X10I6J,^ X1016.7 • 1017A X101A5 X1»6.2 11006.8 101A2, XlOIAt 996.7 found CAPPED IRON |n25 996. 101A6' I8i^ FROM OMili 290.46 S 87*47*24" E 994.6* ' b) fm -f ___ -------...L.it iJL HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-TS 75-250’ ryi5mNC bardcover in zone A. House ____________ X Lafdi X X X B. Cange C Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E PatioiDeek X X F. Landscape Underiaio By PUsdc X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B X 100 wnnpnigxn HARPCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ X VM0I E Cange C Driveway D. Sidewalk E PadoDed:X X F. Landscape Underiam By Plastic X X X a Other •;ct:TOTAL HARDCOVER IN Zl TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE nAM__ B X100 lb ff* f BIT FZi I \ >' ■, //‘ O -/K: ? ; r'.' ', - ‘ V ^r - S<.^-o;Vv ^ * - . ' 1 > " r .—. ■—■ -dLAj^-rViv;' ■:■.■ ■■,: '":? «' k.• >• *T»'. > ^ A *W / I .'K*' .ki,': r^'Vv, «♦ ?!'m- •*:- f ■'■'<= P'^*'\--*?/;;A.v‘-■ - '•♦/■' n &A.X: • •r^Sy, ^ ■„■•-«.< ‘/J • . .-V “ *i'•• ■*' r - •^\'‘ ’'. ,•R^i&eJ 1^* N n , ’-f* • '■<”\v’ ■ ’’ 'M-tA ■•^SkS-' '\%»7• w • --TN>r "w »•.. ll-^'^J '>1/ ' N V- , -,v ,/'..\^5^V,:^^ ' / ^ ^ • *'J.ira p--; i .„ji j «ii /^ ' v; , r'* - -’r » V 'V , ■ £ s'" rrf:^ • • - '% * * •N' r V•iV- W^'/ er^ •*4»%^ <5'5-7^(*S 03- i. RUNDATE; ll«/2(D) 31 27IIS23340003 ntOPADOft 3t ADDRESS UNASSIGNeO OWNER NAME HOSSNPAT CONSTRUCTION INC TAXPAYER HOSSNPAT CONSTRUCTION INC NAME/AODR I«I05 3IST AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 33447 3t 27IIS23340006 PROPADDR W9 BROWNRDN OWNER NAME^UUrfTEKRRY TAXPAYER .LE^NHAHN^ NAME/AOOR MSBROWNHIT n tON(]I AKI:MN 31 27III2J430024 fROP ADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME THE FARM AT tX)NO LAKE TAXPAYER THE FARM AT LONG LAKE PTNSHP NAME/ADDR OO TIMOTHY ADAMS 1810 WF^T FARM ROAD lONOIAKI.MN 35356 sa t HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 3t 2711123340004 PROP ADOR S79 BROWN RD N OWNER NAME HOSSNPAT CONSTRUCTION INC TAXPAYER HOSSNPAT CONSTRUCTION INC NAME/ADDR 18105 3IST AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 33447 31 2711823340003 PROPADDR 819 BROWN RON OWNER NAME F A JEVNEIV A K N JEVNE TAXPAYER FRANZ A JEVNBIV NAME/ADDR 819 BROWN RO N LONG LAKE MN S33S6 38 2711823430013 PROPADDR 1993 WESTFARMRO OWNERNAME R LPARRISH A C J PARRISH TAXPAYER RICHARD L PARRISH NAME/ADDR 1W WEST FARM RD LONGIAKEMN 35336 38 2711823430022 PROP ADOR 1990 WEST FARM RD OWNERNAME AAMBRACHMAN TAXPAYER ARMANO E A MARY A BRACHMAN NAME/ADDR 1990 WEST FARM RD IjONOIAKHMN 33330 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND IKIJE KI'l'KF.Sl'NrAnONOF INI'OKMA I10N AS IT APPI!AI<STIIIS DATE ON Till! KI'COKDS OFTIIE HENNEPIN CCXJNIV TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TOTIIEIIEST ^ ,/yf oi-MV KNowi.i:i«ii-ANiMii:i ii-i-. y t'’* y y / date // ^ PAGE: I / ( » / ‘( V I • I I Jan 26 04 12:39p Sannas Dasien/Dui.ld Ine. jf#(-23-20e4 W!19 U.TEIQ rftS OONSUklWO KNWiaU IMCa 1M« 952-442-1044•ixtjarmoo I • ULTEK3 ENGINEERS, INC. OfTHCROfnCltFAnae.NO_•aNWROci®iiouiirAUJiW WEMITI: January 23,2004 exhibit d Sennas Dasign Build, liw. 7801 PtikOrtva. SuIttS Chwihastan, MN, 55317 Attn: Scott Saunas Ra- Ravlaw of Existiro Foundation to Support The Proposed Conatructlon. 819 Norti Braum Road Laka. MN UEI Prpjact No. 204.70 To Whom It May Concam; A8«l6imEIII 5S «<K2dby SollSnnM. of Swne. D«l9<> BuM. I«. g^|fownuwD Tt» Con»««r » h«* •"toundattoo to support 8»a propoaad consmictton. naaMVATIOWB AND CQIIMBflR 1. Tfl, lolowliw Wpnmikm w» owaiiwl f»ough »iKt Jason Hanlon, of UEI: ^Sta!!dSS'^S I* »<*«" w ol rtl» to topa. b. of wal. c. d. a.The eoH type at the site is sand. mum. opRoeTui0TYCMn.ona II Jan 26 04 12t39p jflN-23-2004 09U9 SMMt OMign BwIM. IM Sannas Oasign/Build Ino ULTEIG M4.S 952-442-1044 '^^^'35711168 P.kii F-4 January 23.2004 PaBt2 2. sw«OMlfli.BuM.tne.p«wi<l«l«»<in9tto«»l)«*o«)con^^ IpUCTUHAL REVIEW 3. A »weluril >»vt» 0* W '«««^ •» •W'** performed. The folowit^ iteme ere noted: The axioting foundation currently eupporta a floor jU®? ^ PfopoMdranatruction wilt add an addHional floor load to the The eidsOrtg teundalton waBa can be ulllliad to aupport the proposed oonalrucltoii a. b apOPMElOMAL I 4. It to my prolaa ilorral englneohng opinion that a. b. fifiimL angineertooludoinentarto protoaitonil practice. If you have any queidona, plaaae contact me. TOTAL P.es I :s M t i ; • . h Jan 26 04 12t39p Sennas Desicn/Build Ine. 952-442-1044 % idiNii Dnmi luiiD till ItlllMI Fax from; Fax: Datv: CC: □ iMoofr □ FOfifVCVIEW □PLS^ycCOMMSWr I 7£Cec y^-i^ 7;/^ SENNES DESIGN BUILD INC. Thank you ■I—I—I—I—» 7801 PARK DR. SUITE S. CHANHASSCN. MN 89317 H—I—♦—♦—t—I—I—H 1—I > -f I 1—t I » OFFICE # B82474'1300*FAX • 88a<470>1303 p. 1 t I i -^ Date Application Received: 12-I(H)3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12-29-03 60>Day Review Period Expires: 02-27-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COliM^M MPFTING fEB 9 2004 CITy OF ORO.\0 Date: February 3,2004 Item No Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner_____ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2967 - Sharon Rae Guimond - 2900 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permit to allow a Detached Accessory Structure on a Through Lot and a variance to the Oversized Accessory Structure Size Regulations - Resolution Zoning District: RP IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre minimum Lot Area: 2.0 acres (86,968 s.f.) Lot Width: 225’ List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 01-23-04 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 01-20-04 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to construct a 1,500 s.f. accessory structure on a through lot. The applicant also requests a variance in order to exceed the maximum size allowed for a single accessory structure by 300 s.f for the proposed pole bam. Planning Commission Recommendation On January 20,2004, Planning Commission voted S-1 to recommend approval of the variance and conditional use permit to allow the proposed 1,500 s.f. structure on a through lot. The following stipulations were enumerated: • the new 1,500 s.f. bam must meet all setbacks, • the vegetative screening be maintained from views off of Wear Circle, and • no access for the proposed bam will be granted off of Wear Circle The dissenting Commissioner felt there was no hardship supporting the variance to exceed the maximum size requirement. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMT PER PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1431 AND VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1434, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 04-2967 WHEREAS, Sharon Rae Guimond, a single person (hereinafter “the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 2900 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: West 225 feet of the East 645 feet of the South 415.6 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 118, North, Range 23 West of the 5*'’ Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1434 to allow an oversized accessory structure of 1,500 s.f. to be constructed on a 2.0 acre property where a maximum accessory structure of 1,200 s.f. is normally allowed. WHEREAS, the applicant has made application for a conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure on a lot which is considered a “through lot ” by City Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2967. 2.The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum of 2.0 acres and minimum lot Page I of 5 1 3. 4. 5. width of 200 ’. The area of the property is 2.0 acres and a defined lot width is 225 ’. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on January 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit based on the following findings: a. The property has frontages in the front and rear of the property making it a through lot. b. A variance of 300s. f. is supported by the hardships of the existing bam having been destroyed by a situation not created by the applicant, and the desire to utilize the existing foundation. c. The location of the proposed detached garage will be setback so as to meet all of the required setbacks established by the RR-IB Zoning District setbacks. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on Ae healA, safety and welfare of the community. areThe City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property — peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the conditional use permit and variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1434 Subdivision 2 and a conditional use permit for the construction of a 1,500 s.f detached accessory structure/bam on a through lot, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 I. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. A vegetative screen along Wear Circle shall be maintained to avoid future visual impacts as viewed from Wear Circle. 3. No access to Wear Circle shall be allowed for the proposed bam. 4. The height of the bam shall not exceed 30 ’. S. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance and conditional use permit will expire on that date (February 9,200S). 6. 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. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Coimcil on the 9* day of February 2004, ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A, Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of S STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of ^ 2004 by Linda S. Vee, 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 S State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___________, a single person. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 5 of S » I OirUricate or Survey Top ftavUt C. Guiinond in tiM* SKA of the SWi of Section 33-1UV23 licnnt.'pin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this la a true and correct rep- reaentution of a survey of the V/cat 225 foot of the Enat GH5 feet of the South <115.6 foot of the South-•'rv.east quarter of the Southweat quarter of Section 33, pal \{Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, and of the location of all buildlnga, If any, thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. imaN & (iliONULKC, INC. V1. * y Cq^ Untuf SEi ofs^fk of5ec.3S-»6-ty f9y (;«ir<lon H. Corrin llcg. No. 606‘l ttiglnecra and Land Surveyors lx>ng lake, Minnesota C I -v>. Scale: riale : o : 1 inch = 60 feet Fcb''iJrti y Ih, 1985^ Iron marker Ui.CO' “Road ^—i n EXHIBIT B CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5S323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-2967 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 23,2004 TO: Sharon Rae Guimond 2900 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN SS3S6 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure on a through-lot, and Variance to allow Oversized Accessory Structure to exceed 1,200 s.f. u provided by Code (total 1,500 s.f.). DATE OF MEETING: January 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the requests as submitted by a S-1 vote. The dissenting Commissioner felt that the size of the Oversized Accessory Structure was too large and should meet the allowed 1,200 s.f limit. VOTE:5 FOR 1 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, February 9,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and qiproval by the Planning Cotmnission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 9S2.249.4627. exhibit c FILE* 04-2967 Januaiy6.2004 Pag* 1 of S Data Application Received: 12*1(M)3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12-29-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 02-27-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner January 6,2004 04-2967, Sharon Rae Guimond, 2900 Watertown Road, -Variance -Conditional Use Permit - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum 86,968 sq.ft (2 acres) Application Summary: Applicant requests a variance to allow an oversized accessory structure 1500 s.f, (30'x 50* pole bam) where 1200 s.f. is allowed on a 2 acre lot and a conditional use permit to construct the oversized accessory building on the through lot. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance and conditional use permit as requested with the following provisions: 1. Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual impact from Wear Circle is minimized. 2. No access to Wear Circle for proposed bam. Hardship: Staff finds a hardship exists in that the situation which destroyed the barn was a situation not created by the applicant.___________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1431. Conditional use permit required. All accessory buildings on through lots located in R districts shall require a conditional use permit. Sec. 78-1434. Area restrictions. In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. &V 'i It j FILE# 04-2967 January 6,2004 Paga 2 of S (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: Lot Area (acres)Maximum Individual Accessory Structm Footprint Area (square feet) Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas^ on a Property (square feet) 0-1.99 1.000 2,000 2«00**3«00 uoo 2,400 3.01-3.50 1.400 2,800 3.31-4.00 1.600 3,200 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Photos F. Newspaper article dated 07* 10-03 G. State Fire Marshall Report H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map Background The property at 2900 Watertown Road is owned by Sharon Rae Guimond. In June of 2003 a 2,616 s.f. bam on the property was destroyed by arson. The ^plicant is requesting a variance from the Oversized Accessory Structure limit to replace the bam that was destroyed with a 1,500 s.f. bam. The maximum size for an oversized accessory stmcture on a 2 acre lot is 1,200 s.f.. Additionally, the nature of the property is a through-lot. Accessory structures constructed on through-lots are a conditional use. The purpose of the conditional use permit in this instance is to assure minimal visual impact on neighboring properties and views from the road. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,210 s.f. (2 acre)200 ’ Actual 86,968 s.f. (2.0 acre)225’ I } -----------------—iL^..>. fr\'m r-_ A..- KL/V’ khd ink'd FILE# 04-2967 January 6. 2004 P»ga3of 5 RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’50 ’No Change Rear 50 ’50 ’50 ’ New Bam West Side 30 ’94’No change East Side 30 ’43’No change structural Coverage; Total Lot Area 86,968 sq ft (2.0 acre) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 13,045 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3.972 s.f. (4.6 %) Conditional Use Permit Review The property is located at 2900 Watertown Road, with Watertown Road to the south and Wear Circle to the north, and is a through lot. A conditional use permit is required to construct any accessory structure on a through lot. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to ensure that the project is reviewed to protect sight-lines from roadways and neighboring properties. There are a number of mature trees to the rear of the property which will assist in screening the bam from Wear Circle. Oversized Accessory Structure Variance To evaluate the visual impact of the proposed bant an on-site inspection was conducted by staff which revealed tree and vegetation coverage. Staff finds that the maintenance of large trees on site, the location for the proposed bam, along with the homeowner ’s desire to re-use a portion of the old barn’s foundation would be supportive of the variance in this case. Additionally, the new bam is proposed to be 1,116 s.f. less in area than the old bam which was destroyed. The new bam is proposed to be 14* high, shorter than the 2- story home on the property. The proposed bam will meet all required setbacks for the RR-IB zoning district. The property is under the 15% lot coverage by stmeture limit by approximately 9,000 s.f. (13,045 s.f. allowed, 3,972 s.f. proposed). Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. J k.L^ ir^a kJ. I» FILE* 04.2967 January 6. 2004 Paga4o(5 Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, sttfety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval onfy when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds there is a hardship caused by the situation that resulted in the existing bam being destroyed. Staff wall support a variance to allow an oversized accessory structure exceeding the 1,200 s.f. by 300 s.f. to be constructed in the place of the old bam as the destmction of the bam was neither the applicant’s intent nor an act of God. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1 . “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The property can be used, and an oversize structure can be constructed under the reasonable controls. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances imique to his property not created by the landowner.” The existing barn was destroyed by afire which was ruled an arson. The applicant did not cause the circumstances. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality'.” The barn which was destroyed was 2,616 s.f and existed for over IS years in the same location. Replacing the old larger barn with a new barn 1,116 s.f smaller will not alter the character of the locality. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The applicant has not indicated economics in the application. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” N/A 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” N/A fcls m FILE# 04.2967 Janu>7 6,2004 Pag* 9 of S 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” N/A 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The old barn was destroyed by a fire caused by arson. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land oi structures in the district in which said land is located.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant is requesting to enjoy a property right that was taken from her by the arson. The old barn ’s size was grandfathered in as an existing non-conforming structure. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” In the opinion of staff this criterion L met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardsliip or difficulty.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. Issues for Consideration 1 . Does the size of the old bam i;ave any bearing on the size of the new bam? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance and conditional use peraiit as requested with the following provisions: 1 . Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual impact from Wear Circle is minimized. 2. No access to Wear Circle for proposed barn. 3. The new bam is not to exceed the height of the 2-story home on the property. 5 I ») exhibit A Application # Date Received /^—/O ^03 Amount Paid 7 ^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address J'ocuiu ^ 3 tTfe Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANTPLICANT n " Phone (horned fr-r> Name 3i^Ql2.6r^-^ Ci?oi Aioaj Q Phone (work)!?/ Address Gj haT^/g TO<^tU ^hGitv Le kj r^L ja U Zip t» OWNER (i^ifferent than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) Phone (work). City Zip. Date Property Acquired pu i L I R P i adiac<I (do) (do not) al«o own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PER>DTS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application . $250.00 Residential Accessory Use . $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg , $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use . $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Re\icw (+ consultant fees) _____S30C.O0 Vacation _____ 5250 00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____ 5375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____ 5100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule .«•i raQUI^D SUBMITTALS i Completed Application Form. W ____Describe request in detail A ^ ____ 5. 6. ?7"f T*" “I* pi" ™p (yo“ *r ** l*^ •"»Is ”>«P from^mepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 7C/O ^ S-oSn"^ “"'*y -----Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey ““ ““O'”) If '“<• "‘""ions involve 8. 9. changes in elevation (grades). -----List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR C opy suS^nrS^^^rSIff^r^ ^ smaller ) for all documents ^ documents, plans, etc. to be The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this appUcation. Please tu.f . application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Sl?"s"fcien^cri sis! ^ " '““P'"'' APPLIC.A\T'S signature ■ne appUcant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested by the Sonina A^stritor, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by oriiSal fert.™^n and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application and cettiLs ftai! J f.r supplied is tnre and correct to the best of his/her mfoimation V ^ / Applicant's signature ' "^L^.LV ^ Date \ ~bl • O ^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorised re«ftn.Kt, entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members* and Council members for purpose of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature J>^6V) tV f? 6*. /mvivv IJ Date 12 -bl-Q •? Applicant cuisi have all submittals into the Citv ofTicei 25 m ^ a ^■». 1ft n c ••a 4 4 4/ * • exhibit b Dear City of Orono, I am writing to respectfully request q>proval of a variance to build a one story 30x50 xl 1 pole bam on my property at 2900 Watertown Rd. This structxire would replace a gabled bam that was 44x54x25 that was destroyed in a fire set by an arsonist on June 08.2003. The new one story pole bam would con^ly with the set back of 50 feet required by the city of Orono. Due to the extreme nature of this devastation to myself and my family I would like this pole bam approved. This structure has been a part of our life for over 25 years. Attachments: Photo of original gabled bam News ptq)er article on Arson Police report on Arson Certified owners labeb and addresses Sample structure design I have used the bam to store my boats, canoe, 1966 Mustang, snowmobile and misc. hems some of which were destroyed in the fire. I continue to have storage needs, which a new stmcture woula meet. 1 would like to get approval to build this in the spring and would like to begin getting estimates to do so as soon as possible. Thaidc you Sharon Rae Guimond .. ‘ J.’. r' , If .w ^ i u t: ■I 'f 10 i 9*3 ♦* 9 « 9 ? 44.1* born. 'sCF- -••fis a." '14*S ******•**••<••• I 94^'• •••• •• •••••.* •i*' 4 4 Ijii g 1-t.J t3 ■Jt.iL' » • . » i "iVPm .M.K* • • «A K «A 55 •»■<• *43'. (>jrtificate of Survey for David C. Guiinond in the SE.\ of the SVJ of Section 33-lU'«-23 Hennepin Cwinty, Minnesota I hereby certify that this la a true find correct rep- rcacntatlon of a survey of the V/eot 2?.5 feet of tlic Eaat 6'I5 feet of the South ^115.6 feet of the South- east quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 33» Township 1l8 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal^! Meridian, and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon. It docs not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.p;:"^t ■ *1 ui 6V .f lX)mN A (IHONULKO, INC.C 9 * •;roVilK;i'i^" Hctii." No*." IL'YIAj "t■'! ‘l) Coii linto/'SEi ofS^fi •f5ec.3S-n6-Z) (k)rdon M. Coffin Hcg. No. 606«l Engineers and Land Surveyors Inng l.Hke, Minnesota , Scale: Date : o 1 inch = 60 feet February 1985, .»»<•'«> Iron marker / SmM ISic 0f Sttfaf SW% •f3ec.3i-m-tJ I nn !T ¥ Waierht^n itxoo ’ HoaJ 4 ■ mn vj; Oil'llricate of Survey for l)avUl G. Gultnnnd in tho SliA of the SlVi of Section :^3-litl-23 ftcnnopln County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this Is n true and correct rep- rcscntutlon of a survey of tho V/cst 225 foot of tho East 6<I5 feet of the South *115.6 feut of the South­ east quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, and of the location of all tHjildings, if any, thereon. It docs not purpor't to show any other Improvements or encroachments. .* ft. 1r !• .1 comN & cuoNUEiu;, inc.C •)v;. • 'rhrlr No/ I ( Coit 5ft ofSUHt •^Sec.33-W~Z} (;<>nlon H. ('.olTln Hcg. No. OOC'I friiginrers and Land Surveyors liOng lake, Minnesota % Scale: hate : o : 1 inch = 60 feet February 1*1, j fr-*r ■*•**•* *'•• Iron marker Woferhf^n iHji - \ ExmeiTD i C ^-’or f-y / \ /\i — , \ 1 N•f"s/ ./ a L I ■1Lif ! .'• -■• ■ '•. •..•>■ 2-wy.' '•'.tT'c*-'-.-.'’-< n /T^ '•l • *0 f •: r»0 ^i7na I Q ss ^ffonyble! - • j Rii: Like limiU'r olli*r% y^HJ a Ijslinc imcsliiviil llul you'll en|o> vcjr alia year I ‘I dul iniii,Xni%nin iiilhultwt hputilbfc OinUir^ Biji lalv !tiitibvr ttjji'ivil ti ttnupn'in u in inn*lnniinii nuiutniiU ilhil •nitjmin vtvi )unv I A#* III it liinv iuh%tuntiuUy A**i * k 1) Ontoiun Viv nmnnmtniM ttiLv lumber tn fnniili mutjrundi • n tto fi rnt vn tu bmUt Ukur biiihtinz* n tib llteiit * 0 •/ Big tjikf "Wr ir inul ii UM u! vniiiHnm’ut* nii vuf buitdtt y. uiut u'mht itrJiiuU'h ittt fng biLr linnlH i * W / Uir Ktirr 7 bi^hfi n%>»ntiiieiut Big tnkx Inmbtr \tigb*> -n tind/iu •nh hair uinl IIhiI tlx n nutf lh*in *lteir bioUnigt'' 7S MiMitneUo Pntr II ne Big L»tr (im/Vr n higitiy t»nnprumt hit nxiniwitndftl them bifneitdx’ CL Wntrrty • AJJ i€%0 tottu bdh%'fkfndjt tftkm tmhi$ (\vfntf Vtinkmt tnd (\vn IVum M i^* iKiun * tMHirn iijnf¥ Ck\wt mJAUrr kk. ,/• •« • • • Big Like SAop around,^ • 41 I-. : • • -V:?i -i: I•«n t • w'eV * t**' :5.' tvith Big Latte Lumber ifehE ^ ^(1^ OurGoakmsmfk... ... Do it Best' Al Big lake Iiimhrr wr know llwl your JtMdmg factors in ptn’chasing a polp building are sprvKe. quality, and affordabiiily. Our profcssiinul. courlecHis sales fcpresemaiKt will listen closely to your ideas to ensure that your building is custom designed to meet all yinir sjVidicalii'ns. 'iiig ltd%‘ luudhr u.t* irn !•» iioil’ It iffi //h i i/ivir up li /hit I inwtii/iiih/ /lid iiiiiiii/t* t/iiiiry^ It! lint u pndjicttt I iHlIf hill “•mm/ hi wii tin lit Uh i iihitli’ Uh ’ ii/ni /i' fmttftt flit III fHiiiih »» IS. .%l••lllll t'Uii “ <i/fnMi loiiih^'iii %ii It** If It ill n f,ith>t III untkhig uitb/bi'iii /Ik’i (Ii’*r «//>'• i«»i in i/*‘i f/opiitg my u/fiH and iiial:tiig IIh'hi u / »/v»»rrf »*ii t»hj*H tii rf ii ilh tht la/et ninrvitlii/iiy am/ /icg*iiy im* Itif /i‘\‘tUkii 1* lu t’t/fi/ lu bring Illy ii/rai In lift Am tfiwxlimh / had tirtr ntn iii i anw eivd lUnnmgh/i ‘ kU.Curfomii HTifiiric/ Ilf iti'itUd iimt/un‘ I/ti imr ng/*t l/'rir' MT.UkRnri r. • “? Wt- ^ .. i ■ - ■:Tradilioml ^ood looks, bidden strengtlts Tlie bwrd and batten sl>le has been an American (avonte lor years Big lake lumber uses Best PanH from VicWest Meel to create that look in a mainlcnancc free steel panel with J6" coxerage Ihe steel is nbbed J/V high. 9" on center with center nbs. Best Panel is available in a variety of beautiful colors and comes with a 2? year coating warranty. Many of tnir standard conslou tiori features are fisted as "options*’ with oilier coaq^mes ^ You II find that iHjr highly skilled crews are a pleasure to work with and will construct your •-*%!. Jl’^r ytKfdtnfngialun^ s Mfwfw nW • J\l\ JI*fiC I^Crmjt ArjMiir /.« rw kmmt •««%• MiAiY J «!• lOA« *9m% k VjMr • y%i‘ trtJtta tfirkKard building using superior quality craftsmanship. • } tf mw^hAf m tl.nsijeJ • iniieH wsktkny mar# h^ift MkhkVtt ryunMVW ktt rymaif mhdegi,'ihbi%' nirj iUf%ih • f'olet 0t nfitheil k» irvitn tnd the iruiiei trr ketted la tin fv*n for a%k4arri%iii • ilfij/ (vrrri f»> I ItAkekam }r4 ewmebeamt i--ri • kntjMtd itfd tm Jlxvi at peflwvh M)d yntnhta 9h tet o »jL B!Hi LmHU'iiI jiih* k U kiiiniri lit 11*1* »i \ »it ,11* II 1*1 C It ill* lit LiitHi % II iml/h * ihuiii: tinil hti* ti g4*iit tiltihuU' /I* n/f ii nl* •/ It it/i nil" /•* Jifiiiir out the bed inn r*» atU/ a pntiv tu iny hiitUhng * U / ilk Kn er */n ‘ tkiil ot/ier but/i/t'ri inimiient I/miI //•€ l#»»i Btg tate linnhtr cr^aUrniti'd nil l•lu^4tlltg Kill /H*m» ihtni i/hi itH'inu'ti'n itiil* 7 Ilf t lint mill If inn irn oniiinnitMtatini! ant/ i irii Ihh/ mi tr‘nt’t imi/it wiie iiinnef CL nairrfy 7 i/h'iC tt/ (niitnutor ir/rivntfi ami Big Lake liimhvr % luiitnntur iiin raft'd uiinid hrivnif*"A' O. OmmaH • [\vtk ) Ltrr tuibutea njndjre •**4 btSijmtKrdbittwif 0*f%eyihjnfm uality Workmanship 1 i i ^ W, i. r. \ JL I' b 4«L ! 6'^^ Hte . •• • I • ‘ r .. .i' * v‘ .-\-4xmM 1 •. * j .1 *4 t « 'i v> i - '' ■. ■•■ : ^ <’ 1 ' vi-?-’’-- > '....' ; ."V . . /• I ,A<.. ;^4 ^ .....vy^*^. \rfM •■■'•i"-;*.. i'VvNi I r V"/»A >4rr I »»|U& > .»W.wt;r faj >1 f y m4 mn >■• r ■■■! f i. / ' • • » % 4 I . r>-: ■“ “:—'::jajTyiiL:sy - /WW^' -VXMV, .. , ^ : ■■"' ?• <* wJ • ; •• . ■^r.V V r* ‘V^ • .'■.•-nV mm . , , . vp-i ^ • •• :• •'.T&'a v^>. <>;;V'!- 'ft • • * . ^ . A » ^ < ? ^ ♦ ^ si* • ATT'- ‘ 1 C* •■' • ' -^ *' *■ . VM^’ -vrC.-* '. Arson suspected in barn fire in Orbno on June 8 Ou-ner hopes someone StW something B y Annt Wilblh Sur S€As;ape ‘S It was supposed to be a week of celebration, but when Sharon Guimond s barn burned down and arson was suspected, the mood changed. Guimond. Orono, walks around the ashes and the black­ ened remains that outline the 40- by-60 foot perimeter of the once red barn that stood at the back of her property at 2900 Watertown Road. Walking up to it. visitors can see and smell the blackened roof shingles now lying the ground. There is a row of cow stanchions that hadn't been used for somet jne the remains of a car. and Guimond s beat. She locks at the charred rc mams of the boat and says. “Can you believe it'’ It was the first time m 22 years that I decided to not put Lie bwat on the lake ‘ The barn burned dowm early in The morning on June 8. After cele­ brating her younger daughter s graduation from high school. Gui r was in Mankato that Sun (, aorning to celebrate her cider daughter s wedding, she says. A neighbor. Sus?n Sampson, had been taking care of the Gui- n. :nd’s dog. who was left outside ca his clothes I ,ne run that was suspended between the garage and the barn, Guimond says S^un^son checked the dog at about 10 30 p.m. that Saturday night. At nidn'ght another neighbor re- me.mbers getting up and looking out at the barn. Wlien that same neighbor woke again at 5 a ,m. the barn was in flames. Guimond says. The neigh­ bor ran to the Sam.psons. One called the fire department while the other saved the dog. whose l».‘ash had caught on a tree nea: ihe barn No animals were kept in the earn. Guimond says. The fam,l> i<ed the barn as a game and pa: t> room and to store equipme.nt. The Long Lake Fire Depart­ ment was there about 3 lO. says fc.v.rg Lake Fire Chief Brad RcehL but the build mg had already :ol- lapsed The firefighters could only contain it and try and protect nearby trees. The Maple Plain Fu-e Depart­ ment also assisted w :th the fire he said The deoartment used about 50.000 ihousa.id g.Uions of water and f.am and worked until 10 a m.. he sa>s Tne fire -v .iil.-ued to smolder for another 24 hours. Officer Jim Cornick v.ndi the Orono Police Deparument i».as as­ signed to investigate and Ron Bafi- FIRE: To Page loA The barn cn the Guimond prope.ly on V/alertown Road m Orono burred down June 0. Authorities suspect arson In the fire. The family used the barn for parties and to store equipment. Afte'’ the Guimond barn bu.'r.cc! down in Orono. authorities Cegan tc s-scect arson, "^he far* . s asking Ih.: anyone who may have seen suspicious activities near i.ne bar^ before : a n. Sunday. June 8. re: :*t to t^e Orcr Police. \ HALF THE PRICE O STC-. £ ISuu 5jj0rt.'5 w EXHIBIT F Ptymogth/yyiyuta/Dfono/Long tufct SumSanor/Thgrtday. July 10. 2003 ISA 17f' 'S': > -N f ^ t.-«•.. Guimond's bam also housed a car, shown here after the lire. Cnlf iHiiaStfi NtMpipM Fire: Family was out of town when fire happened From Page lA man. deputy state fire marshal, was also called in as well. Cornick says. The Fire Department didn’t move anything, so as to assist the investiga­ tion. Roehl says. Cornick was still waiting for an oftl- cial report from the state, he said at press time. However it is thought to be arson, he said. “Rahman gave me a verbal indica­ tion that it was an arson.” Due to the sensitivity of the inv-su- gation. Rahman couldn't make a com ­ ment, he said in a phone conversation. Guimond didn't see the fire or the de­ struction until she got home Sunday af­ ternoon. she says. She is hoping that someone saw sus­ picious activity near her barn in the early morning of Sunday. June 8, she says. Anyone with information is ask^ to call the Orono Police Department. “Maybe somebody saw something.” To add insult to injury, the day of the fire was her husband's 'oirthday, she says He died some time a»o. To contact the Orono P-Jice call SiS2- 2-19-iTOO. r< — fV ' •»f't-w ^ •» » •y <• ^ t .* ar it "J 1 Jl. r • ; *•: HM STATE FIRE MARSHAL DIV 123-123-1234 p.4 exhibit g C/N 20031209 PEOPLE: Sharon Rae Guimond, owner Matthew David Guimond, (DOB 7-25-79) son of Sharon Timothy Edward Graham, (DOB 11-1-46) person threatening Matthew Wally Brambilla, person owning one boar in bam ^ ^ a Dr/jVr Jim Comick.-Loag Lake Tire Chief \y\/• ^ rLL LC BACKGROUND: Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Communications contacted me on 6-8-03 at 0600 hours approximately concerning this storage structure fire located at 2900 Watertown Road in Orono. Telephone communications was established with Loi^ Lake Fire Chief Jim Comick. Long L^e Fire Department covers the affected area. It was related that the fire was discovered on the same date at 0525 hours and the structure, an old bam, was totally destroyed and on the ground at the time of fire department arrival Chief Comick stated further that the department was applying foam to the structuie and that the fire would be out by the time of my arrival. I responded immediately and met Comick, along v.ith uniform police officers from Orono. The owner of the property, Sharon Rae Guimond, was not home at the time of the fire and It was learned later that ^e was attending her daughter ’s wedding in Mankato the day and nigi. * prior to the fire’s discovery. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The affected structure sets on residential property on the north side of Watertown Road and the affected structure sets north of the house. An asphalt driveway is located east of the house and a sand/gravel driveway is located west of the residence. There is no roadway to the affected structure. The structure is constructed of heavy timber with wood exterior covering and the roef is a hip style. The main level floor is poured concrete and the upper level loft floor is constructed of wood. Steel posts are located on the main level for support to the upper level floor. The second level floor joists are exposed and travel east and west. Openings to the structure include a service door in the north wall and a service door located in the south wall in the southwest quadrant. Two large sliding doors are located in the south wall one in the southeast quadrant and one in the southwest quadrant. Electrical service enters the structure on the south wall and a small fuse box is located on the south wall also. An outlet is utilized on the south wall to power a heavy extension cord that is looped under the second level floor Joists to a banging floiescent light The light is located in the middle of the straccure east to west and just north of the middle of the structure north and south. - 4 * ' / • A b •• .* *1^• #• MM STRTE FIRE MHRSHHL DIV 123-123-1234 No heating units were being used in the structure. The structure was not locked. EXTERIOR EXAMINATION: The structure was still burning at the time of my arrival however, tire tracks could be seen going from the sand/gravel drive across the grass to the affected structure and making a loop to the right, then traveling back to the same drive. Information learned fium police and fire officials confirmed that no officer or fire fighter drove over that pait of the lawa The tracks were photographed and measured from center of track to center of track. The entire structure, except for a small addition on the west wall in the southwest quadrant, was destroyed and at grade level Because the structure was still burning, no interior examination could be conducted on this date. Also, I was paged to respond to another imrelated structure fire at that time. INTERIOR EXAMINATION: On 6-8-03,1 returned to the scene after making telephone contact with co-investigator Nathan Kreye, as this is his territory and I initially responded being the on-call investigator that weekend. Kreye was on-site at the time of my arrival as was owner Gulmond. After briefly interviewing Guimood, we began debris removal and identifying the area where the electrical panel box was located. During this time. Chief Comick arrived and assisted in debris removal Electrical activity was noted in cL'cuh wiring ebse to the panel box however; electrical activity was not noted in various branch circuits in the bam. The florescent light was bcated on the floor under fire debris and no electrical activity inside the Ught was noted. The ballast was in good condition for being exposed to fire impingement. This light was left on by Guiroond ever since her problems arose after breaking up with her former significant other. The line cord servicing the florescent light was bcated in small pieces and those pieces sustained significant electrical activity with large beads formed on the wires. Long pieces of the extensbn cord were located however; no electrical activity was noted on the extension cord between the south wall and the area cbsc to the florescent light. It is also noted that fire could travel horizontally under the second fevel floor much easier east and west than north and south because of the position of the second bvel floor joists. Fire could easily travel east and west between the floor joists instead of having to jung} each joist and fill that tunnel area with flames prior to jumping another. ; ‘ I 0 ^ /•* ■ “ * .// kSiMi MM STATE FIRE MARSHAL DIV 123-123-1234 No heating units were being used in the structure. The structure was not locked. EXTERIOR EXAMINATION: The structure was still burning at the time of my arrival however, tire tracks could be seen going from the sand/gravel drive across the grass to the affected structure and making a loop to the right, then traveling back to the same drive. Information learned from police and fire officials confirmed that no officer or fire fighter drove over that part of the lawa The tracks were photographed and measured from center of track to center of track. The entire structure, except fur a small addition on the west wall in the southwest quadrant, was destroyed and at grade level. Because the structure was still burning, no interior examination could be conducted on this date. Also, I was paged to respond to another uiuelated structure fire at that time. INTERIOR EXAMINATION: On 6-8-03,1 returned to the scene after making telephone contact with co-investigator Nathan Kreye, as this is his territory and I initially responded being the on-call investigator that wedeend. Kreye was on-site at the time of my arrival, as was owner Guimond. After briefly interviewing Guimond, we began debris removal and identifying the area where the electrical panel box was located. During this time, Chief Comick arrived and assisted in debris removal Electrical activity was noted in circuit wiring close to the panel box however; electrical activity was not noted in various branch circuits in the bam. The florescent light was located on the floor under fire debris and no electrical activity inside the light was noted. The ballast was in good condition for being e:q;x)sed to fire impingement. This light was left on by Guimond ever since her problems arose after breaking up with her former significant other. The line cord servicing the florescent light was located in small pieces and those pieces sustained significant electrical activity with large beads formed on the wires. Long pieces of the extension cord were located however, no electrical activity was noted on the extension cord between the south wall and the area ctose to the Crescent light. It is also noted that fire could travel horizontally under the second level floor much easier east and west than north and south because of the position of the second level floor joists. Fire could easily travel east and west between the floor jo ist.s instead of having to jump each joist and fill that tunnel area with flames prior to jiunping another. P-5 ■i « C: MN STATE FIRE MARSHAL DIV 123-123-1234 The east sector was examined and it was noted that the east side of each boat was totally consumed/destroyed by fire while the west side of each was relatively intact in con^arisoa Also, the structural remains were roost conq>leteIy consumed in this area in comparison to other areas. Examination of the steel support posts revealed that most all was bent to the east fiom structural collapse. This shows that the east sector of the structure coll^sed first. EVIPENCE; Because of the total destruction of the structure and conq>onents, no evidentiary samples were taken from the scene. PHOTOGRAPHS/SKETCH: Photographs were taken prior to and during the scene examination. Bec^ise the bam was essentially open on each level, a sketch was ix>t drawn. 1^1 ERVIEW: Guimood stated that ^ had broken up with an individual, Timothy Edward Graham in the past and there have been problems since that thne. She continued that Graham had threatened her son Matthew David Guimond the >veek prior and Graham also adeed Matthew the date and location of Guimond’s daughter's wedding. Guimond and her entire &roiiy were in Mankato the entire weekend of the fire's occurrence. She has aUowed others to store items in the bam including a boat on a trailer in the middle east sector. An auto is also stored by another person and that vehicle does not run, nor does it have a battery iaslalled. She stored her boat in the northeast sector of the bam behind the other boat arid trailer. The only thing powered electrically was the extension cord from the one outlet that was powered on the south wall and the florescent light that the extension cord was powering. She can fitink of no other reason for the bam to bum except for it being set She has no insurance coverage on the bam. CONCLUSION: This fire is incendiary in cause because the only possible accidental cause (electricity) was eliminated. V. - I / ii u p.6 F' HN STATE FIRE hHRSHRL DIV 123-123>1234 • I Kurther, the area of fire origin is located in the east sector of the bam in the middle area traveling north and south. Fire traveling between floor joists was able to in^inge t4)on the electrical line cord powering tbe florescent light and cause the electrical activity. The east side of each boat was totally destroyed while the west side was in relatively good shape in con^)arison. This is b^use tte east sides of the boats protected the west sides until they were destroyed. The steel siqrport posts were predominantly bent to the east showing the east sector of the structure collapsed first and caused the posts to bend toward the east after being hm tfd on their east s^s. This case will remain in an open and active status presently. Reqiectiully Submitted, Ron Rahman Deputy State Fire Marshal-Investjgator I-■ % . . . MM STATE FIRE MRRSHRL DIV 1S3-123-1234 •t State Fire Marshal Division Fax Date: 7-14-03 To: Det. ^ Comick Phone: 952-476-3028 From: Ron Rahman Phone: S07-64S-7888 Subject: Guimond Bam Fire Report Total Pages Sent: 7 41 kO •— * P* 1 • •MM STATE FIRE MARSHAL DIV 123-123-1Z34 P*2 If Dcpirtmcnt of Public Safety State Fire Manhal Division 444 Cedar Street - Suite 145 St Paul, Minnesota 55101-5145 Foe No: 20031209 dceupant(s): Not occupied Address: 2900 Watertovvn Road Phone: City: Orono County: Hennepin Owner Name: Sharon Rae Ouiniood Owner Address: Same as above City:State: Phone: ZIP: Type of Occupancy: Storage Approximate Loss: $30,000.00 Requesting Agenqr: Long Lake Fire Date and Time of Fire: 6-8-03 @ 0525 hours Date & Time of Request: 6-9-03 @ 0600 hours « *v Initial fire department: Lopg Lake FDID: 27113 Fire official contacted: 6 hief Jim Cornick BCA Contact: N/A Date: Cooperatiag agency(s): Orono Police Department Fire Cause: Incendiary *a Synopsis: Person(s) unknown ignited interior of bant in east sector of die nsain level Completed by: Ron Rahman Date; 6-24-03 Disposition: Open and active 38 04II7232IOOOI fROf ADOR 2985 WATERIOWN RI> OWNERMAME TDALBAURLE TAXPAYER THOMAS D A LOUANN BAURLE NAME/ADDR 298S WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0411723210005 PROfADDR 20 WEAR LA OWNERNAME IA KREffS R K L KREf PS TAXPAYER JERALD A A KERRY L KREPPS NAME/ADOR 70 WEAR lA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 3311823340004 PROP AIN)K 2900 WATliKTOWN KtJ OWNER NAME SHARON RAE GUIMOND TAXPAYER SI I ARON RAO GUIMOND NAME/ADOR 2900 WATERTOWN RD LONGUKEMN 55356 38 3311823340007 PROPADDR 2900 WEAR CIR OWNER NAME D S EBERLE RAD EBERLE TAXPAYER DAVID S R ANGELIQUE D HOERLE NAME/ADOR 2900 WEAR CTR LONGUKEMN 55356 38 33II82134CIOIO PROP ADDR 40 WUR U N OWNERNAME IIHOFFMANRSIfOITMAN TAXPAYER IRKRI R SUSAN IKN1MAN NAME/ADOR 40 WEAR UNE N rONGUKI MN 55356 38 3311823340014 PROP ADDR 160 WEAR U N OWNERNAME DIANA LUGO TAXPAYER DIANA LUGO NAME/ADDR 160 WEAR UN LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROI*ERTY OWNERS LISF •• 38 0411723210003 PROP ADOR 2845 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NAME S W KNAPPENBERGER ET AL TAXPAYER S W R G M KNAPPENBERGER NAME/ADDR 1420 TAMARACK DR LONGUKEMN 55356 38 0411723210006 PROPADDR 50 WUR U OWNERNAME DR J HILL TAXPAYER DAVID M R iUNETTE P HILL NAME/ADDR 50 WUR U LONGUKEMN 55356 38 3311823340005 PROPADDR 85 WUR UN OWNERNAME MPRGMSIEVERT TAXPAYER MieilAEL P R GAYLE M SIEVERT NAME/ADDR 85 WUR U N lONGUKEMN 55356 38 331182334(10)8 PROPADDR 2850 WEARCIR OWNERNAME GRSAMPSONRS ESAMPSON TAXPAYER GREGG R SAMPSON NAME/ADDR 2850 WUR CIR LONGUKEMN 55356 38 3311823340011 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME WEAR r.NTERPRLSESPARTNr.RSIIlP 1 AXPAYI.H WEAR liNniRPRISIiS PARTNIiKSIlIP NAME/ADDR OO WILLIAM W WUR PO BOX 245 LDNUUKEMN 55356 38 3311823340015 PROP ADDR 170 WUR U N OWNERNAME SGBERKEY TAXPAYER SCOTTCBERKEY NAME/ADOR 170 WEAR UN LONG LAKE MN 5S356 38 0411723210004 PROP ADOR 85 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S OWNERNAME SCOTTRMILLER TAXPAYER SCOTT R MILLER NAME/ADDR 85 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S LONGUKEMN 55356 38 0411723210008 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME hSI OF RUTH F WUR TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 53323 38 33II82334IM8K) PROPADDR 55 WUR UN OWNERNAME DIANA/GROSS TAXPAYER DIANA J CROSS NAME/ADDR 55 WUR U N LONGUKEMN 55356 38 331182334000*1 PROPADDR 2845 WUR CIR OWNERNAME K L JOHNSON A S D JOHNSON TAXPAYER KLEIN L A SUSAN D JOHNSON NAME/ADDR 2845 WUR CIR LONGUKEMN 53356 38 3311823340012 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME WUR ENTf.RPRKF-S PARTNERS IIP TAXPAYER WEAK EHIERPHIM X PARINI MS.IIP NAME/ADOR CfO WILLIAM W WUR PO BOX 245 LONGUKEMN 55356 /7 mtin r Ci Date Application Received: 12-11-03 Date Application Comidcred as Complete: 01-09-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03-09-04 r.OiiMr:ii MFETING F£B 9 2004 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: February 4,2004 Item No ^ Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner_______ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2968 - Lane Moore of Custom Structures, Ltd, 440 Stubbs Bay Road Preliminary Plat - Resolution__________________________________ Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-lBt One Family Rural Residential 2 acre minimum 448,107 s.f. (10.287 acres) 320' List of Exhibits: A. Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B. PC Action Notice dated 01-23-04 C. PC Memo & Exhibits as of 01-20-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 2 lots on one block at 440 Stubbs Bay Road to be known as Stubbs Addition.___________________ I Planning Commission Recommendation On January 20,2004, Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat per the Staff recommendations. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED EXHIBIT A A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD FILE NO. 04-2968 WHEREAS, Lane Moore of Custom Structures (hereinafter the “subdivider ”) on December 11,2003, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally described as; The South 10 acres of tlie Southwest 'A of the Northeast ‘A of Section 32, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter “the property ”); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono ’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 20,2004, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on February 9,2004, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains approximately 10.287 acres ofland with 5.04 acres of delineated wetland. 3 The proposed plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum lot area requirement of the RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District each meeting a minimum of 2 acre contiguous dry buildable land. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 meets the minimum 200’ width requirement as established by the RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District Page 1 of 5 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Proposed Lot 2, Block 1 was created as a Back Lot and meeting the Back Lot Standards established by Section 78-1370 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires dimensional standards of 150% of the minimum Zoning District Standards. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served with private wells. Proposed Lot 1 contains an existing house and four outbuildings all of which must be removed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into separate ownership. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served off the proposed Outlot A with drive access from Stubbs Bay Road. The westerly 33 feet of proposed Lot 1 shall be dedicated as Stubbs Bay Road right-of-way. The City of Orono will require dedication of a 7 foot wide trail easement beyond the 33 foot east half right of way of Stubbs Bay Road to accommodate a future trail as identified on the County Bicycle System Plan and the Orono Open Space and Trail Plan. Primary and alternate septic sites have been identified for proposed Lots 1 and 2. The primary septic site for proposed Lot 1 shall be the most southerly septic location and the alternate site shall be the most northerly site as indicated on the plans dated January 8,2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Lane Moore of Custom Structures at 440 Stubbs Bay Road per preliminary plat drawings by RLK Kuusisto Ltd of Minnetonka, Minnesota., dated January 8,2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 shall be served off the proposed Outlot A with drive access from Stubbs Bay Road. Access easements shall be provided over Outlot A for proposed Lots 1 and 2. Page 2 of S .1 : t ( I ) i 2. For proposed Lot 1, the primary septic site shall be the most southerly site and the alternate site shall be the most northerly site as indicated on the plans dated January 19,2004 due to the proximity to proposed Pond 1. 3. The developer shall grant to the City 10 foot perimeter drainage and utility easements. 4. The existing house, outbuildings, and driveway shall be removed prior to sale of Lots 1 and 2 into separate ownership. 5. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee for proposed Lot 2, Block 1. 6. Payment of standard storm water and drainage trunk fee for the property. 7. Appropriate permit approvals must be received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 8. Lowest floor elevations for proposed Lot 1 and 2 shall be 932.5’. 9. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of City Council approval, February 9,2005. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows; 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1” = 200’. Drawings to include; a. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by RLK Kuusisto Ltd of Minnetonka, Minnesota, dated January 19,2004. Page 3 of 5 J 4. b. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5’ along the internal lot lines, c. The naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c. Signed and executed Developer ’s Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements. d. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainage way and detention areas within plat. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $530.00 a. Final plat fee = $250.00 b. Legal review and filing fees for subdivison and associated documents “ $280.00 c. *Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor’s report has been filed with City. d. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee = $ 17,118 [(4.0 acres @ $2,700/acrc) + (2.34 acres @ 2,700/acre )] A copy of all necessary permits approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Page 4 of 5 j I Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meetiiig held this 9“’ day of February 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9 day of February, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 J exhibits CITY OF ORONO 27S0 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-2968 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 23,2004 TO: Custom Structures Ltd Lane Moore 12 Oaks Center, Suite 820B ISSOO Wayzata Blvd Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Prelimlnaiy Plat DATE OF MEETING: Janua*y 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the Preliminary Plat for 440 Stubbs Day Rd wiUi a 6-0 vote, subject to staffs reconunendations (as follows): 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to placement on a City Council agenda. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, February 9,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm 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. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. r EXHIBIT C «H)4-Z968 January 9,2004 Page I of6 Date Application Received: 12-11 -03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01-09-04 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 03-09-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner j January 9,2004 #04-2968, Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd, 440 Stubbs Bay Road - Preliminary Plat • Public Hearing iZoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum 448.107 sq.ft. (10.287 acres)_____________________ Application Summary: Applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 2 lots on one block at 440 Stubbs Bav Road to be known as Stubbs Addition. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to placement on a City Council agenda 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review._________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78*305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acre) Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feel) 2 200 50 30 I 50 50 List of Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Comprehensive Trail System Plan C. Wetland Inventory from Ryan Freitag Wetland Delineations D. Letter from City Engineer dated January 15,2004 E. Septic Evaluation by Pemel Hentges for Steve Bums F. Aerial Photograph G. Memo from Septic Inspector Matt Bolterman dated November 12,2003 H. Application I. Property Owners List & Site Plan k .i MM-2968 January 9,2004 Pagt 2 of 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS Introductioo and Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Custom Structures Ltd is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 2 lot subdivision at 440 Stubbs Bay Road. The property is located on the east side of Stubbs Bay Road be^veen Wayzata Boulevard and Waurtown Road. The current zoning on the property is RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District which requires two acre minimum lot sizes. The property is guided for Rural Residential in the Orono 2000 - 2020 Land Use Plan requiring a minimum lot size of two acres. Conformance with Zoning Ordinance The existing home and outbuildings on Lot 1 are proposed to be removed upon approval. The proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width, and setbacks. The following table outlines the required setbacks for each lot (proposed building locations have not been defined except conceptually on the septic reports). RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback (south) Side Yard Setback (north)______ Rear Yard Setback Required 2.0 acres 200‘ 50’ (75’)* 30’ (45’)' 30’ (45’)* 50’ (75’)* Loti 2 J4 acres 291’ Lot 2 2.01 acres 291’ 50’ 155’ 250’ 50’ 75’ 45’-*- 45’+ 75’+ ()* Back Lot Standard Surrounding Development The preliminary plat to be known as Stubbs Addition is sunounded by residential property in all directions. Two acre minimum lot sizes with RR-IB zoning are to the north, east and south with five acre minimum lot sizes with RR - lA zoning to the west across Stubbs Bay Road. Lot Layout and Standards The plan in Exhibit B shows the required setbacks and primary and alternate septic locations. The applicants have shown that an adequate house can be placed on these lots and staff is satisfied with the lot layouts as proposed. The lots meet all required lot standards as shown in the tables above. f I «M)4-296S Janviry9.2004 Piga 1 of 6 City Engineer Tom Kellogg has not submitted written comments regarding the proposed grading at this time since no grading plan has been submitted. However, the applicant will be required to meet all recommendations of the City Engineer prior to City Council review. City has reviewed the safety of the location of the outlet access and determined that it meets our requirements. Compliance with Back Lot Standards City Code Section 78-1370 requires special standards for back lots created after January 1, 1994. Back lots which are created as part of a subdivision are subject to the following special requirements in addition to the standards required in section 82-256: The dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: • Lot area shall be 1 SO percent of the zoning district requirement. The lot area for the proposed Lot 2 is 312,677 sf. (7.18 acres), including 2.35 dry buildable acres. • Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The lot width proposed for Lot 2 is 291 ’ where the district requirement is 200 '. • The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150 percent of the zoning disttict front yard requirement. The depth of the front yard of Lot 2 is proposed to be 75' where the zoning requirement is 50. • The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150 percent of the zoning district yard requirements. The side and rear yards for Lot 2 are proposed to be 45 ’ and 75' respectively. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards; except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. The side yard setback for Lot 1 to Outlot A is proposed as 50'. Access requirements shall be as follows: • Access outlets shall be 30 feet minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. Outlot A is proposed to be 30 ’ wide and 350' long. • In approving front/back lot divisions, the city may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if the council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. * M4-296S Ja»ai7 9.2004 Pagc4of6 • Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least ten feet from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. * No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot * *The applicant has not provided staff with driveway details but will be required to submit plans prior to placement on the Council agenda for approval. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot except wdien the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting city standards. The proposed outlot does not abut an adjacent access outlot. Screening requirements shall be as follows: Driveways constructed in access outlets shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the city, at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. The cqtplicant has not provided staff with driveway information but will be required to submit plans prior to placement on the Council agenda for approval. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the city, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. At this time Planning Department staff does not recommend additional screening beyond the existing vegetative cover. The Planning Commission should discuss whether additional screening would be appropriate. Accessory structures shall adhere to all requirements of this chapter, with the following additional requirements: Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than ten feet to a neighboring property's side or rear yard. Upon receipt of a building permit request the proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all City codes. Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot.* No accessory structure shall be allowed within an access outlot* *27re project is not proposing any accessory structures, arui all existing structures are to be removed prior to building permit approval. Any new building permit applications will J #04-}968 Janoary 9,2004 Pages of6 be reviewedfor compliance with all City codes. Storm Water, Drainage, and Erosion Control The applicant has not yet submitted storm water, grading and drainage plans for City Engineer review. However, the applicant will be required to implement all recommendations of the City Engineer prior to City Council review. Those recommendations may include ^e dedication of perimeter buffers, as collection of runoff to a single pond area will be difficult from this site. The subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at 52,700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be cluuged per lot. For this property*, 2 lots are being created. Each would be charged a fee as follows: [(2.34 acres x $2,700 = $6,318) + (7.18 acres charged the cap of 4.0 acres x $2,700 = $10,800) for a total fee of $17,118 for the project]. Rcqnircd Easements The applicant must dedicate the following easements: Conservation and Flowage Easements over all delineated wetlands. v' Drainage Easements over all proposed storm water ponds or buffers. Standard drainage and utility easements around all lot boundaries. This consists of 10* around the plat boundary lot lines and S’ on the interior lot lines. Tree Preservation There is no tree preservation plan proposed by the applicant and the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate tree preservation outside of the 0-7S ’ zone from the ordinary high water level of lakes, rivers, and streams. Sewage Treatment Copies of the proposed septic plans were submitted with the preliminary plat. Septic inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed the proposed septic plans and his comments can be found in the attached memorandum dated, January 7, 2004. He is recommending approval of the proposed septic systems. The property is not located within the MUSA. Pailc Dedication The property abuts Stubbs Bay Road, and abuts a proposed public trail sho\\*D on the City’s Comprehensive Trail Plan (see Exhibit C). This subdivision proposal will be submitted to the Park Commission for their review, to determine whether land dedication is required or merely a park fee for the rear lot (front lot with existing residence would not be subject to park dedication). Park dedication fee, if appropriate, would be 8% of the value of Lot 2 but not to exceed $5,550. bsues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that a tree preservation plan should be implemented by the applicant? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? IHM-29M January 9.2004 rage 0 of0 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends iqiproval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer (to be resolved prior to City Council review). 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 3. Submission and approval of the final plat 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. < t *f\---------------------oiuoos A\aonion kr^’— •? 3 aXTLtA^r - fir >-• lj •*••.* I bNN9 ----------------- ■"■ "r--^ :.,<i ■ ft A“ . /. /■ • • • *f * • •• •>; *•* **• t*.•.« Ml !:. S «.• I asst' ' /l^-T.^-^.., X SSJaSSix/ i«*=*«*«>'s=--'>\' WHf'l.ATTKIJ I.AMIJ h h OUTtOT A V J j 11_ I ^atstcnx'ssi / T A H A l».*N \ /. Ky / ^ •s,*’ H I 1. I, «•• •*. -« « . . • «a#«M 82: ta irsr82 sc X'.KSri5WTC. r«r*sr~ S— Gitxsir: juistus 82. ___ _ _ S* •••• S3a «»«— mSfaHgSa t.WA.- • M • ( ■ = .n’t i>u (i »'fii< i!!i i !igi! Ill I fi 10 |!i li 105 DU I,ii I* isi ■J "^il exhibit / \ / — North lino of tho Southwoot 1/4 of the Northoost 1/4. Section 32. Township 118. Ronge 23. Hennepin County, \ Northwest comer of the Southwest 1/4 of T \/*the Northeast 1/4, Section 32. Township 118, Ronge 23, Hennepin County. M'nnesoto. mMhe S og O ‘ - wmoo , A 1374,40 S89W24*E tMjmw |»bO' I •m: I ‘^4 •% r\k feti of pfOpeMy Ihi. K 970.6 fonco Uot 1.5± foot north of pfopofty / North line of the south 10*00 oerts of the Southerest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 32. Township 118. Rc / / I / A X 970.3 N89'23'30‘W Basin mi ■vi/etiand 0 p nimf 1 - I* -.1 n|s_ _ I -Tr^iV :• 1 •. ______** •• ---------------— Wa OUTtpT A . Tonco foot ^ 8^- 4^'■ ^ .'i I ! 1. / \ .—. \ . ~~Z-. 1 ’• * . __ ^------------w * V—-.-N _ L.-> *> ^ . * ^ t! T * I V 4f T < *r_ _ *>**» fonco iioo 3.3± fcot north of proporty lint. ^72— » I •oodtd.oroo .74 \ •• • . . .'V - ____•v;‘> 4:rr d' ■ • ■.. Zon«d:RR-1B Pip No.32-118-2^-1^^ ^ ^ V\^ \5-./ ty'^^o^uidme ooUM^wto. X 970.4 Basin 01 wet/and • ________________ •%____'C-3^- Fonct .m o.7t lOi .. • nonh of tho proporty liner ^>»C^4XC0 CO^« IlOO <VI * thy propor^ lino.wm. 4-*1002.1 Southweet comer of the Southwest 1/4 of the Nertheoet 1/4, Section 32. Toentftip 118. Range 23. Hennepin County. Minneeeta. **** ... '■■, Sooth'lln# of ui. S«)Ut..lt lA 0^ I '‘.^1 32, Township llg^^ggngt 23. Hehnopn ,Co^y,'MinnesotO. i. ' 1070.6 ■ in uRosnsur EXHIBIT a) Boundary / Topographic Survey < . .'P CUSTOM STRUCTURES ^ Stubbs Bay Road L - !—^|^■^M • II - Ji____________^ •• i* 1/4 •, mmtrnm lA taMm « 114 ^ Bl cm» MMrta 9 Vi^«« MtaHi ^^ n ^/i • J lljF- I- <C :) llAiif >•< •Mi li^W '1 Ci \'\ife|2 cmt J / \ L^n \ / \ \ \\ */ ^- . J I- f 'H*j-'mm SI9 .\. 5j•K-ii Oi ^SS^^firliN'illsaisyi V>r~ ** **>’**^ *1^ ti4 »mm u •I M 2^ > . • . •—s—-±——I—; <C -7 I. I ■^aar* • Mi •wMi w $t Wmm A*»**^*r-rN I AKirN Wi^*c.r-4i ic.L> ^1 i-ri A wu I L.W I o 7 / FN A rO y / :j!^Vi!52 CA» «<^2sri.^ ^ STSS^S i# M iiM iM n ff i-jr !w nil « p« W—■Mill m BIUWOMIMIMataBBCBO • ■■ • iBm mmSSS j&Ttt i^*ii?4rrs^r8MSuX>*s^? sjSttSLr^ ** nil III wm •Mmm 0mm "* * ^mmm% sma ^atm m ms mmtmtmrn i^. *■■■ HI ivii M •1*1 Bf < ill t I I K •i i a 2ll , •. ? \J I RYAH FBC1TA6. WBTLANO OCLIM£ATK>NS EXHIBIT C SteV£/*^l4/U^S/ ^lojeci/ Welland/ ^eimmlnaUoAv/^eMneaUan/ Seo. 3Z 1 18"=n. - 9e. 23H^. 2003 Data Form - Routine Onsite Determination Method 1tl4BAIJMftttAVEinjK*10t.aLEWOCiOi 55330-StOSB3SB9S 00, ( ) r0 r» i October 27,2003 RVAN nCITAQ. WfcTLARD OCUMCATIONS Field Investigator RyanFreitag Date of Investigation: 10-27-2003, Project/Site: Located in Section 32 - T. 118N. - R.23W. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Applicant: Mr. Steve Bums 261S County Road 21 Watertown MN 55388 Assessment Ares Wetland Type Circular 39 Cowardin NWI Mapped Soils Vegetation 1 2 Type II Typen Pema Pema Yes No Ma LrB Reed Canary Reed Canary Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? ♦ Yes, a poition of the area hu been hayed. The hayiriii did not deplete the grasses to where idei^fication was a problem. Hu vegetation, soil, and/or hydrology been sigmficantly disturbed? ♦ No for areu 1 and 2. The area hu been hayed or pastured for many years. Vegetation Percent of dominate speciu that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC. Buin Dominate Plant Speciu Stratum OBL Percem FACW FAC 1 2 Reed Canary Grau Reed Canary Grau Emergent Emergent 100 too Is the hydrophytic v^etation criterion met? ♦ Yu Rationale: More than 50H of the composition of the dominate speciu from all strata are ranked u hydrophytic v^etadon. ltUBiUiniMAVIinS*m«IJEI^ 58SS«-StOSfrS589S . I iflraieiriiiiiuwt f-n RVAR rRETTAR. WfeTLAHO OCLOiRATlOliS Soils Basin Series Subgroup Hydric list Histosol Monied Histic Epipedon 1 2 Ma LrB Typic Endoaquolls MoUic Haplu^lCi Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Soil Stfies Are Listed As Follows: ♦ Ms-Marsh a LrB - Lester Loam 2 to 6% slope Other indicators: All the wetland basins exhibit low chroma with mottleing as various depths. Basin U2 which is on a Lester Soil Type wu an inclusion. Is the hydric soil criterion met? a Yes Rationale: Based on soil characteristics, it was determined the soils in the area are hydric. Hydrology Is the ground surfiice inundated? a No, None of the sites had hydrology present at the surftce. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? a Yes, in all basins indicated above Rationale: The primary indicator of drainage pattern in wetlands was used. The basins showed signs of hydrology being present during the growing season Due to the unusually dry summer, these type U basin dried up. During an average year, the basins would be wetlands. Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale The northeast basin hu met the v^eution, soils, and hydrology criteria to be a wetland. For fiiture reference, the wetland delineation ^ould be surveyed and noted on the plat. Any work within wetlands should have prior approval from all agencies which have jurisdiction. Respectfully submi Date: Attachmenu: Soils map NRCS Aerial photo Sketch showing upland and wetland ams Topographical map of the property, approximate boundaries shown. - I V' ) * . I t214BAL0VAllAV1UnJC#102.QlJEIiC0EMN 5SSS6 - SfO 5S3 SB9S m A'- ' I* -■ iS$ KJJsf: V ^ bssa? a . \ iiL' ' m^i / ^'7 ki-.-Sii^ m~^ iasi '. S;-*’ rHii ' » - V, '- ^ - .^^ia 15. ^ -V ' P-". . • '■ •' M '■ V '** / w I C. t ^Vf' ^ .' : )MJKl tlVlT* •I*li'*irrtTr.T« 5 : ^r Slsugf SSmwm' ^lOfeaU ^UJutoi^^GownsAip'SeCi 32 ^etcAfof SUe^ Welland Boundaries On this Sketch are approximate and should not be used for survey purposes. All work within wetland areas should have prior approval from all agencies which may have jurisdiction. There is no scale attached to this sketch. / V' ■ i ro ^ •• fi " v5 jj*» liluiali --lT» 'V -M. r-r‘ '■ iMArtlfrrliialtiitinii ^ >t,li $0 ■n V r- l/^cM ■ (:U'/t) '»'• >v ■•«:r . - •II I \■; \ w;n \ * • ftl.A I c ^ 0 a \v ;m^- -t- .M !>. <■V > 7*. • •’>' &w T* ' ••y^\**« • "T* •• « ''*• w; -V’ ■ ”1' - ^ ••• •• — lAien^^D - / //50 •••.« f W .- •' \ •;• .•>•1 ■-.• *4*-.‘ • •^4'1?^mm r*: MM MM • .'. •• 3^^'; if. ‘\ ^ c W . » y 0ftxS»ia^WY' ^. - ilt: ^ ir»i.niiitfi 5 1 ^ J«n IS e004 3:S£Pn B0NE8TR00 ROSEME RNDERLIK 6318361311 EXHIBITD ^ J/ J Bonestreo Ms Rosene VI And«rnk& Associates Engineer* 4 Archltecta aefwetfai llesafi#« Aatf«#Mi see Asaatiat^A ia& u an actfea/lBM lm»<a»ar I M iwiRiayta OwfMtf Prlnci^ailt OCI# O. Boaeinoe. Rf* • msfwin L Servais. AC. • Oltm R Cask. • Was/c A acfiMnicfit, NC. • Jarry A iowrdoa HB> • Mam A Hmion, F.E. laalar caasyKants, ffsbart W.noi9^A • JOItph C Arsirfili. M. • 9l€f*Sfa I. fj; • killVlMiiafrin. C." Asseciaia KrincJaals: Kttth A. Oorr«ori fff. • aobtia II. PKfftffi. PJ. • licasm w Pditif. P£. • Davtf o. iosroci. pi MifliMi T. Aaycmsnn. PI. • laa R. PitiA Pfr • iCtr«nef k a PI. • Msm a. ae.ft. M. • OrvII A Bantavse. y I Si0niy P amnimian. p.e, is • agw Ki tina. M BA. • aasn ii:i urmm, rf. • riie?7yn w. Pe wiv pa • jimti A Matsna. PA • Miiat I. p*. • l pnni^ oravai w. le • Danfti •. Cair^ian, PI. • (pfiaii Martmi. PX • Thamai A tjrfks. PA • laaiasn j. jsanMa • Oa«A 0«nya.aa. • Phemee a ttasaa*. pi • RoMrt A0«Pt*y ^ • fflMM M. P«mI. I«. CiewO. aa«*8it8f «aa WlumSft MM • W1 • Cair^an. '4 Tanuvy IS. 2004 mnatliai weee^aa wereo. Ml. Melanie Cuttle Planner CltyofOnnio Poa OfBfia Bat 66 Ciyital Bay» MN 35323 440 Stubbf Bay Road File Ke. 139^)44)00 Flat No. 04-2968 Dear Melanie; We befaa apreUminaiy review of the pluia for die piopeied two lot nibdiviiion at440 Stubbc Bey Road Tie pfopoeediavravcaDeirtelaandecahavidiBt an exiali^ let into two loti and creatiaiaB outlet WahaveEte tbUowins eonaxienta witheegetde to enfjnnrrina nuRten: • TheplaniiheuldaetlQMlMpuipoaeCiirOutlocA. Uappean itwlllprafvIdeaceeutoLotZ. Wmit alto piovide aeoeaa to Lot 17 If 10, the final plana ibonld allow the removal ofihe exisons aocan omo Stubha Bay Road. Aeeesa eaaenwnta ahould be provided if appropheie. • A prapoaed sradiaa plan thould be piovldad fbr review and approvnL Tha gradins plan ahould IdratliV drtvoway loeadana and include plan and profile views of the prepeaed drivewayi. • Plana ahoiddinelude prapoaed building pad looitioni end propoaedloweet floor clevatlooa. • Dreinaya caleiilalionaaliouldbeptovi^ for eeiating and propoaedeonditieoa. A drainage area map ibould aocompanyttie oaleulatiQoa. a Stoon water can eonffol ahould be provided (br in the final design. Stonn water rstea after devolopnMntehouldnoi eaeaedasdatlngraiea. Ihii maybe eoaongiUabedbypaodi. infilciatwnbnioa or lonw other beat managemw praetiee. • The weatecly 33-fitet of Lot 1 ahould be dedieated as fitubba Bay Read tight-of»way. e The final plat alunildinoluda drainage and Utility caaementaS-ftetwido on interior lot lines and 10- feet wide tUmg exterior lot Unea» « Drainage caaemants ihould be provided over ell exiating wetlanda.poada and prapoaed aunn water feeUMea. If you have any queationi ple aae call me at (651) 604-4663i Yoiua very truly, B0N6STR00. ROSBNB. ANDBRLIK A ASSOCIATBS. INC. Tern Kellogg Oc: Orc|Oappa,CitycfOrone 3336 Watt Highway 34 ■ St. PeuUMN S6H3 * 4Sl-ase-44O0 • Fax: 4Sh654*tI1t I I 1 01/04/2004 21:11 3202382343 ^CNTGES PAGE 01 /05 EXHIBIT EI Site Evaluation for On-Sifc Septic Systci PREPARED BY: CH1P*S SEPTICS DESIGN AND INSPECTIONS Peniel **Chip’* Heutges P.O. Box 27 Pino, MN 5S370 320-238-2343 Mteacaoto PoUatioi Coatrol Ageacy lidhrldaal Sewage Tmtflieat Syttcoi Lkease No. 2064 For. Steve Bonu 261S Gouty Road 21 WatertowB, MN SS3M H^95S•^112 Locatxm of evahialkm: la part of Scettoa 32 Towaiklp IIS N, Raage 23 W. Heaacpla Coaaty I was fctained by Mr. Bums to research the suitability of the soils at the above mentionod sites fbr the use of individual sanitary sewage treatment systems to handle the sewage flow gaaeiated within a single finnily dwelling. Tim lots were identified and surveyed out on the site. I completed f^>soil boring and four-peric tests on each site to complete my evaluation. Tbb evaluation was completed on October 2t, 2003. My findings fine the area to be suitaUe for amndardderign systems if the conditions renmin the same, as they were when they were teried. EBQ£EU2B£ The lots were reviewed for a suitable location for two septic treatment sites. Oneskeis the primary site for a treatment area and the other is the ahemate locatioa. Ahandprobe with an inside diameter of 1 inch completed the sofl borings. The so9 borings indicate the soil type ami the position of the seasonal high watertable. Locations of the soil borii« were identified by pin flags at the locations of each site. The Hennepin County Soil Survey has mapped the area as Lester Loam • S ei/04/2004 21:11 3202302343 HENTGES PAGE 02/05 Perk tests wen coflopklodfi)! each lot on October 2S-*29, 2003. The tbOowing resuhs indknte the peroola^ rate oftbe water through the soil in minutes per mck. I^ftctor is included in die design and has a bearing on the size of the system. Loti Primary She Alternate She P-1 29mpi P-2 26mpi P-3 32mpi P-4 27nyi Lota P-1 20mpi P-2 24mpi P-3 26 mpi P-4 28n^i General The soil conditions have been established at the test hole location only. There may be variatbns in sofl stratigraphy between and around the boring's and interpolation and extrapolation of the tewhs is not warranted. References: Home Sewage Treatment, University of Minnesota Agriculture Extenribn Service Dave Gustavson, Extension Engineer And City of Orono Septic System OrdiaiiCe And Ota Pollution Control Agency Rules and Stndards, 7080 If you should have any questions or need further information, you can contact stafPat the Chy of Orono, or me at you convenience. I hereby certify that I have completed this sqitic system detign worir in accordmee with MPCA’s Rules and Standards Chapter 7080, local ordinances, rules and laws. PerneT "Chip** Hentges Licenses # 2064 I 01/04/2004 21:11 3202382343 HENTGES PAGE 03/0* /0/pj SSm Ul i BAi fUAO 01/04/2004 21:11 3202302343 SOIL BORINOS Loti DATE: ^€NTGES PAGE 04/0! 1S>2S-03 CONDUCTED BY: CHIP'S SEPTiCS Chip H«mgot B-1 Primary &10 10-16 iiTj»^Tr^W.♦iv»tyr»Mi I Sub-Soilmaturastz 1S-20 SICL 20-28 S Sand L 10yr4/6 |2$-42 sm 42-56 SICUS 10yr2/3 10yr3/4 10yr4^6 IOyrS/6 10yrS/4 IShale / calcium Soma mottiat rwtad 10yr5/2 B-2 Sub-Soil features 0-16 Uam 16-22 BICL 22-36 BICL/S 3S44 BIL 44-52 BICUS 10VR2/2 10yr3/4 lOyrSB 10yrS/6 lOyrSM Shala / ealdum Some mottiat noted lOyr 6/2 jra Color Sub-Soil iaaturas — * # B-3 1 Sub-Soil features Alternate 0-12 Loam 12-26 Bit 16-26 SIL 26-36 SICL 3S46 SICL 10YR2/2 10YR3/1 10YR4/3 10YR4M 10YRS/3 1 Gray mottlee 10yi6^ B4 IHHB1 nTTW. X ‘ HTnL-H Sub-Soil features Attamate 0-10 10-16 16-28 28-32 32-42 IZ SIL SICL SICL 10YR2/2 10YR3/3 10YR4/3 10YR4M 10YRS/4 j Gray mottles lOyrS/l Depth Texture Color Structure Sub-Soil faaturea • 01/04/2004 21;11 3202302343 LcP7 isVCNTGES PAGE 01/05 A; I IBIT e1 Evalnallon for On-Site Septic Systci PREPARED BY: CHIP’S SEPTICS DESIGN AND INSPECTIONS Pernel ’’Chip*' Heotges P.O. Box 27 Plato, MN 55370 320-238>2343 Miaacaoto PoUatioa Coatrol Afcacjr ladlvidaal Sewage Treatmeot Ssratem LIccase No. 2064 For Steve Baras 2615 Coaaty Road 21 Watcftowa, MN S53S1 9S2-98S-3112 Location of cvahiation: la partofSeetkMi32 Tewathlp IIS N, Raage 23 W. Heaaepln Coaaty I was retained by Mr. Bums to research the suitability of the soils atthe abtw meiKioiied sites for the use of individual sanitary sewage treatment systems to handle the sewage fkw generated within a single ftatily dwelling. if the cODditioos reimin tbe s.n>c, ts they .«Tt wbeo they w«Te testttl rancMHlM boring were identified by pin flags at the locations of each site. The Hennepin County Soil Survey has mapped the area as Lester Loam t i 01/84/2004 21:11 3202392343 ^CNTOES SS9m 799 iiS . . ^ PACE 03/6./0/pJ . 5 ^ { i f 1 <1 . .. . rr • 01/64/2004 21:11 3202362343 HENT(£9 PAGE 02/05 Peik tests were coflopktedfivreadi lot OB October 2S-29. .2003. The foUowing results indicate the perooktibn rate ofthe water through the soil ift minutes per mch. Thisftctor is behided In the design and has a bearing on the ti» of the system. Lot 1 Primaiy Site AhcnateShe P>1 29mpi P*2 26 npi P-3 32mpi P-4 27npi Lot2 P-1 20mpi P-2 24 mpi P-3 26 mpi P-4 2Sn9i General The soil conihioiis Imve been established at the test bole location o^. There may be variations in soil stratigisfthy between and around the boring's and imeipolation and ohdion of the resuks is not warranted.cxir Rtfemctt: Sewage Treatment, UnivetslQr of Minnesota Agriculture Extension Service Dave Oustavson. ExtensioB Engine^' And City of Orono Septic System Ordiai And Mmnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules and Standards, Chqtter 7080 If you iboukl have any questions or need finther infonnation, you can contact staff at the CHy of Orono, or me at you convenience. I hereby certify that I have coopicled this septic system design work in accordance with MPCA’s Rules and Standards Chi^rter 7080, local ordinanees, rules and laws. Pemer'Chip’* Mentges Licenses # 2064 I 01/04/2004 21:11 3202382343 HENTGES SOIL BORINGS Lot 2 DATE; 10-28^)3 PAGE 05/05 CONDUCTED BY: CHIP'S SEPTICS exture ICbior Chip Htntget B-1 -Primiry jJwth TiaiJ Sl2 Loim 12-20 8ICL 20-30 SICL SICL 10YR2/2 10YR3G 10YR4/3 10YR5/4 Sub-Soil tMtures Gray mottlot SoMonal wator table B4 Alternate 0-12 Loam 10YR2/2 12-18 SL 10YR3/4 18-22 SICL 10YR4/4 e 22-32 SICL 10YR5M 32-48 SICL 10YRS/4 B-2 Sub-Soil features Primary p-14 iMm 10yr3/2 14-26 BICL 10yr3/4 26-30 BICL 10YR4/4 ^8 SICL 10YR5/4 Watertable noted Gray mottiee B-3 Oeoth 1 f• 111 • 1 i ^1 Sub-Soil features Alternate 0-10 Loam 10YR2/2 10-18 Loam 10YR3/4 18-26 SICL 10YR4/4 • 28-32 SICL 10YRSM Seasonal Watertable Mottiee 10yrS/1 Sub-Soil features • •' £ structure j Sub-Soil features i t; «OIL B0RIN08 Lot 1 DATE: CONDUCTED BY: CHIP'S SEPTIC8 1O.2S40 EXHIBIT E 3 Chip H#fi^o8 •10 10-16 10-20 20.28 2042 42.66 /oMum imOlM noM lOyiSa PrimMy JOINh rmam Mot \ iniVD9#B smidioo Sub-Soa iMtures 1. 1022 22-06 NCL NCUS 3044 ML 4052 piCl/8 lOyiOM |10yi5« 10yr6» lOyrSM Shait/cakium Some mottlM nolid 10yr6/2 3 Color SOuduro 10YR2a lOYRSn 10YR4A 10YR4M 10YRM SuOSoiUMhiift Gmy mottiet 10yr6/2 B4 DeoOi ^XNOr Structure Vj^ AfiMnati 0-10 ^0-16 16-28 28-32 3242 8ICL 10YR2I2 10YR3B 10YR4B 10YR4M 10YRSM SuOSoBfeihMM CSiay motllee 10yi6^1 05 Pltmeiy i»-io Loti 10-14 14-16 16-28 2842 142-62 joim JOKJ\ 6IL NCL P*-BICL 10TR2/2 10YR3/2 10YRS/3 10YR4/6 10YRSB 10YR8/4 §ub-Soil Hirturee Shele totlit notwi 10VI6/2 06 AMomitop-o Loti 6-16 16-24 24-28 B046 10YR2/1 10YR2/2 10YR4/4 10YRS/4 10YRS/3 SuO-Soll fMtim M notod 10yr6/2 01/06/2004 15:01 3202302343 KNTSES SOIL B0R1N08 Lot2 DATE: 10>2S4» CONDUCTED BY: CHIPS 8EPTICS B-1 Primary PAtib 01 ChipHannaa baeiii iraxiuia Color Bub-Sett faatuiM I 0-12 Loam 12-20 iia 2080 WCl 30-39 BICL lOYF^ 10YR3/3 10YR4/3 10YR5/4 Grayi 0 \ nodfoi. SeaaonahMiar table a• B-2 Primary p-14 BUM......II f?'" ^ * I i' BI3551WI .'1 ■ i •5 [ Sub^lMturea 10-18 18*28 28-32 10YR3/4 10YR4/4 10YRS/4 Seaadnt^WBtortibla MoWea 10yrS/1 Sub-SolMjaSiiaa 12-18 18-22 22-32 32-48 10YR2/2 10YR3T4 10YR4/4 10YR9M 10YRS/4 Somel rnotUat notad / 10yfSr2 B-6 Pram Lflt2 11 1'lMil 'll 1 I M 1 1' 'I I Sub-Soli iMturaa >12 Loam 10YR2/2 12-22 BICL 10YR3/2 22-28 81CL 10YR4/3 28-36 BICL 10UYRS/4 lottloa notad IOyrS/1.9/2 M Akamato D-12 Lel2 • « Zd Udil:£0 P2BZ 80 'U«r 2IIC-SS6-2S6: ‘ON X«J QKMna: i IJI .Ill j \ NorthvMt com«r of tfi« SouthwMt 1/4 of> ^•7 NorlhfOft 1/4, Stctton 32. Towniliip ' 110b Ron9« 23, Hanntpin County, Mlnnosota I,;;-''.Si &M IJirt / ^-Noflh lin« Ktrat ®i»r%rtrn —:\ - I ift I \ » w r. ♦ /•. ■J71 R»Vt!«W5 \ »3M^\ X i If \^t\ >v\ ^ i II \ \ Iv] '-wr . .. .wIS •**•4_ \ \ ''-Bma^01 ^ >s C'.vll \ y \\ -I V, I r \ I \i V mmm\ ‘ . *... •■T^S'S^ t i : • '* m ?•• .V •■ • ’ <• , ^ .• '. .f .‘/ • % > . ,’... '/j'l >4^ .-. . , •«■ • -■ V • ». ■v!; .^'v, ;,*: • #. * «i 1 V * • • •.‘••.■I » /JiH PilMM > • i'ij? A. ., k<'<’ v!V’ ':v*>V.•* . i". - •. • •'• V».- I' .,<4/; ' TH' ' 4 v>. ‘ w'" V' «.* •* .nJf‘*^ .-V .- - ^ . •..*' • I * I \ 4 I'Jicn. ..«u.-^-i^.;-*' - .V‘* I ■o\. EXHIBIT G A V* »* . \ pi cmrofORONO Monkipil Ofliccs StTNt kUmti 2750 Kelley Piffcwiy Orono, MN 55356 MalHnt Mdrass: P.O. Box 66 CiysUI Bay, MN 55323-0066 TO: FROM: DATE: Melanie Curtis Man Bolterman, On-Site Septic Systems Manager /V\(^ January 9,2004 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 440 Stubbs Bay N. 2-lot Subdivision The property at 440 Stubbs Bay N. has two mound septic sites on each of the two proposed lots. The septic evaluation was done by Penud Hentges on October 28,2003. Each lot has two septic sites that meet state and local requirements. The septic evaluation only shows sites for each septic and a mound design will have to be completed before construction begins. Based on the evaluation I recommend approval for the two lot subdivision in regards to septic locations. Tdephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (9S2) 249-4616 www.cLoroiMJBaJM exhibit h AppUcation # Date Received /^-//».POO Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION //^ / i Site address _____)/ /~ty Property Identification Number (PID) 7 /*? -cOV Please check one - Property Jr abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Narae_ Address giao jr /g City y Z /L^Af /\a5> OWNER (if different than applicant) Name____________ Address City (attach list if more than one)Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size y vT Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land ______ Acres Wet Land /C? Acres Total, all parcels ______^esidentia l;j&. of units ______ Other (sp^ify)_____ / PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes ________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units / New Units __Total Uiuts CD fO Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres r"'• t ' Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ A. J f-:') Vj '.i.1^*, V mimmum nute^ required for complete preliminary application 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below). APPLICATION 2. Conpleted application fonn. 3. Preliminary pUt information on Certificate of Survey ---------------------------------------------------Date___________________ jnJJMUM ^UTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 3. Title opinion. ^ 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning Ofliciil's Signature Date I. pq -h... which TOW ------- Sketch Plan Review (Class L n 4 m) S275.00 —_— Subdivision of a Lot Line Reanangement S350.00 -X Subdivision Application (Class 14II) S400 00 =Z * ~ “ -k CU TO-ce.i^„^0 ____ Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only S100.00 Subdivision w/easetneno and covenants «nm S200.00 Iss'a z' 7” -7- "■ covcnano: - Fees (to be determined per Section 82-227) . Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as meurred) B. Special Improvement Fees: -------Proposed Private Roads $650.00-^S-SO/lineal ft* ------- Proposed Public Roads $950.00 > $.50/lineal ft.;’lin.ftx.30-S - ^**1“*** to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 -------- . ^posed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension S275.00 + $25/stub . Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 + S25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250 00 www.ww»|#%>a awa a __________ uCW C. Flexible Application Fces/Misc. Fees ------- Variance S250.00 ($50.00 pet each additional variance) "" Vacation Associated »ith Subdivision $10000 ——_ -------PRD AppUcation with Subdivision $35.00/Dwelling Unit _____- An.licTO.Sipx.u,. ' Owner’s Signature_______ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, plme make *“** ** Commissica place and to advise the Budding 4 Zoning Office of this chani^^iw^ . : O I,, ^ f RUNDATC:!: J3 )8 32lltl3l3000l or ADOR 3307 WAVZATA BLVD W VNERMAME DON BRUN FULMER XPAYER D BRIAN FULMER ME/ADDR 3305 WAVZATA BLVD IjONOLAKEMN SS330 HENNEPIN COUNTV PROP. INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY owners LIST PAGE: I 31 3211123130003 PROP ADDR 480 STUBBS BAY RD N OWNERNAME TOODHRDONNAMCAUSE TAXPAYER TODD R DONNA GAUSE NAME/ADDR 480 STUBBS BAY RO LONOLAKEMN SS3S6 38 3211823130004 PROPAODR 440 STUBBS BAY RDN OWNERNAME FREDERICPRJEBEL TAXPAYER CUSTOM STRUCTURES INC NAME/ADDR 440 STUBBS BAY RDN LONOLAKEMN 33336 38 3211823140002 OP ADDR 3243 WAVZATA BLVD W VNERNAME H F EISINGER ETAL .XPAYER HOWARD FEISINOER .ME/ADOR 3243 WAVZATA BLVD W LONOLAKEMN 33336 38 3211823240010 OP ADDR 3640 JACOBS MILL RD VNER NAME MATT GCARRIE J H VANSLOOTEN JIPAVER matt O VANSIXK3TF.N iME/ADDR 18383 37TJI PLACE N PLYMOUTH MN 33446 38 32II8233IOOOI OP ADOR 385 STUBBS BAY RD N VNERNAME PAMELAFGREGORY .3CPAYER PAMELA FROST GREGORY iME/ADDR C/OHOLLVBROOKACO 730 2ND AVES« 1430 MPI.SMN 33402 38 3211823420006 OP ADDR 330 STUBBS BAY RO N VNERNAME JERRYCAEMYRENEIVERSON .XPAYER JERRY CAP. MYRENE. IVERSON ME/ADDR 330 .S lUIIIIS HAY NO N ORONOMN 33336 38 3211823210006 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME BURUNOTONNORTHERNRY TAXPAYER BN ASANTAFERRCO NAME/ADDR PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 38 3211823240013 PROP ADDR 3623 JACOBS MILL RD OWNERNAME RCJOCHIMS AS J JOCHIMS TAXPAYER ROBERT C JOCHIMS NAME/ADDR STEPHANIE J JOCHIMS 483 STUBBS BAY RDN LONOLAKEMN 33356 38 3211823420001 PROP ADOR 400 STUBBS BAY RD N OWNF.RNAME RICHARD N STUBBS TAXPAYER RICHARD N STUBBS NAME/ADDR 400 STUBBS BAY RDN LONOLAKEMN 55356 38 321182)420007 PROPAODR 38 ADDRESSUNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME JERRYCIVERSON ETAL TAXPAYER JEARY CAE. MYRENE. IVERSON NAMI7ADDK 330 STUBBS BAY RD N LCmOUKEMN 33336 38 3211823240003 PROPAODR 483 STUBBS BAY RON OWNERNAME RCJOCHIMS AS J JOCHIMS TA3CPAYER ROBERT A STEPHANIE JOCHIMS NAME/ADDR 483 STUBBS BAY RD N LONOLAKEMN 33336 38 3211823240014 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME MATTGJCARRIEJH VANSLOOTEN TAXPAYER matt O VANSLOOTEN NAME/ADDR 2016 MEETING ST WAVZATA MN 33391 38 321182)420003 PROP ADDR 300 STUBBS BAY RD N OWNERNAME TODD W A JENNIFER M RADAM TAXPAYER TODD W A JENNIFER M RADAM NAME/ADDR 32I6JAMES AVES MPLSMN 55419 38 321182341000* C»«Z. PROP ADOR 3320 WATERTOWN RO OWNERNAME BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION TAXPAYER BOYER BUII OINO CORPORATION NAME/ADDR ■ 8279 MINNL'^IUNKA HLVO OEEPHAVENMN 33391 . Aji Date Application Received: 12-17-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12-29-03 00-Day Review Period Expires: 02-27-04 COliMr'ii Mppyi^Q f£B y 2004 CITY OF ORO.\0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: February 3,2004 Item No ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis \^0 Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2972 - Bob Knuth & Mary Thompson - 2700 White Oak Circle - Front and Side Su-eet Setback Variances - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre minimum 2.1 acres (92,077 s.f.) 50* List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 01-23-04 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 01-20-04 Application Summary: The applicants are requesting front yard and side street yard setback variances in order to construct a front porch with pergola. The applicants are requesting variances to allow a 45.1 ’ setback from the front property line where 50’ is required and a 35’ setback from a side street right-of-way where 50’ is required and 40 ’ currently exists. The side street right-of-way is currently open space and not used as a traveled road, nor will it ever be, as it does not continue southward past the applicants ’ property.______________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On January 20,2004, Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the front yard and side street setback variances with the stipulation that the porch not be enclosed now nor in the future. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. I i I kinadi J A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420 SUBDIVISION B FILE NO. 04-2972 WHEREAS, Robert M Knuth and Mary L Thompson, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 2700 White Oak Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City ”) and legally described as follows: Tract H, Registered Land Survey No 1447, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420, Subdivision B to allow a covered porch to be constructed 45 ’ from the front lot line where 50’ is required and 35 ’ from a side yard street where 50’ is required and 40’ currently exists. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Miimesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2972. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District, which requires minimum setbacks of 50’ from the front property line and 50’ from side-street property line. 3.The Plaiming Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on January 20, 2004 and unanimously recommended approval of the variances based on the following findings: a.The existing home is situated at the front setback hindering the ability to construct a covered entrance without variances, the location of the altematr septic system treatment area further restricts suitable locations for a covered porch. Page I of 5 7 ‘if J b. The other closest neighboring properties on White Oak Circle have greater front and side yard setbacks than which is required by City Cede. c. The property owners who would be most affected have submitted letters of support for this project. d. The road right-of-way along the western property line is currently and indefinitely not used as a traveled road. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B to allow construction of a covered porch 45’ from the front property line and 35’ from the side street property line where 50’ setback? are required respectively, subject to the follow-ng conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants an* annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. The front porch with pergola shall not be enclosed. Page 2 ofS 1 t ‘ : I ^ i 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 9,2005). 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. S. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors rxd assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title cf the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9 “* day of February, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of S ^ i ' ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of ,, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal ")rporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.! Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 2004 by Linda S. Vee, 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 i State of Minnesota ) )ss, County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___________, husband of Mary L Thompson. day of .2004 Notary Public State of Mirmesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___________, wife of Robert M ’'nulh. day of .2004 Notary Public i Page S of S EXHIBIT B CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-2972 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 23,2004 TO: Bob Knuth & Mary Thompson 2700 White Oak Cir Orono, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST; Front & Side Street Setback Variances DATE OF MEETING: January 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Unanimous approval of the proposal consistent with staff recommendation that the front porch not be enclosed. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council — Monday, February 9,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm___________ If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. EXHIBIT C FILEM4-2972 January 6,2004 Pagal ofS Data Application Received: 12-17*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12'29-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 02-27-04 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner |tU0X January 6,2004 04-2972, Robert Knuth & Mary Thompson, 2700 White Oak Circle, -Variance - Public hearing Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum 92,077 sq.ft. (2.1 acres) Application Summary: Applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance and a side street (right-of-way) variance to allow a port t *.vith pergola 45.1 ’ from the front lot line where a 50 ’ setback is required and 35 ’ from the street right-of-way where 50 ’ is required and a 40’ setback exists currently. Stqff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the 5 ’ front yard setback variance and the 15 ’ street side setback variance due to the location of the existing house with relation to the front lot line with the following stipulation: I. The covered porch shall not be enclosed._____________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acres) Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 1 200 50 30 50 50 List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Photos F. Leners from Neighboring 0\Miers G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map I. 1978 Septic Diagram showing alternate site directly behind the house \ ' - ,*■ IJ I FILEM4-2972 Januwy 6.2004 Pag* 2 of S Background The applicants ’ (Bob Knuth and Mary Thompson) home is situated nearly at the front yard setback line of this expansive 2.1 acre property. In order avoid encroaching the approved alternate septic system soil treatment site when the home was built in 1978, the horn? was constructed 56.1’ from the front property line, 5’ from the required 50’ setback. Along the western property boundary between 2700 and 2715 White Oak Circle a continuation of the road right-of-way exists. This right-of-way is cunently and indefinitely not used as a traveled road, and is open space. The home is currently located 40’ from this street side yard where a 50’ setback is required. Due to the angle of the home on the lot, the proposed porch addition would extend 5 additional feet into the required side street yard. The property is located on a cul-de-sac and the property owners wish to create a “neighborly feel’* to their home with the addition of ^e covered front porch. Due to the close proximity to the front yard setback, any modification greater than 5’ off the front of the home requires a variance to front yard setback requirement. While there is ample space for additions to the rear or east sides; the applicants wish to add this amenity to the front of the home. The neighboring properties have homes at setbacks greater than the required 50’ and with the open quality of the neighborhood the 5’ encroachment into the setback would have little negative effect on the adjacent properties. Adding to the openness in the vicinity is the right-of-way continuing south from the cul-de-sac directly west of the applicants ’ property that is currently open space and the adjacent homes located over 200’ from the applicants ’ home. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200’ Actual 92,077 sq.ft. (2.1 acres)47’ RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50’56.1’45.1’ Rear 50’196.5’No Change West Side 50’40’35 ’ East Side 30 ’156’No Change I r FILE«04-2972 January 6.2004 Paga 3 of 5 Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area 92,077 sq.ft. (2.1 acres) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 13,811.5 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,627.75 s.f. (2.8 %) Front Yard Setback Variance The applicants wish to add a 492 s.f porch with pergola to the front of their existing home. Due to the location of the home on the lot a front yard setback variance is requested to allow a 5* encroachment into the required front yard setback. The existing home is conforming and has a 56.1* setback from the front property line; however, any additions to the front of the home require a variance. Side (Street) Yard Setback Variance The porch addition is proposed to be set back from the west side of the property 35*. An existing public right-of-way is located along the western property line. This right-of-way is currently open space and the road is not proposed to extend ftmher south of the cul-de- sac. Therefore the western property line Actions as an interior side yard rather than a street side yard. The existing home has a setback of 40* on the west side and the required setback for a side yard is 30*, this requirement would be met by the proposed porch addition. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, tight and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff fmds that due to the location of the existing house and the history of the prop< ity*s septic locations some level of hardship may exist in order to justify a front and street setback variance for the construction of a front porch and pergola. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship** pertinent to this application: 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allov ed by the official controls.** The 2.1 acre property can be put to reasonable use under the official controls. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. FILEI04.2972 January 6. 2004 Page 4 of 5 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The unique circumstance on this property is the location of the existing home, and is not caused by the current property owners. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localit> .'’ The adjacent homes in this neighborhood exceed the front yard setback by at least twice the setback required by zoning code. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. ’ Economic considerations have not been indicated for this project. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, wten in harmony with this Chapter.” N/A 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the afiected person's land is located.” N/A 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” N/A a. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The home is situated such that it was constructed unnet.essarily within 5 ‘ of the required front yard setback line. The other adjacent homes in the neighborhood have exceeded the front yard setback requirement with respect to their home locations. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The setback of this home is unlike the front yard setbacks for the adjacent homes. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. U I , I FILEf04-2«72 January 6. 2004 PagaSofS 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicants have indicated their desire to create a welcoming, neighborly aspect to their home, however, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the applicants. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 1 1. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is nece.<;sary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficult) .” The location of the existing home and it's proximity to the required front yard setback are a difficulty for the egfplicants as a variance is required to add a covered front porch to their home. Issues for Consideration 1. Is a front porch a “property right” cf the applicant justifying a variance to the setback requirement of the City Code? 2. The neightoring homes have cront yard setbacks greater than the required 50 ’, does Planning Commission feel granting this variance would alter the character of the neighborhood? 3. Is there a hardship to allow for making an existing conforming setback non- conforming? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission concludes that a sufficient hardship exists, then a recommendation for approval of the 5 ’ front yard setback variance may be appropriate with the following stipulation: 1 . The covered porch shall not be enclosed so that the \1sual impact of the addition is minimized. EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.(^ per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY' INFORi>LATION Site Addres s Cinlf Application # Date Received ID. - / 7 - O Amount Paid O Propert)' Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ctj- 111 ~ ^3 ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired I (do) ^ n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. .(month/year) Present use of property; residential Zoning District:________ [2 other (specify). APPLICA.NT Name Address: Phone (home) .^13/ ____Phone (work) ^ ^ j*/ • 3v City. Orc^o________Zip: S‘^'SJ~6 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: . / Su/ fare if home Estimated Coustriiction Cosi COo iM acri-,,P- hf\Ai (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width k/'Setback: ^ Front Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNLSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difificu^ or musual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /hhr"/j ''_______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) I REQUIRED SUBNATTALS 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form 4. Topographic sui^ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any chanzes in existing are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) codv 8'/i" x 11" for ronm/> »; Skc.ch« o . I o (0 tr, 7“'f ““'W of wUcant(s) if not current” w? As an addendira to this application, please attach a separate list of anv other ni«n you wish notified of this appUcation. - • P c nsi oi any other persons Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 7. 8. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby asrees to provide all infomtation required or reoueated hv ,1,. r • supplied is true and coirc^ the be^f his/her biowledge. ^formation Applicant's Signature D.'te 13 - /6 ~/0 3 OWTHiR'S SIGNATURE entry onto the propeltyTy'cl” ”aff ^MuTtallu “"I outhorires reasonable ntentbera for Cou„-> Owner’s Signature _« Date Ib-Ol nS* TfX' c":n M«tt« te“ he« "r Applicant mas, bfprese., Ta, s^bV Z -"ondn mccung. Manning Uommission Mectinas are hHH on »»,. ^«™ssiona.v,r"src“ ^ “'sC.zSi’sss; #29 7P: EXHIBIT B Attachment A Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions Wlien the house was built in the 1970s, it was placed far forward on its lot - so far forward that it lies onlv 56 feet from the lot line. We purchased the home 3 years ago and would like to install c i 1’ pergola (open-roofed porch) on the front of the house, extending 5 feet into the setback. The 6 feet available for floor and stairs within the setback would not allow enough room for safe use of a noimal-sized table and chairs, for example. It isn ’t practical to move the entire house further back, but we would like to add the neighborliness of a porch to our home. List of Legal Names of All Persons with an Interest in the Property Robert F. Knuth (husband) Mary L. Thompson (wife) #297 I. EXHIBIT C 1 JNESOTA z. V- ■ ■■>'* WHITE OAK CIRCLE EAST N 89*58’ 00" E R»50.00 , L*68.A7 -H >o;o -H # ' 229. 1 1 lU-S. NO. W7 229.30 tMKo 129.30 TRACT H lO 00ro Uo 60 to U) bo 152.29 WEST I00.J2 252.61 oo atcn # • >/ I % I W • :i. . ! ■■:, \ m • • Jmf \. 3) I 1 H 0 i ■m f y\.1 0 ✓H' y «* . ■»* V ■ r s ,(f <• -j ♦ • ::i- \ .. ^ •V y ./•' «»I' <1 \ ^ / / r ' - ^ < f • ^ ’ I V * • »^ » t - », J IJ ■. '. «. ' I' • t' /? 'T ; •- • ■.' -, ■ / //-;u5K-V • - ‘ k' I j '• ; H ■■’ ' I .'■ I ^ ^t rv' f . /. ;..v "-'fi _. 1.- • -. ;; r.Jj 'j '' V'V' •'•Q r*.‘ :? ' ' ' ♦•/ ^I*V « b ^ %- • ^ i.u>L 5"c ^ X ki V (iTr. .3 'IL'^ fV -; ‘ K w' >, i/-.■ SB?-, ■’ir^ 5j^ .y tJ t£^ '1^m ‘1 »• V I'WmfjV •*i«r r^; > i*‘ A / . ♦ j '\ ^ ^ .;•.'.; .• v: • '. ' • , f '■i‘ \; v> & L ^ W . . - r>; rt " f-Cf- ..oc-- ^ W ii. ' - i * ■ ^1 >'-Vv &• •vt^Ji V ■ f*:y^ ;#:? >>. -1 '-W-«?"v '-A. 5^ • im.'M- VK». t ’*.KliMa ?^^. J bS f ? - X ^<4ukri v': ?..•■ Iv t.*' ®f1% kl kO'V^c-^:; r.. • Nil: - w ^ • •• 5 •> K F*/A P!L •C'>:-^itk''^ffiiTiS?i.: . ■'^ ... ii- ■. - •« r .^' r • < <►.»-•. rvw * m. U ' ^ > ■<.'-»’/ . '' ■' ..«s:i i-; ■|i 1 4 V *■> V . V '* <»'‘A -V ■ •;. ) •; - I‘ . :r >: > .C- M *‘ I ''TJ 4 C •.'« ^ '•>. f V . <^' *'' * *'*> ,< »' i " ' V v^j ' < /' ifflfe ns : -»v w PSH ^ ^ > y ^ ^ t* /<. wi s aiH««S»s5A*^‘'T|y > > -»i.-A^, ' m^j - "-J .•« .r'* ',t&.>J'^i .<21? ^r'-i -'^•- {7rs ipi *>a®«;j4*^fif . ■ rv i „ ■; J ^ ^ ‘f>i-w 1V. '?• 5--‘1-'.-:5 ' y ..•'. , * /*-\ ». . i'H-i'-^'E V* v,^ ■•V ^2^-a. Pi '0:x ■ ^^^-',^:^o-;: ^;r. ».■ .. ,-*^v 'v »<.*f * !-iS f'V ■ Km nr,.v- ■ < -•• *;*4t4l' r. it hy k'- exhibit f I CHARL.es M. KEL.L.EY ST20 WHITE OAK CIRCLE ORON'O. MIMKESOTA SSSSC 5.Z—V A • X • (4^«, A>** f (W 4^‘At litk 4'M' f ft •L «Ua . Cf / ^ ? } t 1 fiit ■BiidMMi EXHIBIT F2. January 9,2004 To Whom It Concern: My name is Elizabeth Becker. I am a neighbor of Bob Krmtb and Mary Thompson at 272S White Oak Circle. My husband and I are aware of Bob and Mary's plans to add a porch/pergola onto the front of their house, and that a variance is requir^. fW We have no opposition whatsoever to this addition. M. Becker >1 I t.'i i« rijitiittfifiinllir iftiiiib i’ exhibit f 3 Steven and Laurie Jenniges 2715 White Oak Circle Orono, MN 55356 952-473-1962 December 20,2003 Orono Planning and Zoning Orono City Council 2730 Kelly Parkway Long Lake, MN 55356 Re; Proposed property improvement at 2700 White Oak Circle To Whom It May Concern; Our property is one lot away from this property. Between us is a vacant portion of the lot which is the continuation of the private road White Oak Circle. This tetter represents our acknowledgement and if necessary our acceptance of the planned upgrade to Bob and Mary Thompson’s property. If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Signed, Steven Jenniges c. Bob and Mary Thompson 2700 White Oak Circle Orono, MN 55356 iStammmAj 31 04II73J4I0004 NtOVADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO tmNERNAMB KEVIN WEHRM ANN ETAL rAXTAVER KEVIN WEHRMANN 4AME/ADOR JAR' FO* *T WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 0411733420009 mOPAOOR 2*30rOXST VWNEItNAMfi KEVIN WEHRMANN rAXPAVER KEVIN WEHRMANN MAME/ADOR JMOfOXST WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 0411733420021 •ROPAOOR 2700 WHIlBOAKaR 3WNERNAME MLTHOMPSON*RFKNUTCH lAXPAVER MARY LTIIOMPSON NAME/AOOR ROBERT FKNOTH 2700 WHITE OAK CIR LONG LAKE MN S33S6 30 041172342002* ADOR 3713 WHITE OAK CIR IWNERNAME SRLJENNIOES rAXPAVER STEVEN* LAURIE JENNIGES lE/AOOR 2713 WHITEOAK CIR LONG LAKE MN SS3S6 30 0411723430022 WOP ADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VWlWRNAME DFKUMUNETAL rAXPAVER OENNBFKUMUN MAME/ADOR PO BOX 133 WAYZATAMN S339I PKOetKI » OWMtKa 1.01 30 0411723420001 PROP ADOR 26*0 FOX ST OWNERNAME VERNONRDANEETALSUBJ/LE TAXPAYER ROGER V * LENORA DANE NAME/ADOR 2660 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 33391 30 0411723420003 PROP ADOR 2690 FOX ST OWNERNAME lANJPETERSEN TAXPAYER lANJPETERSEN NAME/AOOR 2690 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0411723420010 PROPAODR 2620 FOXST OWNERNAME DMJAFFRAYRMBJAFFRAV TAXPAYER OMRMBJAFFRAY NAME/ADDR 2620 POX ST WAYZATAMN 33391 31 041 1 723420020 PROP ADDR 2720 WHITE OAK CIR OWNERNAME CHARLESMKELLEY TAXPAYER CHARLES M KELLEY NAME/ADDR 2720 WHITE OAK CIR UmOLAKEMN 33336 cx? 31 0411723420022 PROPAODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNCD OWNERNAME WHITE OAK CIRCLE ASSOC TAXPAYER WHITE OAK CIRCLE ASSOC NAMF7ADOR OF LONG LAKE 2720 WHITE OAK CIR LONG LAKE MN 33336 30 0411723420023 PROPAODR 2725 WHITEOAXaR OWNERNAME P C BECKER * E M BECKER TAXPAYER PAUL C * ELIZABETH M BECKER NAME/ADOR 2725 WHITE OAK CIR LONG LAKE MN 33336 •■V. Q ciVf i ’ 'I r- '• CaI30 0411723430003 PROPAODR 2675 FOX ST OWNERNAME PJSLOCUM*EEGILUGAN TAXPAYER PETER SLOCUM* ERIN GILUGAN NAME/ADOR 2675 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0411723430020 PROP ADOR 650 GANDER RD OWNERNAME IG TUCKER * W U TUCKER TAXPAYER JAMES G * WHITNEY B TUCKER NAME/ADDR 630 GANDER RD WAYZATAMN 55391 f- A. •P' t. •' T • I CERTIFY THATTHB FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACXX*ATB AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHS DATEONTHE RECORM OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMB!£LXO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEP. ,, V. ^ ' /9y DATE BY exhibit h Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departni®^^^|u ? i I :4 ^..Parcel Information Parcel ID 0411723420021 House Number 2700 Street Name WHITE OAK CIR • • AT V- •* This Is not a lagally ncortiad map. It nprasarus a compilation at ittomwOon and data from City, CouMy, and Stata mad authortias and othar sourcaa. A )UT RECORD GALLONS 2ocx> EXHIBIT 1 LOCATION SKETCH /\ ✓ ' y < ft ' 0-:^ ^Inqfude: 1) Well location 2) Distance from house t septic tanks, dist. box, and drainfield S covac 3j fsjorth arrow and road (AKie .1 A L Date Application Received: 12/21/03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/21/03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 2/19/04 COMMrii l^^PETlNG FEB V 2004 CITY OF ORO.no REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: January 29,2004 Item No.: | q Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2976 James & Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road - CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Structure Zoning District: LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. (87,120 s.f.) Lot Area:(Per approved lot line rearrangement) 4 01 ac. (3 ac. dry, 1 ac. wetland) List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1-23-04 C - Draft PC Minutes 1-20-04 D - Memo and Exhibits of 1-13-04 Application Summary: The property at 1801 West Farm Road contains a principal residence and a guest house originally approved via CUT Resolution No. 28 54 in 1990. During the recent lot line rearrangement review, it was confirmed that the legal combination condition of Resolution No 2854 had never been fulfilled. It was also confirmed that the applicants at this time do not want to combine the properties (1801-1849) and the Planning Commission and Council confirmed that the 3 ac. dry/1 ac. w etland area of 1801 West Farm w as not sufficient to meet the intent of the Guest House ordinance regarding lot area. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Council conditioned lot line rearrangement approval on successfully obtaining a CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Building, with the understanding that the kitchen in the guest house would have to be remo\ed. Planning Commission Recommendation: On a vole of 4-1, Planning Conunission reconrmended approval of a CUP for plumbing in the accessory building, subject to: 1. Removal of kitchen facilities, including: - Removal of cooktop (no oven exists) - Removal of refrigerator - Removal of the kitchen sink 2. Applicant to execute standard ‘use limitation' covenant. I M4-2976 ISOl Weil Farm Road January 29,2004 Page 2 A majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood and that the plumbing fixtures that will remain are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. Staff Recommeadation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval and containing the required covenant language is attached for Council review and adoption. 9 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution for a Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUP. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78*303, SUBDIVISION (17) FILE #04-2976 WHEREAS, James W Pierpont and Judith A. Pierpont, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1801 West Farm Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Attached “Exhibit A" (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-303, Subdivision (17) to allow plumbing including a toilet, bathroom sink and shower to remain in an existing accessory structure formerly used as a guest house; 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 20,2004, at which times 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, nNDlNGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2976. 2. The property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District, where 2 acres is the minimmn lot area. The property is approximately 4 acres in gross area including wetlands. Page 1 of 6 3. 4. 5. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 20, 2004 and on a vote of 4-1 recommended approval of a CUP for plumbing in the accessory structure, based on the following findings: a.The proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. b.The plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory structure. c.The property size and accessory building location are sufficient to allow the conditional use permit to be granted. The nonconformity of the building location is mitigated by the existing screening and adequate separation distances to neighboring homes. d.The CUP should be subject to the standard “Plumbing in Accessory Structure’ conditions. e.The retention of the existing kitchen fixtures in the structure would not be appropriate as that would make the building easily functional as a guest house for which the property does not qualify. 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 conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in the accessory structure 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, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 I 20^ li j ^ Ljl.i t • ►L_ 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 78-303, Subdivision (17) to allow plumbing including a toilet, bathroom sink and shower to be retained in the existing accessory structure, per the site plan and building floor plans attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and as annotated by City staff, subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicants shall, prior to this resolution taking full effect and within 90 days of the date of this resolution, remove the following existing kitchen fixtures from the structure in question: - cooktop (no oven exists) - refrigerator - kitchen sink and its associated plumbing 2.The applicants by executing this resolution agree and covenant that the property will be bound by the following conditions: Kitchen fixtures including kitchen sink and its associated plumbing, refngerator, stove/range and cooktop, shall not be reinstalled or installed in the accessory structure unless specific approval to do so is granted by the City Council, and installation of such fixtures in the future without City Council approval shall be considered a violation of the conditions of this resolution; B) The accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code; C) The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained (site is not large enough to qualify); and D) The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by completing the kitchen removals within the timeframe established above and by obtaining a final inspection for same within one year of the date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date (February 9,2005). Page 3 of6 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 chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of February, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 I I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of February, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_day of...2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this____day of by James W. Picrpont, husband of Judith A. Pierpont. .2004 i Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this____day of by Judith A. Pierpont, wife of James W. Pierpont. .2003 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Th9t part of Lot 14, Block 1. THE FARM AT LONG LAKE which lies cost of a line 56.00 feet west of. meosurcd at a right easterly line of said lot 14. ALSO, Lot 15, said Block 1, ond that part of Lot 16, said Block 1 occordina to the recorded plot thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southerly of the north 104.72 feet and northerly of the following described line: Cormiencina at the southwest corner of said Lot 16- thence North 02 degrees 12 minutes 03 seconds East, osstmed begring along the West line of said Lot 16, 101.24 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 87 degrees 47 minutes 57 seconds feet: thence North 84 degrees 53 minutes 26 seconds Lost, feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 16 distant 355.57 feet southeasterly of the northeost corner of said Lot’ 16 and there terminating. K n J • V X V s ^ ^8 W* 57« V'iewV ’ - a 2 I V ----.--cri,«c 1 tr" ■ S" • go ^ \ jfp\ ( , -'■3EXBTWC 'TaSTW^- '.-' S «« '' i ' /' S STW - *«»ACC^ ' ' ■''<-ii<^?CS4. ■; r^—^ .T^\\ W \ \ ^ \ \ \ \\ \ \ ^ \ 1^^^•\ \ WWW \si '> w. 1-!''.' ''v \ I ::::‘'rmrr-r-j^r ROOT CEILAR f£WAY EXISTING^oose TO >- 1 A 45 J \ ''\\ 'WNOw^ N ' I K ! % ' _ '%'S • V % ' -\ ACRES'BEFORL - AQRES "Af TER^' I • ^"II \ \ ' \ I'x ^ I''‘'JI2' *5^ \ ' '' ''\ V \ '<\'., ' / '> '• : \''' \ >' '' \ \ '' \ \ ''- \ \\'i ' ’> !'\;>'W\'y\-. '’A/', r. \ ?.WW^W'W'OX\.AV\'. .' I \ * X ' ION...^drainage X nO 'v - IV X r» \ ''joi I 'x 'x \ \ ; I \, \W;?|W.™^KlAsgkNre 'n * -------JL__ -“X *1*—L N S)y47; 5?» W 743:4V i--V-.\_______ _ - - • '^ xX •--•-•‘x---*---------- ^ > I I ^ >* \ EXHIBIT B-2 RESOLUTION NO. - 6trpcri3<L. .y*.> 1 0*^ pjf^' 9«#A. ^XfiST r } . CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #04-2976 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 23, 2004 TO: James & Judith Pierpont 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP - Plumbing in Accessory Building DATE OF MEETING: January 20, 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval subject to: 1. Removal of kitchen facilities, including: - Removal of cooktop (no oven exists) - Removal of refrigerator - Removal of the kitchen sink 2. Applicant to execute standard ‘use limitation’ covenant. yOTE: 4 FOR 1 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, February 9, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Plamiing Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and ^proval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Platming Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application #04-2974, StoneBay Marketpiace, NW Quadrant Hwy 12/Wiliow Drive, a Proposed Commercial PUD Development, in addition, when the final Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision is presented, that they be accompanied by a progress report of where the original StoneBay development project is at currently. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#15) #04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (10:20-10:53 P.M.) James Picipont, the Applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the property at 1801 West Farm Road contains a principal residence and a guest house originally approved via CUP Resolution No.2854 in 1990. During the recent lot line rearrangement review, it was confirmed that the legal combination condition of Resolution No. 2854 had never been fulfilled. It was also confirmed that the applicants at this time do not want to combine the properties (1801-1849) and the Planning Commission and Council confirmed that the 3 ac. diy/1 ac. wetland area of 1801 West Farm was not sufficient to meet the intent of the Guest House ordinance regarding lot area. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Council conditioned lot line rearrangement approval on successfully obtaining a CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Building, with the understanding that the kitchen in the guest house would have to be removed. Because the City will not accept continuation of the Guest House use without 4.0 acres of dry builJablc land, applicant has chosen to pursue a Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP. Discussions at the Council level cstoblished that removal of the kitchen facilities from the existing guest house structure would be required, but the plumbing would be allowed to remain subject to applicant successfully obtainmg a CUP. The lot line rearrangement approval does not take effect until the Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP is obtained. Gaffron pointed out that 1801 West Farm Road has been confirmed to have a site for construction PAGE 44 of 64 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. of a S-bedroom mound system should the need arise to replace the existing system serving the house and accessory building. However, the City Council has received and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that the property will be served by municipal sewa in the relatively near future. While the accessory building is conforming as to height, it is nonconfonrung as to size and location. The structure consists of two buildings • an old stable and a newer garage, connected by a circular room. The total square footage is approximately 1075 s.f., which would place this building into die category of an ‘oversize accessory structure’ subject to principal structure setbacks (50' front, 30' side) and not nearer the street than the principal residence structure. However, this building is located approximately 49' from the cul-de-sac where a 50' setback would be required, and it sits between the house and the street Further, its location ranges from 1.5' to 6' from the north side lot line. Gaffron indicated diat the building today is screened from the north by vegetation existing on the adjacent property. Staff believes the neighborhood visual impact today is as minimal as it was in 1990. Gaffron stated that it is assumed tlut the property owner will agree to the coveruuit requirements, including: - the building will not be used for a home occupation; - the building will not be used as a dwelling; and - building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling. In order to approve the CUP, Gaffron explained that the Council must make the following two findings: • the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. • the plumbmg fixtures proposed are in keq)ing with die intended use of the PAGE 45 of 64 li MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. accessory building.4 He encouraged the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to confirm the intended uses of this building once the kitchen is removed, to ensure that the above findings are satisfied. Kitchen removal should include the following, in the opinion of staff: 1 . Remove stove and microwave oven, if any. 2. Remove refrigerator. 3. Remove kitchen sink and associated plumbing. Planning Commission should confirm that these are the appropriate fixtures to be removed to result in the conversion from a ’guest house ’ use to an ‘accessory structure with plumbing’ use. The fixtures to be removed will be documented as ‘not allowed to be reinstalled’ in the CUP resolution. Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP for plumbing in the accessory structure, subject to the following: 1. Applicants to execute standard ‘use limitation’ covenants as required by City Ordinance. 2. Conversion from guest house ’ status to ’accessory building with plumbing’ status will require removal of existing kitchen facilities includmg stove and microwave oven, if any, refrigerator; and kitchen sink and associated plumbing. While Mr. Pierpont agreed with staff’s conditions, he questioned whether what he used for a kitchen sink, which was an antique piece of furniture housing a sink, could be differentiated from a kitchen sink. In addition, he pointed out that the guest house provides a small refrigerator and cook top. Pierpont pointed out that it was their mtent to divide the properties into 4 acre and 2 acre sites. He argued that due to the change in code, the '/» acre wetland has diminished their property to the point at which they cannot have their guest house. He maintained that the wetland has always been on the site, as has the stable and guest house, and only the Ordinance change has changed disallowing these things. He asked for an exception. PAGE 46 of 64 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Acting Chair Mabusth asked whether the applicant found the subdivision necessary if they planned to hook up to City sewer when available. Pierpont stated that they are trying to correct a flaw in the property and make a second stand alone parcel. While the sink as it exists was small, Gaffiron questioned the Commission whether they felt the covenants would limit its use. Pierpont stated that he was willing to sign any covenants. Acting Chair Mabusth did not believe the small sink enclosed in the antique piece should have to go. Fritzler disagreed, suting that he felt a cook top and sink constituted a kitchen in his mind and would have to go. Rah concurred with Fritzler, ^ting that the concept allows a bathroom facility but stops short of a kitchen facility. Gaffron suggested this be revisited in the code at a future date, as the original intent of the code was to allow a bathroom facility in the garage. While she believed the sink housed in the piece of furniture was lovely, Bremer was concerned that the Commission has denied similar requests in the past and could not allow this request Pierpont reiterated that the only thing that has changed over time is the law. He maintained that he had not changed a thing to his property and been given ai^ovals from the original construction decades ago, as well as, as recently as 1990, and now they are being told they need to remove this amenity. He again repeated that plumbing had always been a part of the stable and merely upgraded over the years, just as the wetland has always been a part of the property. He felt this should be a non-issue, since his guest house was approved 14 years ago in a previous application. PAGE 47 of 64 ' r i t ; i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m.4 Rahn reminded the applicant that the previous approval was based on the legal combination, which was not performed. Pierpont maintained that he was unaware, until beginning this process to uncombined them, that they were never combined in the first place. Rahn stated that the dilemma facing the Commission is that diere is no hardship to support this request; therefore, they must stick to the Code. Hannaford disagreed, stating that in his opinion, there was a hardship, the application before the Commission had been approved in the past, and now they are asking him to remove something that he was already granted approval of. Hannaford stated that the Commission has the ability to exercise some judgment here, in addition, to satisfying the code without setting a precedent While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that the City Council will be given the opportunity to hear the applicant’s rationale, she believed the Commission would be remiss in approving the application. Rahn moved, Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04- 2976, James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, approving the lot line rearrangement, subject to stafTs recommendation that the applicant execute the standard ‘use limitation* covenants, and the conversion from a ‘guest bouse* to ‘accessory building with plumbing* status requires the removal of kitchen facilities including the sink and cooktop, and associated plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hannaford dissenting. Hannaford deferred to his earlier comments. (#16) #04*2977 MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (10:53 P.M.-12:20 AM.) Mike Keaveny, the Applicant, and Paul Ode. the potential restaurant lessee, were present. PAGE 48 of 64 nati Dite Application Received; 12/21/03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/21/03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 2/19/04 p.c. k ' ■■ i ■ •' f To;Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Admiiustrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director January 13,2004 (?.' doOTG-’f' ,■ v!--/ r.. !./■ #04-2976 JamesA Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road \/o'^ - CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Structure ^ I • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. (87,120 s.f.) (Per approved lot line rearrangement) 4.01 ac. (3 ac. dry, 1 ac. wetland) Application Summary: The property at 1801 West Farm Road contains a princ ipal residence and a guest house originally ^proved via CUP Resolution No.2 8S4 in 1990. During the recent lot line rearrangement review, it was confirmed that the legal combination condition of Resolution No. 2854 had never been ^Ifilled. It was also confirmed that the applicants at this time do not want to combine the properties (1801-1849) and the Planning Commission and Council confirmed that the 3 ac. dry/1 ac. wetland area of 1801 West Farm was not sufficient to meet the intent of die Guest House ordinance regarding lot area. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Council conditioned lot line rearrangement approval on successfully obtaining a CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Building, with the understanding that the kitchen in the guest house would have to be removed. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to removal of kitchen facilities and execution of standard covenants limiting ^ture use. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Survey - Showing Location of Accessory Building, Proposed Lot Lines C - Floor Plan Sketches by Staff (Approx, per 1990 Bldg. Permit), Elev. Views D - Photos E - Property Owners List F - Plat map G - Memo of 10/20/03 H - Council Minutes 11/24/03 ■I I ,1.t i ■ k r #04-2976 Jinutry 13,2004 Page 2 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 78-303(17): LR-IA Conditional Uses: 2. “The provision cf a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer ora conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the andc^tated flows from the huUding plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing wili not be detrimental to the residenttal character of the neighborhood. The Council finds tbat the plumbing flxtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. The proper!}' is 2J> acres in area or larger. The acceuory buOding is conforming in location, size and height. The propert}- owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that: a. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code, the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. the accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise pros ided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances." 3. 4. 5. b. c. 2.Section 78-1437(3): Supplementary Requirements and Restrictions - Accessory Buildings- Plumbing. “Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and wastewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelling units, and because it Is the policy of the Cit} to limit residential development density to the allowed densities within the respective zoning dbtricts, plumbing In accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: 1. The provision of _etc~. losttiladon of ».etc_ Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing tbat indudes a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height, which meeto one of the following criteria: a. The accessory building has been approved for a 'Guest House' conditional use permit; or b. The accessory building has been approved for a 'Plumbing in Accessory Building' conditional use permit" 2. 3. 3. Section 78-1434; Oversize Accessory Structure Standards Background Because the City will not accept continuation of the Guest House use without 4.0 acres of dry buildable land, applicant has chosen to pursue a Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP. Discussions at the Council level established that removal of the kitchen facilities from the existiny yiu»st structure would be required, but the plumbing would be allowed to remain subject to apolican^ successfull y obtaining a CUP. The lot line rearrangement approval does not take effect until the Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP is obtained. a i, «04>2976 January 13,2004 Pages It should be noted that the existing guest house is located very near the north boundary of the property; this was reviewed and found acceptable during review of the CUP granted in 1990. Neighborhood conditions have not changed substantially since that time. Septic System Capability; Sewer Pending 1801 West Farm Road has been confirmed to have a site for construction of a 5-bedroom mound system should the need arise to replace the existing system serving the house and accessory building. However, the City Council has received and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that the property will be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near future. CUP Standards per 78-903(17) Lot Area The property contains the required 2.0 acres of land, meeting Condition 3 of Section 78-303(17). Building Conformity The property does not appear to abut Long Lake and is not considered a lakeshore lot. While the accessory building is conforming as to height, it is nonconforming as to size and location. The structure consists of two buildings • an old stable and a newer garage, connected by a circulai room. The total square footage is approximately 1075 s.f., which would place this building into the category of an ‘oversize accessory stmcture’ subject to principal structure setbacks (50' front, 30' side) and not nearer the street than the principal residence structure. However, this building is located approximately 49' from the cul-de-sac where a 50' setback would be required, and it sits between the house and the street. Further, its location ranges from 1.5' to 6' from the north side lot line. This building was allowed to be established in 1990 via Resolution No. 2854 which made the following finding regarding its location: "b. The property owner to the immediate north that receives the most visual impact from the intensification of the stmcture has submitted written approval of the project. That property owner’s house is located 150' east of the project.” The building today is screened from the north by vegetation existing on the adjacent property. Staff believes the neighborhood visual impact today is as minimal as it was in 1990. Covenant Requirement It is assumed that the property owner will agree to the covenant requirements, including: - the building will not be used for a home occupation; - the building w ill not be used as a dwelling; and - building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling. Il «04*2976 January 13,2004 Page 4 Required Findings In order to approve the CUP, Council must make the following two findings: - the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. - the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. Planning Commission should ask the applicant to confirm the intended uses of this building once the kitchen is removed, to ensure that the above findings are satisfied. Kitchen removal should include the following, in the opinion of staff: 1. Remove stove and microwave oven, if any. 2. Remove refiigerator. 3. Remove kitchen sink and associated plumbing. Planning Commission should confirm that these are the appropriate fixtures to be removed to result in the conversion from a ‘guest house’ use to an ‘accessory stmcture with plumbing’ use. The fixtures to be removed will be documented as ‘not allowed to be reinstalled’ in the CUP resolution. Issues for Consideration 1.Are the neighborhood impacts of the nonconforming aspects of the structure so minimal as to be a non-issue regarding this CUP request? 2.With removals of existing kitchen facilities, the structure will still have a bathroom. Is this consistent with the ^licant’s proposed use for the structure? Are the fixtures suggested for removal by staff the appropriate fixtures to be removed? 3. Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding this proposed CUP? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Ac CUP for plumbing in the accessory structure, subject to the following: I. Applicants to execute standard ‘use limitation’ covenants as required by City Ordinance. 2. Conversion from ‘guest house’ Jitatus to ‘accessory building with plumbing’ status will require removal of existing kitchen facilities including stove and microwave oven, if any, refiigerator, and kitchen sink and associated plumbing. iL Dm>II*{Q8] IM2m PrM<lTY Of OffMO r #¥»«!««• r AppBfrtkn < C)^' Z*17b DataRoctivod IZ^TTlU^ AmocMtPaid S 00 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address //<3/ iC^cr __________________ Type of Applicatioa to be Filed TPes/Vg^HTj^l ae^-^ssa/t^ /je Property Identification Number (P.LD.) _______________________________ AOditaa/^a/ iJinr fiAJtmXP 0>YNER (if dififerent than applicant) Name____________________ Phone ftomel _____PhoM C*otfc) - ' - Phone (homeX <»*P J-a f. Address.City .. Phone (woikX Zip Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. _ (month/year) FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 7S.OO For each variance request with CUP application y S2S0.00 Residential Accessory Use ___$250.00 bstitutioDal (church, school, etc.) ___$250.00 Guest Housc/Guest Apartments ___$250.00 Duplex Crtdit/Bldg __ $325.00 Commercial/lndustrial Use ___$250.00 Land Alteration __ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floor^lain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change fiom original application) Afier*the-Fact Fee • Double Cunent Application Fee OTHER APPUCATIONS _____ $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____ $300.00 Vacation _____$250.00 Easement Vacation ___^ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ____ $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refisr to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule H Dk~II-20O3 IMSpa PrsKlTV » CIONO ♦ISZZ4MIII MS4 3M7/00I Mri 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Cooipleted Applicttioa Fonot Describe leqoest in detail. CcftifiM Pwp«ny Ovmen List of owners within 35(f, labels and plat map (you C^cie of Survey (sipiol by . Bcaiied nmrejor) . Rfer to hnleui Ibr survey inionnatioiL ^ Attach leg^ description to application if not included on requited survey. Topographic survey (ewsanj and proposed contours) if land alteratim involve changes m elevation (grades). list of tte l^el mim (incUe msrital taus) of sU yersoos widi an inierest in the poperty. Ttia would include Dtine(s) of applicanl(s) if nor eurient ownerb) Constnietion plan, if ^ipticable (see siaff for requirements). As an addflodun <o ^s ^plication, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. / 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. SSf “• "c. » be no Appltanit and Pr^ ^ am eign this appliesn'on. Please remember that your ^plication is not complete if the above infoimation has not been included. education by Clerical Department that Land Use AppUcation is complete Ihiiials of Clerical Staff:__________ _________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE T^ applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the ydwi.-m.. d^strstot agrees to puy sdditioosi ftes (staff timt nut coveted by oiiginel (eTpeyti^ unusual exp^s ineun^ m review uf this spphestiou, and eeitifies Sum InSS supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. monnanon Applicant's signature C OWNER'S SIGNATI Date - •2.0 - ISLTT Ir*''' rud sgtees to thiTqiplicstion and fiuiber auihorired Owner's signature Uate ■" o ^ ^ Appticaai musi have all lubminal^iaM the City oRUea 25 dhv< etw. bi__• ^ . . Planning Comnuiiion Meetirsi are h^oa me Oitd MoMay of each wvsmew Meeting, scheduled review meetings of the Plaaaing Cosnission and CevKa If an f”** w P«*«*» •« all BuQding Zoning Office of ihis clusfe prior to the meetmg. ^ ^ Mbpigt om /7/7 '.'f%}^i \ / s-l s*.T •vO*' ^ 6 %J/ lifts'i mil I ■ el C^l / V V A •irA ^ ,M mt ^ ^ Sr - ^87»4^7” E 223.24“7"’^to-'Tr-‘N\\\\\\\\ I "1 -- . I Yl ^;VV\\Vv $ \ i•\ I * • N« i"^3Q\.' ' » • I I* ' • • I ’ • » I -s \ \ \ * ' * ' •'n\\ ' \ \\ \ '. \ \ \ \ ' \ \ EXISTING ^<OUSE J O '!. -^ Ml. n- \Mt-A ! \i \i\ \ :'>L'''-' \ '■ I I :-~i<:r/; \ ; ' /, * ~ ^ 1-------^^ \v ...........................................'*--- EXISTtilC TENNC\ • COUNT i '''' \ feK \' • \ I •• \ ' c-\ /- I. 0^^ p*>c. Fi0od^ I [ m^¥'^iHFj- - ^ — wmm j A iS . •.. • • JT. , „ •xXA;>pfp>?v^-;:>£»'’ ^ j “.>^:/j ■\X'^‘^T-o-h5iv^^ - ^ X. -------- - —— • —- -• A 'S "^Vt,* 4,pVMsJ»J • * ••{ rj >r«*0 '.................... M, •:•■ '• ! • -•.--•i|. / •! - .! •*' !;. *11 \% . - N i::• • I*:* • » V :* • »t. ^• • • *-n •• • *A I ■■■ ' ■ •' ,... ;.. . •' «.-.!. ^ : • •*!•!• * !*♦ ^ ... ..I , < * •• 1 • • ••*••,.■ ^ I •••- ^ ^•^mm m II » , I • 111 * . .• » I X li» • --------- • '^h I * I ! ^ K';_.-,|.. 1 — » « • • t^ • '*-*--r .; ^■V^ * •. v« .“ -r -,Siijtusdii: I } V .t • i.„,,,.......„^_; •.; .,L„..,.„.....;,~J. j y y *r . . W 1 1..... I. .... m mm* «i •*.•.*•. • • • .V . • I I T^**- * I..r .-. ■•' ■••}-*••!••.-C5 .• ~^.~\ipvii rr*^rsl f......-............. ' ' ': ’. i * ■■",*. i r : ',1] N-iJil SpK. .j •---<v • • r- . ! ;— • ; » - . r— - •; *........ , ; f • mm.rnmm^ * ..M <• «t• •r----------^ : ___:::rT-rBLASHINQL^ ..•iV ••« I _*« • #• •! r —-ir- !»••M . .:!.•.. !:• * * n . ...i-,------- . 4 ’-- - r T--' "1 • # c* ;.. .V ■ \ !•; • •t • f»t • • • ; . • I ■ . • . :_ ;.. I . '____:. • .' • •• • ^ LE^5:^.*• t • ___ i •• ?•----------! <• •• •• % • - : T - vJfc>.^o&is*» -■»i J* • .""^“‘•^*^1 tJt i .»■ ✓ I :i ' » ^ • •' * •• •• .• ' • * :t:t jr-N I • • r ‘ • .• • « • It: • c • • •r >^TU>e.'9 7 I I : I •• • m* • • ••• • • • n ► -* • -:? * ----------i—r ■ •.Vv ■ r -------------— I . - . -6»U^rht t ,•• • I i i _____J ir it i- y* * , ♦ mmmis^ w.' Mm mm: i» ■mm- ‘■'5 mmfms* • • ♦»>» I'j'^y- V, '■ai*V ■)-. - ML fe f rS!^-#>.i-S';-:; rrwm^vmmL■m: (•» r r>^ H?i#'\t > L? . '.' V '^■ m ^. *^ ;. * Vv.v ... A • • ■ ■ • .•# m.i. - V iV .• •»Vi- [■r.|;-v«''"^- •, - •. ‘ v^**%v’V^i'T - i.-.< . .'■jfe.;' I.:rX,-.. ..i- • W VJ- .♦V',4<* v> 1 <7••.»>» I -; Ml iUft/t?- * S' /A*'.*'. I •^ ' . *j‘w >. T. r #:r .4 # t 1 ^i'r- * S»‘^C^- Jv ? ‘l.-. w , *'W 1- r-m V «T-’f;,* I 7^*'^ - 4 . f W •*• ■** ‘ ..'»• , T : ■•>'• ;> y * ..,«'a i ry KUNOAII..y lICNNCPIN COUNTY PROP v INI ORMATION SYS ILM PROI'UITYC AS LIST PAUL: I )l 27III2J4JOOI4 PROP ADOR 1923 WEST FARM RO OWNERNAMC aiARIJ:SLSCMROGOGRETAL TAXPAYER CIIARUiS L SCMROEDER NAME/ADOR PAMELA FREEMAN SCMROEDER 1923 WEST FARM RD lONGUKEMN 35336 31 2711123430013 PROP ADOR IN9 WEST FARM RO OWNERNAME DllWMIITCNAPCHART TAXPAYER OIIWIlirrCNAPEIIART NAME/AOOR l«W WEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 33336 31 27IIR234300I7 PROP ADDR 1110 WEST I'AKM Rl) OWNERNAME TIMOTHY ADAMS TAXPAYER TIMOTHY ADAMS NAME/ADDR 111 0 WEST FARM ROAD lONULAKEMN 33336 3K 27IIR234300IR PROP ADUK IK60 WE.ST I'AHM RD OWNERNAME LSIIUIIAEYMORRISON TAXPAYER UURIESIlUa NAME/ADDR EU2A0ETIIY MORRISON 1160 WEST FARM RD LONOUKEMN 33336 31 2711123430024 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME THE FARM AT LONG LAKE TAXPAYER the FARM AT LONG LAKE PTNSIIP NAME/ADDR C/O TIMOT1 lY ADAMS IRI0WI-S1 lAKMKOAD LONULAKEMN 33336 31 2711823440006 PROP ADDR 1709 NORTH FARM RD OWNERNAME LARROSENGREN TAXPAYER RANDY V ROSENGREN NAME/ADDR 1709 NORTH I ARM RD lONUIAKI'IMN 5335/1 .IN 27IIN2l44INNm I'KUP AINNl 1669 NOHIII I'AHM HD OWNERNAME 20SEPHHOFFERMAN TAXPAYER JOSEPH IIOFFORMAN NAME/AOOR 1669 N FARM RD lONULAKEMN 33336 .IN 27IIN2.l44nni6 IMIOrAIHlK INUI WILSI I'AHM KO OWNER NAME J W A J A PIERPONT TAXPAYER JAMES W A JUDITH A PIERPONT NAME/ADDR IMI WEST FARM RD LONOUKEMN 33336 38 27M 8234400I8 PROI'ADDK 1729 NOR III FARM HD OWNERNAME II KARS FIELD TAXPAYER OCNJAMIN R A REUECCA S FIEI D NAME/ADDR NORTH FARM RD lONOUKEMN 33336 31 34IIU3II0Q0I PROP ADDR 776 lIRnWN RD N OWNER NAME M D UENSON AHA LUIKI-NS TAXPAYER tIARUARA A LUIKENS NAME/ADDR RICHARD D OENSON 776IIROWNRDN lUNU UKi: MN 33336 .M .34IIN23IIOINI3 PKOP Ainm 38 ADDRESS UNA.SSR INEU OWNERNAME J DSTAVIO A PM STAVIO TAXPAYER XNIN A PHOEOE STAVIO NAME/AOOR 780 BROWN RDN LONGUKEMN SS3S6 38 .Ml 182.11118816 PROP ADUK 38 ADDHI^ UNASSKiNi.D OWNERNAME MARYLSTEILETAL TAXPAVBl MARY LSTEILETAL NAME/AOOR 744 DROWN RDN LONOUKEMN 33336 38 2711823430016 PROP ADOR 1849 WEST FARM RD OWNERNAME JWPIERPONTAJAPIERPONT TAXPAYER JAMES W A JUDITH APIERPONT NAME/ADDR 1801 WEST FARM RD ORONOMN 33330 31 2711823430020 PROP ADDR 1 960 WEST FARM RD OWNERNAME: UAASMUSSENAKAASMUSSEN TAXPAYER DONALD A A KEaV A ASMUSSEN NAME/ADDR I960 WEST FARM RO LONGUKEMN 35336 38 2711123440007 PROP ADOR 1699 NORTH FARM RD OWNERNAME RICHARD W PERKINS TRUSTEE TAXPAYER RICHARD W PERKINS NAME/ADDR 1699 NORTH FARM KD lONliUKEMN Mm IN 37IIN2.I44MM7 PROP ADUK 1770 WIiST FARM KD OWNERNAME WM AM BRACKEN TA3CPAYER WILLIAM M BRACKEN NAME/ADDR 1 770 W FARM RD LONOUKEMN 33336 f . >. J <<***** 38 3411823110002 PROP ADDR 7il0 BROWN HD N OWNERNAME J D STAVIO A P M STAVIO TAXPAYER XUIN A PHOEBE STAVIG NAME/ADDR 789 BROWN RO N lONOUKEMN 33.136 f ' ) & 38 >411823110007 PROP ADOR 800 BROWN RUN OWNERNAME VAOSTEM TAXPAYER VICTOR N STEIN NAME/AOOR 100DROWN RON LONG LAKE MN 33336 8^8iP: 1^ RUNfMTE.WUOOU IICNNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPER'IYOWNI-RS LISI' M MMIDIIOOOS ROPAOOR 744 UROWNRUN IWNGRNAMB TMSaiULTOlAMLSTEIL AXPAVSR MLSTER.ATMSaiULTZE IAM6IAOOR 744BROWNRON LONOLAKEMN 5S3S6 ]■ MIIIMI20006 PROPAOOR 770 0ROWNRDN OWNERNAME IIRIIIU1TER TAXPAYER HEINZ FIIUITER NAMB/AOOR VO NORTH BROWN ROAD LONOLAKEMN 551S6 )■ MIIU1I20007 PROPAOOR MODROWNRDN OWNERNAME ERICJLARSON TAXPAYER ERIC J LARSON NAMEMOOR MO BROWN RON LONOLAKEMN 953M 1CORTIFY TIUTTIB PACTS RI2PRQS0m'l!O ARB AN AOCUKATB AND IHUeREPRESEKTAHONOPINFORMAHONAS ITAPPEARSTHISDATeONTHERQOOROS OPTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARIMENT, TO THE OEST OP MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. ^ /J! DATE PAGE:1 }■ * (,') ( «. 7 •- I /; • i ‘ IK •.f 5 I; i • L Date Application Received: 9/16/03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9A7/03 120-Day Subdivision Review Period Expires: 1/14/04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 20,2003 Item No.: Department Approval: Adm|pistrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gai&oa Title: Pianoing Director rmwMawi Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2951 James &. Judith Pietpont, 1801-1849 West Farm Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Vacation/Rededication of Drainage & Utility Easement List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11-20-03 B • Memo and Exhibits of 10-15-03 Application Summary: Applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between these two residential lots, both of which they have owned for many years. The westerly lot, 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot, 1801 West Farm, contains a principal residence and a guest house approved via CUP Resolution No.2854. Applicants’ intent is to yield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses. The proposal accomplishes this in terms of gross area for 1801 and its guest house, but only if the wetland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest house requirement. Planning Commission concluded the wetland area is m attributable, and determined that the guest house use should be discontinued, the kitchen removed, and a “Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP” be applied for. Please review the memo and exhibits ofOctober 16 for additional infonnationand history regarding this property. PlaDoIng Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this at a Public Hearing held on November 17,2003. On a vote of 5-1, Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot line rearrangement as follows: 1.Because the parcel containing the existing residence and guest house will not contain at least 4.0 acres of dry buildablc land, the guest house use should cease. The conditions of the 1990 Guest House CUP were never fulfilled and won’t be with this lot line rearraneemenL W3-2951 180MN9 West Farm Road November 20,2003 Page 2 2. 3. 4. Planning Com. • *^sion was open to the conversion of the Guest House CUP to a “Plumbing In An Accessory Building CUP” which would require the removal of kitchen facilities from the guest house. Planning Commission discussed the fact that the guest house did not meet location standards for the Plumbing CUP, but concluded that the fact that the building has been in this location for many decades, is far from any neighboring residence and has no negative visual unpacts, it is ahistoric structure, parts of which date to the 1870's,are factors that limit any negative impacts of such a CUP. P laiming Commission indicated the City Attorney should advise staff as to whether the CUP conversion can be part of this process (and if so Planning Commission recommends approval), or whether such a proposal must be a separate application and review/hearing process. Approval of the necessary easement vacations in exchange for dedication of new easements along the new lot line. Removal of the driveway connection between the two lots should be required and can occur in 2004. Staff RecommendatioD Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. If Council concurs, resolutions conditionally approving the lot line rearrangement and the easement vacation/rededication will be prepared for Council adoption on December 8. The City Attorney has advised staff that the conversion of the Guest House CUP to a Plumbing in Accessory Stmeture CUP will require a separate application and hearing process. He also suggested that the subdivision approval not become effective until the CUP process has been successfuUy completed and its resulting conditions met. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to conceptually approve the lot line rearrangement and easement vacation/rededication per the Pl^ng Commission recommendation, and direct staff to draft appropriate conditional resolutions for adoption on December 8, and direct the ^plicant to make an application for a Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUP (deadline is December 17 for the January Planning Commission meeting). ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 a 7. #03-2950 Davia^nd Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive West—Afier-the-Fact Varian^—Resolution No. 5080—Continued Sansevere stated he wou^not support removing the court immediately. Todd Umess of 2630 Counovside Drive West, stated that in addition to bei^a neighbor, he was serving as attorney fon^e Gross’s. He stated that he was stunned^staffs recommendation that the court^ removed in two weeks time. He subn^ed the variance application on behalf of the Gro^s in a typical time frame and it wayincorrect to say they dragged their feet. The sport courr^s no lights or fence and use v^ld be inoffensive. He requested Council stick with the l^e 15* deadline. ^ White stated he would agree with the JmM IS'*' deadline bec^e in the spring weather is too muddy. He asked if the garden had t^ome out too. I^^or Peterson replied it did not. Sansevere stated that Sport Court should not h^ ip^lled the court at 6’ without permission. He suggested Mr. Gross’s attorney i^Kuss the matter with the company. McMillan stated it’s unfortunate that there i^o real ^dship for the variance. Mayor Peterson stated that Council cotfld not approve th^ariance, but would support a June 15* deadline for removal of ihcfcourt. Murphy stated that if Sport sent someone to the Plannin^ommission meeting, where they admitted to ch^^g policy on pulling permits, Mr. ^ss should pursue some assistance from them. Gaffron stated that^nhe applicant finds a location that meets City code^e would not need a variance^ut only a building permit. If he needs a variance for a mw location, he would need tq^bmit a new application. The current application would boosed out cnce Couri^moved on it. Sanseyere moved, and Murphy seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5080 denyiL^ variances per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1404, Subdivision 2, allowing' d^dline of June 15,2004 for removal of the sport court ^ote; fi, N"** ^ ----- 8. /^03-2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 W'est Farm Road—Lot Line Rearrangement Gaffron stated that the applicants proposed a lot line reanangement between their two properties. The westerly lot, #?14,1S49 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot, #15, 1801 West Fann, contains a principal residence and a guesthouse approved via CUP ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 S, §03-2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road—Lot Line Rearrangement—Continued Resolution No. 2854. The applicants’ intent is to yield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses with the easterly lot totally 4-acres. This can only be accomplished if the wetland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest house requirement. Planning Commission concluded that the wetland area is not attributable and that the guesthouse use should be discontinued, the kitchen removed, and a “Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP” be applied for. Caflron stated that at the time the CUP was granted for the guesthouse, the lots should have been combined, yielding a lot with over 5 dry contiguous acres. For unknown reasons, the applicants never completed the legal combination. They requested the lot line re^angement in order to maximize the area of the homestead parcel while retaining the mimmum 2.0 dry buildable acres in Lot 14 for future development or sale. The result would be a lot with 3 acres of dry buildable and 1 acre of wetland. The Planning Commission felt that was not adequate to allow the guesthouse to remain. Gaffron stated that the applicants would have to make necessary casement vacations in exchange for dedication of new easements along the new lot line. There is a driveway on the property that has existed for many decades. The Planning Commission suggests it be removed by 2004. The applicants suggested that the drive ought to be left alone as it poses no complications to any one. Gaf&on stated that the City Attorney advised that the application for conversion of the guesthouse to Plumbing in an Accessory Strucnire be a separate application and should not be added to the current application. Planning Commission discussed the fact that the guest facilities did not meet location standards for the Plumbing CUP but concluded that because the building has been in the present location for many decades, is far firom any neighboring residence, has no negative visual impacts, and is a historic structure dating in part to the I870’s, any negative impacts of such a CUP would be limited. Gaffron passed out copies of a letter from Mr. Pierpont. Sansevere asked if the applicants intended to apply for the plumbing CUP. Mrs. Pierpont stated that the guesthouse had partial plumbing when they bought the property and applied for the conversion permit in 1990. Mis. Pierpont stated that the letter ftom her husband covered all the Planning Commission points. She summarized. They have no problem with the requirement to change the utility easements. The driveway recommended for removal has been in existence since the 1870’s. Previous ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 8, 803-2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 2849 and 1801 West Farm Road—Lot Line Rearrangement—Continued owners had blacktopped part of the drive, and they finished the blacktopping. The drive connected Farm and Homestead streets and was used by neighbors. The neighbor who lived on Homestead at the end of the driveway informed *he Pierponts that they were nervous about a road exiting opposite their house, so the Pierponts blocked the access to Homestead by installing a mound at the end of the drive and planting it. The Pierponts did not understand the need to remove a drive that had been in existence for so long when its presence did not impact anybody negatively. Mrs. Pierpont stated that when they bought the house, it was in disrepair and the stable was derelict They wanted to keep the character of the property. They kept the roof, walls and foundation of the stable and converted it to a guest house with an alcove kitchen, bathroom, balcony, and bedroom. She stated that the guesthouse is only ever used by funily members or close friends who visit, with the exception of allowing guests of their church to stay briefly on two occasions. They have tried to add value to the neighborhood with the changes they ’ve made, while keeping the original charm and style of the property. She stated that they originally believed the lots were connected in order to provide alternative sites for septic. She stated they plan to bring sewer hookups to both lots 14 and IS. Mrs. Pierpont stated that her husband figured they have 13,000 s.f. (7.5%) of wetland on their property with lakeshore frontage. According to his calculations, they do have enough dry buildable to keep the guesthouse. She stated they would gladly sign an agreement stating the house is only to be used by fiunily members and that it would never generate an income. Murphy stated that the City should do a better job of protecting historic properties. Gaffion asked if they would be ignoring the preservation of a historic structure by merely requiring the kitchen to be removed. The 4-acre requirement has to do with density. The code doesn’t distinguish between constant use and occasional use. The Pierponts seem willing to limit the use of the house. Wetland is not credited in terms of density when a property is sewered. Still, the situation has existed for over 13 years with no negative impacts. There is, however, a precedent setting concern if the City allowed the situation to continue as is. Murphy stated that they need a unique situation in order to find a hardship. Mrs. Pietpont stated Aat the age of the house and guesthouse make it a unique situation. They were built in 1870. I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 8. 803-2951 Judith and James Pierponu 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road—Lot Line Rearrangement-Continued Mujphy asked which calculation on the wetland was correct. Gaffron stated that based on the watershed district’s maps of wetland, 25% of the 4-acre property is wetland. If Mr. Pierpont walked the property looking only for open waters, he would have arrived at his calculations technically in error. McMillan stated that wetland has to do with soil and grass types and not necessarily with open water, which fluctuates greatly. McMillan asked Mrs. Pierpont if they had intended to combine the lots in 1990 with the guesthouse CUP. Mrs. Pierpont stated they had intended the lot combination, though it never happened. McMillan stated that the applicants could combine the lots and get only one sewer. Gaflfron stated if the lots were combined, the guesthouse as a separate unit would cease to be an issue. However, if the Pierponts only got one sewer, the cost of sewer for each unit within the project would increase. Moorse stated that the zone requires a 2-acre minimum for a guesthouse in the 2-acre zone so that if the lot were ever subdivided, the guesthouse could stand on its own. In this case, they wouldn’t want the guest house to stand on its own, so would the 2-acre minimum requirement still stand, or could some compromise be worked out where the house remains, but could rrver be subdivided in the future. Such a compromise would then raise the issue of enforcing the use-restrictions related to the guesthouse in the future. Murphy asked if they could attach a covenant to the property. Moorse stated that a CUP would effectively do the same thing. Gaf&on stated that a CUP would run with the property and be permanent. Moorse stated the problem would remain of monitoring for violations of the CUP. McMillan stated that the Pierponts would surely use the guesthouse appropriately, but the next owner could violate the CUP. When lot line arrangements come up, it gives the City a chance to influence a situation. Mrs. Pierpont asked if it would be possible to make the restrictions part of the property deed. Barrett stated that they have a subdivision application, but do not have an application for a guesthouse before them. In order to grant a variance for the guesthouse, they would need the application and a hardship for that matter. He stated Council could decide on a preliminary basis if they would allow the guesthouse to stand, then require a formal application. They could put conditions into the variance, but could never effectively k ; ? • I .ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 8. M03-2951 Judith and James Pierpontt 1849 and 1801 West Fann Road—Lot Line Rearrangement-Continued police those conditions. McMillan stated the only way to enforce the appropriate use of the guesthouse, is to require the removal the kitchen. White sUted he would like to see standards for historical residences, and also a definition of a kitchen. Mrs. Pierpont staled they installed a cooktop to help prepare simple food items for children. Otherwise guests dine at the main house. Gaffiron stated that the applicants wanted to move the lot line 3/lOths of an acre, creating a 2-acre and a 4-acre lot. Rededicating easement is not an issue. They would still have two buildable sites with sewer coining in to both sites. Mrs. Pierpont stated they want to redefine the lot line because they have the chance to bring in sewer to two lots, defraying the cost of sewer for the nei^bors and making it more feasible for the City to bring sewer. Also, their son suggested they divide lot 14 so that they ’d have the option of selling it off someday if they wanted to. They also own a house on 6* Avenue North, which their son lives in. If someday the property passes to him, he would have the option of selling off lot 14. Gaffron stated that as it currently stands, lot 14 is a separate tax parcel from lot 15. Both lots abut a private road. The only reason to move the lot line, could be because the septic system for lot 15 crosses the property line. With sewer coming, lot 14 could remain at 2.2 acres. Barrett stated the Pierponts currently h;»ve two lots, so there is no real need to change it. They would then be left \\ith a nonconforming guesthouse on a lot with under 4-acres of dry buildable. If the kitchen were removed, that problem would be solved and they could leave the lots as is. Gaf&on staled that the typical kitchen conuins a sink, stove and refrigerator. The Planning Commission was not concerned with the Pierponts use of the house, but there is a risk that the next owner could use it as a permanent residence. Murphy stated that there ought to be a bener way to insure the future use of the guesthouse than to punish the Pierponts for wanting to leave things as they ’ve been for the last decade. McMillan stated that the lots were supposed to be combined in 1990, before the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 8, 803-2951 Judith and James Piei^ontt 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road—Lot Line Rearrangement—Continued conversion, and it never happened. Sansevere asked if another CUP would solve the problem. Mayor Peterson stated it would not unless they removed the kitchen. Gaffiron stated they would have to remove the kitchen under a plumbing for accessory structure CUP, or receive a variance for the acreage required for the guesthouse. Gafhron stated that the sink is the primary factor that makes the kitchen, as other fixtures such as stove and re&igerator can be merely purchased and “plugged in.” Mrs. Pierpont stated that she is afraid if the sink were removed, the pipes would freeze and back up into the rest of the plumbing. Sansevere stated he felt a stove made a kitchen. Gaflron stated a kitchen is defined by use, not the appliances installed. He stated if the Pierponts apply for a CUP, the discussion would center on what needs to be pulled out. Mrs. Pierpont stated that the stable had a sink in it before they bought the property. Gaffron asked Mrs. Pierpont if they really need to move the lot lines. She replied not necessarily. Gaffron stated that if the application went away, the City would be faced with enforcing use of the original CUP fi-om 1990, which has never resulted in a complaint. Mrs. Pierpont stated that her younger son has a strong interest in the property, and so she’d be willing to put a deed on the property as it will likely stay in the family. Gaflron stated that the CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure would not be in ten ded for overnight use. Mayor Peterson suggested the Pierponts apply for a CUP application. She asked what needed to be done about the road then. Gaffron stated nothing would need to be done. As long as the properties remained owned by the Pierponts, there would be no issue. Most likely, the road, which passes through lot 14, would be dealt with should the lots ever come under separate ownership. Sansevere asked that if the Pierponts got the CUP, then removed the kitchen, got in two sewer hookups, then could they move the lot line at a later time and put the kitchen back in. The sons could then subdivide the property should they take ownership of the property some day. Mrs. Pierpont stated their intent was to take care of everything themselves so < 1 : ^ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 8. #03-2952 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Hoad—Lot Line Rearrangement—Continued that their children would not need to go through the process. Gaf&on asked if there are substantial reasons to continue with the subdivision. If so, he suggested Council proceed with the subdivision conditioned upon approval of the CUP application in January. Sewer would happen for both lots regardless of the subdivision. At this point, there is no need to do anything with the driveway. Mrs. Pieipont stated they would like the subdivision approved conditioned upon the CUP application’s approval in January. They would then remove the kitchen if the CUP required doing so. At that point, they would have lots 14 and IS standing on their own. The road would remain as is, unless they were no longer the owners of the properties. Gaffron stated Council could table, or conceptually approve the subdivision subject to staff drafting a resolution that says they ^prove the subdivision and lot line rearrangement subject to it not becoming effective until they complete the CUP application and all conditions of the CUP approval. Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to conceptually approve the lot line rearrangement and easement vacation/rededication, directing staff to draft a resolution for adoption on December 8“*, stating that the lot line rearrangement will not be effective until an application for a Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUP is obtained and the guesthouse is brought into compliance with requirements of the CUP. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Murphy). Murphy stated that he voted against the motion because he felt they were unnecessarily restricting the Pierponts due to fear of a potential future problem with the guesthouse use. *9. #03-2!mond and Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drr Resolution No. 5081 '^ance. Sansevere moved, and White s^Coq^d, to adop^cfblution No. 5081 granting variance to Municipal Zoning Code^ecUoi^;78^2 and 78-305 Subdivision B to allow construction of a new residencepfffbe,0.71 acre property and hardcover level within the 75-250* setback of 35^^1Krwhcre allowed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. % 1 COliMrii meeting FEB 9 2004 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 9,2004 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: h Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Adopt Assessment Roll North Long Lake East Sewer Extension- Resolution The property owner at 1405 Sixth Avenue N. has signed a special assessment wavier requesting to be assessed for the North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension Project. The staff recommendation is for approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the resolution adopting the assessment roll for the North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension project. lUlMiMMil I A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NORTH LONG LAKE EAST SEWER EXTENSION ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the properly owner has petitioned for an assessment sanitary sewer project and has signed an assessment waiver, waiving all applicable assessment procedural requirements, and requesting to be assessed for project costs for the North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension improvements. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, 1.Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2005 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,2005. To c wh subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3.The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 9th day of February, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S.Vee, City Clerk Barbara A Peterson, Mayor rtthiififi t is r 1 ' f * ';i* ''‘' f %r, *iTrl Assessment Roll for North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension Dale: 09 February 2004 Municipality: ORONO Levy Number: Total Project Asseument: $11,000.00 Municipal Code: 38 Levy Description: North Long L.«kc East Sanitary Sewer Extension Interest Rate: 6.25% Number of Years Payable: 15 PIDIt Addition Code Total Lot Block Principal Owner’s Name Street Properly Address # Mailing Street Address Mailing City Address 35-118-23-22-0006 $11,000.00 J.V. & D.M. Crotteau 1405 Sixth Avenue N.140S Sixth Avenue N. Long Lake MN 5S3S6 Total $11,000 00 ii -1 itrniiiTiiiArfilYllinmiiiiiianlhtiainaiimimiiiu ■Men - r COIiM<'« »*FETING FEB 9 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNOL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: February 6,2004 ITEM NO: I Z- Department Approval: Naaic Ron Moorse Titk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Payment Request Number 14- Navarre Fire Station The City has received one invoice for work related to the Navarre Fire Station. - Constructive Ideas, for project management services, in the amount of $2,500.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the request for payment in the amount of 52,500.00 to Constructive Ideas, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. \ Invoice Dale:Fabruary 2,2004 No: 4364 To:City of Orono Date Due: 3/1/04 P. 0. Box 66 CnJobNo: 03-018 Orono. MN 55323 Account No: 342 Oat* Jan. 2003 Dcicriplion Navarra Fira Station Prqect Turnover Mrs. 1 I.S. Amount 2.500 00 Total amount this invoice:$2,500.00 L ml Iff ii ■* 1 I. ! 1 -------I III- I laMaiailiiatfn REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '^niiKtr'ii fiFETING ftB 9 2004 city OF ORONO DATE: February 6,2004 ITEM NO: 13 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Settlement with Mn/uOT regarding the Acquisition of the Lurton Property In December of 2000, Mr. William Lurton donated 39 acres of property at 3580 Wayzata Boulevard West to the City, to be preserved as open space parkland. As part of the Highway 12 project, Mn/DOT needed to acquire approximately 14 acres of this property. The City had been in negotiations with Mn/DOT regarding the value of this property, until Mn/DOT initiated a condemnation process for the acquisition of the property. On Wednesday, February 4, City representatives met with Mn/DOT representatives in an effort to reach a settlement on the value of the property, to avoid the time and expense of a condemnation hearing. At the meeting, a tentative settlement was reached, which is now being brought to the Council for approval. The agreed upon value of the property is $ 1,077,000. It is recommended this settlement amount be accepted. It is also recommended that the settlement agreement confirm that all structures on the site will remain until March 1,2005, and that the City has the right to retain the bam that is currently on the site, and relocate it to a new location on the City's property. In addition, the agreement needs to include the provision r^a safe, full-turning movement access to t*'e remaining property to serve the planned park use. The continuation of the conservation easement over the newly constructed wetland area also needs to be confirmed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the settlement regarding Mn/DOT''s acquisition of a portion of the property at 3850 Wayzata Boulevard West for the agreed upon price of $1,077,000, subject to tlie following: •• Agreement that all structures on the site will remain until March 1 ,2005, and that the City has the right to retain the bam that is currently on the site, and relocate it to a new location on the City's property. - Agreement regarding the provision of a safe, full-turning movement access to the remaining property from the planned new Highway 12 frontage road, to serve the platmed park use. - Confirmation that the conservation easement over the newly constructed wetland area on the property will remain in perpetuity. 1 COIlMrii meeting •■ftl 9 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ITY OF ORONO DATE: Februaiy 6,2004 ITEM NO: } Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Titk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: ff') Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Lease with Mn/DOT Related to the Lurton Property. When Mr. William Lurton donated 39 acres of land to the City in December of2000, it was agreed that Mr. Lurton and his family would be allowed to continue to use the property, including the existing house and bam, until ^e property was needed by Mn/DOT. Although Mn/DOT does not need to use the property until April of2005, Mn/DOT has acquired the property through a quick-take condemnation process. Although Mn/DOT has agreed that Mr.Lurton and his family can continue to use the property until March 31,2005, Mn/DOT’s property acquisition rules require that Mn/DOT needs to charge fair market rent when someone uses Mn/DOT property. At the time of the initial hearing regarding the condemnation, the City agreed to enter into a lease witii Mn/DOT to enable Mr. Lurton to continue to use the property. The monthly lease amount is $1,200.00. The lease expires on March 31,2005. Mr. Lurton is aware of, and agreeable to, the term of the lease. The lease payments will be made by the City using the funds received from Mn/DOT for the acquisition of the Lurton property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to apint)ve the lease with Mn/DOT for the Lurton property, with a monthly lease rate of $ 1,200.00, and an expiration date of March 31,2005, and to approve a budget adjustment reflecting the lease payments being made by the City using the funds received from Mn/DOT for the acquisition of the property. I COHMr*!! MPEtING FEB 9 2004 CITy OF ORONOREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 6,2004 ITEM NO: /S" Department Approval: Name Ron Moone Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: City Administrator Coi lion Adjustments At its February 5,2004 worksession, the Council agreed on the following compensation adjustments for the City Administrator. The City Administrator salary will be increased to step IV of Level 10 of the 2003 pay schedule effective January 1, 2003, and to step IV of Level 10 of the 2004 pay schedule effective January 1 ,2004. Each of these adjustments is a 3% adjustment. In addition, the J r COMMni FEB 9 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: February 5,2004 ITEM NO:\h Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval Agenda Section: Licenses SPECIAL EVENT 1.Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Brenshell Homes 2004 Parade of Homes - Spring Preview 925 Willow View Drive February 14 - March 21,2004, Thursdays through Sundays 12:00 p.m. Noon - 6 p.m. 2.Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: LeGran Homes 2004 Parade of Homes - Spring Preview 970 Willow View Drive February 14 - March 21,2004, Thursdays through Sundays 12:00 p.m. Noon - 6 p.m. 3.Applicant: Event: Location; Date: Time: Wells Fargo Bank - Wayzata Wells Fargo Half Marathon Begin; Wells Fargo Bank Wayzata. Lake Street to Femdale Road to County Road 1S to Orono Orchard Road to Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay Road to County Road SI to County Road 19 to Crystal Bay Road 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: Wells Fargo Bank Excelsior Sunday, May 2,2004 8:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. TOBACCO LICENSE 4. Navarre Liquor Inc. Steven Corl 3421 Shoreline Drive 5.Orono Liquor (Narrows Saloon) James Anderst 3380 Shoreline Dn COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. ii i r 0 1 ]■ CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Date of Eveot: Time: February 10,2004 February 14 - March 21,2004 Noon • 6:00 p.m. Thursdays through Sundays Name of Person(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Aaron C. Smith Brenshell Homes 4052 Oakland Street St. Boni, MN 55375 .H Phone:952-446-1284 Location of Event: 925 Willow View Drive Type of Event:2004 Parade of Homes - Spring Preview The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Approval from Orono Police Department • Approval from Orono Building and Zoning Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • This special event permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. Orono Police will have authority to revoke the permit for failure to immediately resolve any issue involving public safety. This will be determined by a police supervisor on the scene. • All neighbors to be notified and provided with a phone number of a live person (not voice mail) that has authority to respond to neighbor complaints and resolve conflicts. • Road to be plowed to full width. • Roadway is to be kept open with two-way traffic allowed to pass in the area. • All event signs to be removed at the end of the event. • Permit holder is responsible to clean up any event-related debris each day of the event Approved at City Council meeting on: February 9,2004 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator V 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66. Crysul Bay. MN 55323 Phone: 952-249-4600/Fax; 952-249-4616/www.ci.orono mn.us I O' d) CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Date of Event: Time: February 10,2004 February 14 - March 22,2004 Noon • 6:00 p.m. Thursdays through Sundays Name of Person(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Mike Koester LeGran Homes 1521 94 “* Lane NE Blaine. MN SS449 Phone:763-780-5756 Location of Event: 970 Willow View Drive Type of Event:2004 Spring Preview Parade of Homes The following documents are required and on fUe at the City Administrative Offices: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Approval from Orono Police Department • Approval from Orono Building and Zoning Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: « This special event permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. Orono Police will have authority to revoke the permit for failure to immediately resolve any issue involving public safety. This will be determined by a police supervisor on the scene. • All neighbors to be notified and provided with a phone number of a live person (not voice mail) that has authority to respond to neighbor complaints and resolve conflicts. • Road to be plowed to full width. • Roadway is to be kept open with two-way traffic allowed to pass in the area. • All event signs to be removed at the end of the event. • Permit holder is responsible to clean up any event-related debris each day of the event. Approved at City Council meeting on: February 9.2004 CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Date of Event: Time: February 10,2004 May 2. 2004 8:00 a m. • 11:00 a.m. Name of Person(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Loretta Docken Phone: Wells Fargo Bank - Wayzata 900 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata. MN 55391 612-316-1441 T Type of Event:Wells Fargo Half Marathon Location of Event:Begin: Wells Fargo Bank Wayzata. Lake Street to Femdale Road to County Road 15 to Orono Orchard Road to Fox Street to Old Crysul Bay Road to County Road 51 to County Road 19 to Crystal Bay Road 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: Wells Fargo Bank Excelsior The following documents are required and on File at the City Administrative Offices: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Route of Race Event • Approval from Orono Police Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • Police staffing will be required at the following intersections: County Road 15 and West Femdale Road - County Road 15 and Orono Orchard Road - Orono Orchard Road and Fox Street County Road 146 and Fox Street Willow Drive at Fox Street County Road 84 and Fox Street County Road 15 at County Road 51 (North Shore Drive) County Road 84 and County Road 51 (two squads/four officers) County Road 51 and County Road 19 Lake Road and County Road 15 (two squads/four officers) County Road 15 and County Road 19 — County Road 19 and Old Beach Road (Some squads from the first part of the race will move from their positions after the racers pass to assist at later crossings.) 2750 Kclicy Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Pbonc: 95"*-249-4600 / Fax* 952-249-4616 / www.ci orono.mn us Condidont • Condnutd A meeting is to be held with the Orono Police Department two weeks before the race to review with the police the suffing that the volunteers will provide and at what locations. The police will confirm what staffing they wilt contribute. Contact should be made with Sgt. Kurt Erickson at 9S2-249’473 1. Citizen helpers for traffic control will need to wear traffic control vests. Wells Fargo is to notify St. Martin's Church and Lafayette Club of the race. This should occur at least one month before the race. The City of Minnetonka Beach and all other cities the race proceeds through are to be notified by Wells Fargo of the race as soon as possible if not already notified and must approve of the race event. Race staff shall remove all race-related garbage and debris, including signs, after completion of the race. The special event permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or to correct any safety hazards to the public. Approved at City Council meeting on: Febmary 9.2004 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkway. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Phone: 952-249-4600/Fax: 952-249-4616/www.ci.orono.mn.us V 1 f i 0 ji lit APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordintace No. 164, Second Seriu • Adopted 12/08/97) Make check payable to: Mailing address: 1. FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) Applicant's Full Name . City of OroDO RECEIVED P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5532^ t-/ 0 2 2004 CITY OF ORONO DATE FIRST MIDDLE LAST 2.j WL' HOUSE NUMBER. . / oincci CITY ^ STATE STREET 3. Applicant's Business TYPEOF^SINESS. T ' HOME PHONE S JSINESS PHONEV fir-fc.w» www.i^»-ww PWTQiniCOO rnwrst ^ VV-l e^v. <i< t - __ MAILING ADDRESS ' *=C<'et O •< \ 4.Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacQQjelated device between the customer apd the licensee or employep takes Dlace.^X^’^^rAa / HEREBY MAKE APPUCATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LmS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OROI\ Signatura Th« Issu»nc9 of thetnse under this ordinance afta# be considered a prMege s.xf not an absolute tight of tf?« Vfit’ant and shaB not entWe the Mder to an automatic renerral of the license L '• ? - Phone: (952) 249-4606 /Fix; (952) 249-46(6 / wwy .CLorono.ton.u.. ' _ l. 1. 2. 3. 4. F)C^. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordiiuocc No. 164, Second Sertei • Adopted 12A)8/9t) Make check payable to: City of Orono Mailing address:P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) DATE Applicant's Full Name CO ifK-t.'-/ FIRST middle last * Applicant's Home Address a O g.-/g-y fiJj/'A.Jl HOUSE NUMBER k ME PHONE CITY ^ ZIP Applicant's Business Bs^tr_____‘i^X • J-75^ TYPE OF BUSINESS Pit 010 9 BUSINESS NAME BUSINESS PHONE r-3 90 V Of. ST^ET ADDRESS MAILING ADDI^SS^ ^ Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between t^e customer and t^ license^r ^pioyee^kestobacco related device between the cus place. + n /- /j- \ _________________ 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. /x~X7-e>y Data lh% issuance of a license under this ordinance shaB be considered a privilege and not an absefute rfght of the appB&nt end shall not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the Itcense. • . •MFOBMATlbN ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING oni'Mrii mf^eting F£5 2004 OF ClfY OP ORONO % * j ' . ■ i »coiiwrii mppting ORONO - THE MOST UNDERFUNDED CITY IN THE STA% ^ ^004 CITY OF ORONO THE PROBLEM Orono is the wealthiest city in Minnesota and probably the entire Ninth Federal Reserve District.* but spends the least money ($68.500/ycar) on parks (and apparently on other services such as snow plowing and street maintenance) as compared to all the other cities, towns and villages in the Lake Minnetonka area. It’s snow plowing is often inadequate and it is understaffed at city hall. Orono has a much greater capacity to raise money and to increase its services, THE FACTS 1 Orono has the highest median value per house ($385,750) of any city over 5,000 population in the seven county metropolitan area, which implies that it is the wealthiest city in the wealthiest area in tive states. 2- Orono has one of the lowest real estate ta.\ rates in the seven county area (1.057 %) Plymouth has a 1.29 % rate and Minnetonka has a 1.20 % rate. 3- Orono has the lowest parks budget in the Lake Minnetonka area ($68,000) as compared to Wayzata ($488,000). Mound ($322,000). It has the lowest park budget percentage (1.6%) of the entire city budget vs Mound at 9.1%. Excelsior at 6.7% and Wayzata at 7.5 %. 4- Orono provides inadequate street and other maintenance as compared to adjacent communities (drive on Orono Orchard Road tow days after a snowstorm. I he Orono portion will be snow covered and rutted, while the Long Lake section is clean as a bowling alley! 5- Orono Real estate ta.\es have dropped from 3.1% in 1984 down to 1.06 % in 2004. THE SOLUTION Petition the State of Minnesota to allow Orono to increase its real estate tax rate and lew ceilinti. It is clear that Orono is not taxing adequately and consequently is not providing adequate services. It is limited in its ability to increase its tax rate because it has been miserly lor many years and established a record of low spending. Like all bureaucrats, the state officials apply a fixed percentage increase to last year's expenditures, and ignore the true needs of Orono. We need to make a convincing case to the State that Orono requires more money to operate at least like a average city, and that the homeowners have more than enough wealth to handle a tax increase (people arc not attracted to Orono or do not buy or build million dollar houses in Orono because of its low taxes.) It appears that Orono could raise at least $2.1 00.000 more a year by merely increasing its tax rate from 1.06 % to 1.24 % which is the average of Minneapolis and local .Minnetonka cities. (See Tax Comparison chart) • The Ninth Federal Reserve Dis:rict is nvide up of Minnesota the Dakotas. Montana and Western Wisconsin. It is the same size as France. Gernuny. Belgium and Denmark put together (383.000 square miles), and has the same population as Denmark (7.9 million) ORONO R.E. TAX COMPARISON AND POTENTIAL TO INCREASE ORONO TAX SITUATION CHAN-MINNE-GOLDEN PLY.MN^NEW 'AVERAGE • $•»•> -T NORTH OAKS 9367.35012/1M3 ORONO 'mssan mouNo TONKA VALLEY ' liOUT^APOLIS "HOPC _' - Median VMiS Of H oum 2003 $3aS.7S0 9240.9009166 700 9232.100 9199 9001 9227.00019112.400 9'l69600 1218610... -f Av Tms PMt 2003 M.077 93,293 91.799 92791 92.965 92.924 91.719 92.4M _Ji2.6e3 68 ii -94.041 09cnmm%260H -.1. Piircintaot of VUiua 1 0M9%1 3629%10796%1 1962%1 2922%1 2991%1 9294%__1 4179%1 2436%1 0433% 4)0137%Vdnanoa from Orono %00000%0 3099%00217%01413%0 0940%0 2312%04725%0 3^%0 1967% 9720 *' — -* Vivianoe from Orono par H oum $11.160 164 9549 9363 " MW ' 91.923 •953 ■ Tai levy * 13.197.930 mj —■. •• - — TmiCapealy 119.142 562 ^_•••.. _ —.. Tax Caoaoly Inaaasa %16 41%_____ T ■---------*i i... Numbar of Houses 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 -r- - 3000 Ravanua Incraaia lo Orono if.... .9159.076Tha avaraga lax rate IS raisad to tama as Ihit town 93.940.074 9290,91791.639.099 91.067.82J 92.679.604iS5.467.S12‘^$<172,473 92.1M.564 - T------------------- - —• . The lax levyTt iocfaasad iba Uma as Capaply incraasa 92.007.107 > i RECEIVED MPFTING FEB 9 2004 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 JAW ^ n 2004 CITY OF OflONO Jan. Attention; Planning Director, Planning Commissioners and City Council Members RE; Application #04-2977 - Proposed bowliiig alley/pizza place with BAR at 3425 Shoreline Dr., Navarre VVe have great concern about, and strong objection to, application #04-2977. On Tuesday, January 20, 2004 we attended the City Council meeting at which the application was presented. We voiced our objections then, but feel compelled to write th*^'.Ti in this letter to further demonstrate our sincere and adamant objection. 1. The planning commission should consider whether or not the applicant is making a good business decision, not only for the city and the neighborhood, but also for himself. A. Within a “one block" area of the intersection of Count Roads 15 & 19, we have four eating establishments; Culvers, The Mud caf4, Davinci’s (Pizza), and The Narrows Saloon. We do not believe that Navarre needs another eating establishment, especially not a second pizza place. B. Is a bowling alley a good business choice? The bowling alley in Mound has closed for lack of business and Country Club Lanes is only a few miles down on County Road 19 in Tonka Bay. C. The liquor license application is being applied for two businesses that are being promoted as “family entertainment”, bowling and pizza. If these businesses fait, then the owner will still be able to operate a Bar on the premises. It is our feeling that since the Narrows Saloon has established a very prosperous bar business that the owner is looking for the same. 2. We urge the planning commission to keep Kelly Avenue a residential street. A. Right now turning left out of Kelly Ave. to go west on County Road 15, is almost impossible. It obviously would be even worse with an additional business located on that corner. To make matters worse, traffic, including daytime delivery trucks as well as patrons, will increase Drivers would very quickly 'find' the entrance to Kelly Ave off CTY. Road 19. This very quiet street with children playing will soon become a busy thoroughfare and a danger to the community. B. Although the address of the establishment is 3425 Shoreline Dr., access to the establishment, the driveway and entrance, is off of Kelly Ave. This is inconsistent with the residential zoning laws. C. Parking is of great concern. The upper level parking lot with stairs down to the establishment is supposedly the parking of choice. People do not walk when they can drive. If they cannot find parking in the back, they will park on the street, making Kelly Avenue even more dangerous It is a distinct possibility that people will even enter the driveway of the town homes and park in their parking area, which is just steps away from the entrance to the establishment. 3. Green space in the city of Navarre is also of great concern as it is practically non­ existent. A. if Navarre is really the 'Center ” of Orono, it really needs to be cleaned upl If the goal is to look good, like Wayzata or Excelsior, then instead of allowing another business establishnient in an already crowded strip mall, additional green space should be considered. B. There are also apartments in the strip mall that produce a lot of noise, including incessant dog barking, and have police calls. As a matter of fact, one day last summer, we were out on the lawn and two police officers with a dog were searching our woods for something or someone. This did not give us a very comfortable feeling. 4. The residents in Orono who live on the lake pay a premium in taxes. Mike Kellen has been resident of the City of Orono for over 20 years before moving onto Kelly Avenue. All lake homeowners also hope that their home site is a good investment. Noise and criminal elements are not conducive to a marketable piece of property. 5. We have received a copy of the letter sent to you by Doris Schlampp and agree with all of her concerns and those of Mr. Austin Evans, who addressed the Council Tuesday Jan. 20"' 2004. We also have signed a petition to object to the application. 6. The Planning Committee's own Mr. Rahn made reference to the many issues brought by concerned neighbors living next to or near by existing establishments such as Al & Alma’s, The Mist and Fletchers. Every complaint brought to the police or the city need to be dealt with ai id consume a lot of time and money. These issues can be entirely eliminated and will not occur in Orono if the Planning Committee votes against the proposed application #04-2977 for a Conditional Use Permit and Commercial site at 3425 Shoreline Drive. Very Sincerely Yours, 0 Michael J. Kellen and Barbara Ward 2503 Kelly Ave. Orono, MN 55331 niE COPY January 16,2004 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 CITVof Attn: Planning Director, Planning Commissioners, City Council Members To Whom It May Concern: I am writing with regard to Planning Conunission Application #04-2977. It is my understanding that this is a request for a Con^tional Use Permit to operate a restaurant for which a liquor license will be requested on the lower level of the building containing the bowling the alley located at 3425 Shoreline Drive. Please note our strong objections to this application based on the following: 1.The access to this property is not off of a commercial street, i.e. Shoreline Drive, but rather off of a strictly residential street, Kelly Avenue. j 2.The doors to this establishment face directly at and immediately adjacent to townhomes and single family residential. The noise from these establishments has been shown to be excessive. By way of example. The Narrows Bar is the site of so much noise that we are unable to sleep with our windows open in the home. Not only can we hear the bands and crowds when the doors are open to the bar, but the symphony of Harley-Davidson music that commences from 10 PM until well after 1 in the morning awakens us from a deep sleep even when the windows are closed. The noise pollution is astounding. 3.Kelly Avenue is strictly a residential road that was never intended for coimnercial use. The City has previously closed roads that had excess traffic fuimeled through residential nei^borhoods (Old Orchard Road). A commercial use that will generate commercial traffic, particularly traffic that has been consuming alcohol, should not be allowed in a residential street. i City of Orono Page 2 January 16,2004 4. The uae is inconsistent with the residential zoning of Kelly Avenue. The use is not located on Shoreline Drive - it is located on Kelly Avenue. 5. Parking is inadequate. Based on the foregoing we strongly object to the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit or for the consideration of a subsequent liquor license application for the subject property. We urge the Council and the Plaiming Commission to deny the applicants request I Veryteulyyom,} Doris Schlampp 2507 Kelly Avenue Orono. MN 55331 I! ii Janice Gundlach - Application #04-2977 Pagel From: To: Date: Subject; Charles Nadler <greatday(g|minn.r.et> <jgundlach(8ci.orono.mn. us> 1/20/04 5:03PM Application #04-2977 I am a resident of Orono at 2509 Kelly Avenue. Today I just became aware that there is a proposal to allow a restaurant adjacent to the bowling alley to be operated and that the restaurant intends to serve liquor. I am sorry I could not be in attendance tonight but I could not change prior commitments. The purpose of this e-mail is to let you know I am adamantly against allowing this-whether or not liquor is served. Even though the restaurant Is relatively small, any additional traffic at the intersection of KeNy and Shoreline Drive is unacceptable from a safety perspective. I believe that the dty should table any consideration of this conditional use permit until the imp^ on the existing traffic Is thoroughly reviewed. I drive every day at that intersection and can attest that even a small increase in cars coming on and off Shoreline to and from Kelly Avenue adds exponential risk of accidents. Currently there are competing left turn lar.es on Shoreline just east of this intersection which compounds the problem. In the event the Planning Commission is not willing to delay this application to determine the level of negative impact on the safety of the residents that use Kelly and Shoreline Road every day, it should require the Ovvr>er as a condition of approval to create access to the lower parking levti on the West side of the building and dose the existing curb cut from Kelly into the lower parking level of that building. That would effectively move the traffic created from the new use to turn left further west of the Kelly intersection, (and not incidentally west also of the CR 19 intersection) I know that there is quite a grade difference but that does not mean that it should not be required at whatever the cost to the owner if feasible. Kelly is a residential street-not a commercial one- by a quirk of bad prior planning a commercial use has been permitted in the past- but to expand the commerdal nature of the lower level without removing the additional traffic compounds prior mistakes and increase the risk of serious injury to the residents of the area. Respectfully Submitted Charles E Nadler t » wmV •• * ' ______________________________________-...................................................j M-:" *■ • ‘•rj;- January 22,2004 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 Attn: Planning Director, Planning Commissioners, City Council Members To Whom It May Concern: Planning Commission Application #04-2977 has come to my attention and I am strongly opposed to this application. I understand that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant for which a liquor license will be requested on the lower level of the building containing the bowling alley at 3425 Shoreline Drive. Our strong objections are as follows: 1) The entrance to tliis establishment faces directly at the adjacent townhomes and single family residential homes, which are within 50 yards of this entrance. The noise from this location is already excessive. The other liquor serving nearby location, the Narrows Bar, is even more noisy. Because the noise pollution from these establishments are already astonishing, we can only imagine if another one was given a license in this vicinity and what the noise and loitering potential would be for this new “Orono night club scene." 2) Kelly Avenue, the street on which this property is accessed by road, is strictly a residential road that was never intended for commercial use. In the past, the City' has actually reduced, not increased traffic on residential roads. One example of this is the closing of Old Orchard Road. A commercial use that will generate increase commercial traffic, particularly traffic that has been consuming alcohol, should not be allowed in a residential street. Young children in this neighborhood could potentially be injured as a result of this traffic. Closing the road at the end of the commercial use would probably be very expensive. 3) The proposed use is inconsistent with the residential zoning of Kelly Avenue. The proposed use is not located on Shoreline Drive - it is located on Kelly Avenue. 4) The parking is already inadequate. Based on the above points, we strongly object to the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit or for the consideration of a subsequent liquor license application for a propteity in this area. We urge the Council and the Planning Commission to deny the applicant’s request. Sincerely, David R. Hardten Christine M. Hardten Adeline G. Hardten (Age 4) Sophia M. Hardten (Age 3) li 1 COiiMrii HiiPFTING FEB 9 2004 ciry OF orono RECEIVED CITY OF LONG LAKE January 23,2004 JAN ^ ; 2004 CnVOF ORONO Mayor Barbara Peterson 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Peterson: As you know, the turnback of TH-I2 to Hennepin County is scheduled to occur sometime in 2006 or 2007 in conjunction with the completion of new TH-12. The potential impacts of this turnback, both positive and negative, will greatly impact the cities of Long Lake and Orono. The design of the roadway, as well as the location and operation of individual accesses and intersections, is likely to have a major influence on future development within this corridor. Based on discussions among and between the respective staff members and City Councils of Orono and Long Lake, it has become evident that a more formal, cooperative approach to address tliese turnback issues is necessary and should begin in the very near future. Therefore, the Long Lake City Council would like to propose a joint comminee comprised of Council and staff (including Long Lake’s engineering consultant. SEH) representatives from the cities of Orono and Long Lake which would be charged with: 1. Discussing the issues related to the turnback of TH-12. 2. Clarifying city (botli Long Lake and Orono) expectations, priorities and needs. 3. Soliciting input from residents, the business community and property owners. 4. Working closely with Hennepin County and MnDOT to develop and implement an acceptable turnback plan. ‘ A study group directed by Hennepin County has previously developed a preliminary concept plan for the roadway. The TH-12 Turnback Committee may wish to invite Hennepin County suff- to the commince ’s first meeting or to a subsequent meeting - to present this concept plan as a starting point for discussion. In any case, the committee will want to work closely with County staff throughout this process. Any and all suggestions by the Orono City Council and'or staff w ith regard to the composition and responsibilities of the committee are of course welcome. The Long Lake City Council has asked staff to w ork w ith Orono staff in scheduling the first meeting of the TH-12 Turnback Committee as soon as practical. W'e look forw ard to tliis partnership and to the prospect of creating a common vision for the TH-12 corridor. Sinccrel frlnet L. Schaefer Mayor Long Lake. Minnesota Cc: Orono City Council Ron Moorsc. Orono City Administrator I V \ CITY OF ORONO 0ZT)9O4 6:27 PM P«g« 1 *Check Detail Register® FEBRUARY 2004 COUM''" »*PFTING Chacti Amt Involc* CowMiwrt 10100 Primary CmIi PaMCMtD 077682 2^^2004 10.000 LAKES CHAPTER CITY OF ORONO E 101-42400-437 Training & Development $60.00 Oman Bldg Code Seminar Tout 10,000 LAKES CHAPTER $60.00 Paid Oik# 077603 2/9^2004 AMEM E101-42110-437 Training & Development $100.00 Boris 2004 Membership. Boris Total AMEM $100.00 PaidChk# 077684 2/W2004 ANDERSON, KRtSTl'^*" E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services $140.00 2/2/2004 Council Minutes 1/26 E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $140.00 2/2/2004 Park Minutes 2/2AM Total ANDERSON, KRISTI $280.00 Paid Chk# 077685 2/9/2004 AT A T WIRELESS SERVICES 0 101-20200Accounts Payable $14.15 3419397 Cell Phones 0602-20200Accounts Payable $11.39 3419397 Cell Phones Total AT ST WIRELESS SERVICES $25.54 Paid Chk« 077686 2IW004 BFI OF MINNESOTA. INC E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldga/Grounds $83.01 1307115 Solid Waste-Bederwood E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $69.33 1307214 Solid Waste-Summit E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $262 16 1307420 Solid Waste-City Hall E 613-49830-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $29 88 1307461 Solid Waste-GC Total BFI OF MINNESOTA. INC $444 38 P^Chk* 077687 2N/2004 BIFFS INC. E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $6091 W213014 Portable - Bedenwood Total BMPS me.$60 91 Paid Cnk« 077688 2/9/2004 BKV GROUP 0425-20200Accounts Payable $2.349 95 21089 Nav Fire Station 0425-20200Accounts Payable $3.315 00 21186 Nav Fire Station Total BKVOROUP $5.664 95 Paid Chk« 077689 2/9V2004 BONESTROO ROSENE S ASSOC. 0 651-20200Accounts Payable $1,265.00 103490 Big Island Wetland Delir>tation 0 101-20200Accounts Payable $125 00 104227 680 Tonkawa - 03-2901 0 101-20200Accounts Payable $68.65 104227 a Fire Station 2736 0 101-20200Accounts Payable $104.27 104227 680 S Bm RdKiinder 0 602-20200Accounts Payable $117 00 104227 Update San Swr Base Map 0 101-20200Accounts Pebble $15000 104227 Counal Mtg 1077. 11/10. 11/2 0 101-20200Accounts Payable $250 00 104227 Spnng HiM Est - 03^2961 G 101-20200Accounts Payable $25615 104227 Kokesh Farms Ptat 2663 G 101-20200Accounts Payable $259 84 104227 3609 Shorekna. 03-2923 G 101-20200Accounts Payable $452.26 104227 Manral Bay Est - 03-2964 G 613-20200Accounts Payable $7827 104227 Wetland Oelinaation/Stte Ravie G 101-20200Accounts Payable $3.88878 104227 slonebay Ptat 02-2789 G 651-20200Accounts Payable $200 27 104227 3480NShoreOr 0402-20200Accounts Payable $2.78555 104228 CoRd 19Sido«mlk 0 651-20200Accounts Payable $25255 104229 Slubba Bay Rd Erosion 0 602-20200 $2,548.15 104230 Old LL Rd Swr EiM 1/03 0 601-20200Accounts Payable $96.00 104231 2003 Hwy 12 Tamk Water Main 1 G 402-20200Accounts Payable $200.00 104232 Fox St Bridge Replace G 602-20200Accounts Payable $2,294.61 104233 PhiiSps San Swr Nov 2003 G 602-20200Accounts Payable $100.00 105146 Update San Swr Base Mw CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register^) 02/09/04 6 28 PM Page 2 FESmiAIIY2064 ChecItilffR titvotce O 101-20200 G 101-20200 O 101-20200 O 602-20200 G 101-20200 G 651-20200 G 101-20200 G 651-20200 G 613-20200 G 602-20200 G 602-20200 G 602-20200 G 602-20200 G 101-20200 Total Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable BONE8T1IOO R08ENE E ASSOC. ssooo 105148 Council MIg 12/8/03 $263.53 105148 660 Tonkawa - 03-2901 $201 03 105148 3329 Crystal Bya Rd - 03-2876 $130.50 105148 SCAOA12A)3 $1,701.26105148 Slonabay PM 02-2789 $1SS.OO 105148 380 L«af SI Orainaoe $827.50 105148 Stonebay Marketplace 04-2974 $192.00 105148 Morries Auto Site Ponding $1.190 00 105148 Review Wetlar>d Del Rep $1.34200 105148 Prep Cert I/I lor MCES $136 64 105150 SCAOA RFP 3 $104.26 105151 Old LL Rd Swr Ext 12/03 $177.72105152 Phillips San Swr Dec 2003 $858.79 105153 Annual Bridga Inspect $22,859.78 Paid Chki 077690 2/9/2004 CECrSSIOliS E 602-49450-227 UtOity System Maint. Supplies Total CECrSSKmS 1255.60 1534 $255 60 Curb Boa SigrM Paid ChkS 077691 2/9/2004 CENTER POINT ENERGY • OC E 61349630-381 Gas & Electric $384.12 539004161700 Gas Service Totol CENTER PORITENERGY-OC $384.12 Paid Chk# 077692 2/9/2004 CENTERPOINT ENERGY E 60249450-381 Gas & Electric E 60249450-381 Gas & Electric E 10141900-381 Gas 8 Electric E 10142110-381 Gas & Electric E 10141900-381 GasSEIectnc E 60149400-381 Gas 8 Electric E 60149400-381 Gas 8 Electric Total CENTERPOINT ENERGY $81.31 $971 22 $1.942 40 $793 85 $653.60 $32374 $1,202 81 $5,973.93 0600067 0600067! 1750600 Gas Service 1750600 Gas Service 1750600 Gas Service 1750600 Gas Service 1750600 Gas Service Gas Service Gas Service Paid Chk« 077693 2/9/2004 E 61349630404 Repaifs/Maint-Bldgs/Gfounds Total CmrVIEW PLUMBING 8 HEATING CITYVIE1N PLUMBING 8 HEATING $111.00 24084 $111.00 Boiler Repairs - GC Paid Chk# 077694 2/9/2004 CLARETS E 42548945-550 Automotive Equipment E 42548945-550 Automotive Equipment Totol CLARETS $169 00 39954 $665.00 39996 $834.00 Mudffaps - Pumper Fender Crowms-Pumper Paid Chk# 077695 2/9/2004 COIT SERVICES G 101-20200 Accounts Payable Total COITSERVICES $479.25 12/9 $479.25 Upholserty CleanirHi Paid Chk# 077696 2/9/2004 COLLISION CORNER E 10142110404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Total COLLISION CORNER $300.00 5615-1 $300.00 Paint PD Door Paid Chki 077697 2/9/2004 CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS G 425-20200 Accounts Payable Totol CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS $1.620 00 4347 $1.620 00 Nav Fire • Cons Phase BM 7 Paid Chkf 077696 2/9/2004 CORCORAN. CITY OP 0 101-20805 Duetogovts-Local $917.28 Safa/Sober Corcoran Share-1st Trimester n i ' i , i. CITY OF ORONO 07mi04 6 28 PM Pages *Check Detail Register® FEBRUARY 2004 Check Ami Invoice Comment Total CORCORAN. CITY OF $917 28 Paid Chk# 077699 2/9/2CC4 CROW RIVER SUSPENSION S ALIGN E 101-430CXM02 Repairs/Maml-Aulo Equip Totol CROW RIVER SUSPENSION A ALIGN Paid ChkO 077700 2/9/2004 CULUGAN $119 .14 4183 $119.14 Replace U Bolts E 613^9830-403 Repairs/Mainl-Misc. Equip Total CULLIGAN $15 00 9083676-4 $1500 Softener Service Paid Chktf 077701 2/9/2004 DELTA DENTAL G 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins G 101-21709 Dental Insurance Tout DELTA DENTAL $134 90 37220072 $1.455 00 37220072 $1.589 90 Dental Premiums • 2/2004 Dental Premiums - 2/2004 Paid Chk« 077702 2/9/2004 DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP E 101-41900-321 Telephone $119 36 W03120598 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $5115 W03120598 Total DEPT OF ADM • INTERTECH GROUP $170 51 Phone service Phone service Paid Chk« 077703 2/9^004 DISPLAY SALES E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Materials/Supply Total DISPLAY SALES $206 61 INV0022699 $206 61 Brackets -Banners Paid Chkff 077704 2/W2004 DNR WATERS 0 601-20200 Accounts Payable Total DNR WATERS $394 80 701351 $394 80 2003 Pumping Fee Paid Chk# 077705 2/9/2004 E-2 RECYCLING E 101-43270-316 Contract Recyclir>g Pickup Total E-Z RECYCLING $6 518 20 6212 $6.51820 Recycling 2/2004 Paid Chk$ 077706 2/9/2004 EARL F. ANDERSON S ASSOC. G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $2.518 52 57918 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $90 05 57922 Total EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC. $2.608 57 Street Signs Street Signs Paid Chki 077707 2/9/2004 EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT E 101-42260-318 Fire Services Total EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT $34.37500 2/1/2004 $34.375 00 Fire Services - 1st Qir 2004 Paid ChkF 077708 2/9/2004 FORTIS BENEFITS G 101-21713 LTD Insurance Total FORTIS BENEFITS $851 42 4019825-1 $851 42 ltd Ins - 2/200^ Paid Chk# 077709 2/9/2004 G A K SERVICES E 613-49830-226 E 601-49400-226 E 101-43000-221 E 602-49450-226 E 101-43000-226 E 601-49400-226 E 101-43000-226 E 613-49830-226 E 602-49450-226 E 602-49450-226 E 101-43000-221 Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Equipment Parts A Accessones Ck>thif>g A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Ck>thir)g A personal equipment Equipment Parts A Accessohes $575 $1527 $49.52 $45.81 $9163 $11 18 $67 04 $575 $33 54 $3474 $3994 1006797290 1006797290 1006797290 1006797290 1006797290 1006803957 1006803957 1006803957 1006803957 1006810594 1006810594 Uniforms Uniforms Shop Toieels Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Urvforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Shop Tonveis CITY OF ORONO 02/00«4 6:28PM Pag* 4 *Check Detail Register® FEBRUARY 2004 iheck Amt E 60M9400>226 Clothing A personal equipment E 101-43000-226 Clothing A personal equipment E 613-49630-226 Clothing A personal equipment Total OAK8ERVICES $11.58 1006810994 $69.43 1006810594 $5.75 1006810594 $486 93 Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Paid Chk« 077710 2/9/2004 OEO ANALYTICS E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip Total OEO ANALYTICS $3.660 00 2639 $3,660.00 2004 Annual Support Paid Chk« 077711 2/9/2004 GOVERNMENT TRAININO SERVICE E 101-41300-437 Training A Development Total OOVERNMENTTRARNNOSERVICE $200.00 Vee $200.00 Paid Chki 077712 2/9/2004 ORANDE. STEPHANIE E 101-42110-201 Office supplies Total ORANDE. STEPHANIE $56.02 1/13/04 $5602 2/9/2004 GREGORY. JAMESPaid Chk# 077713 E 602-49450-437 Training A Development Total GREGORY. JAMES $42.00 2/2/04 $4200 Paid Chk« 077714 2/9/2004 HAWKINS CHEMICAL E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products Total HAWKINS CHEMICAL $1.666 28 587374 $1.666 28 Paid Chk# 077715 2/9/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT E 101-42110-414 EDP/Communicatk>ns Equip Rent $1,541.89 2/3/04 Total HENNEPBiCOUNTYINFORTECHOPT $1.54189 Paid Chk# 077716 2/9/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 0101-20200 Accounts Payable $251.21 12/03 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF $251 21 Paid Chk# 077717 2/9/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR 8RV E 101-41410-322 Postage $118.80 1/5/04 Total HENNEPINCOUNTYTR-TAXPYRSRV $118 80 Paid Chk# 077718 2/9/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER*JAIL 0101-20200 Accounts Payable $390 50 309 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER^AIL $390 50 Paid Chk# 077719 2/9/2004 HINSHAW A CULBERTSON O 101-20200 O 101-20200 O 101-20200 G 101-20200 G 101-20200 G 101-20200 G 101-20200 G 101-20200 G101-20200 Acoounto Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Total HBtSHAW A CULBERTSON $486 40 $1,170.00 $1,100.00 $159 32 $960.00 $1,300.00 $477.00 $168 00 $1.300 00 $7.120 72 10269259A 10278331 10279172 10356846 10356847 10356848 10360242 10360243 10360245 Paid Chk# 077720 2/9/2004 HUT ANE SOCIETY OF Wl E 101-42110-317 Animal Care TOMI HUMANE SOCIETY OF WRIOKT CO HTCO $953 81 1/12AH $953.81 j. 2004 MCFOA Reg-Vee Biinders Mileage - Sewer School Chemicals 2/2004 Radio Lease Booking Fees -12/2003 Postal Verifications Room A Board • 12/2003 Bal Due Oct 2002 Counols Mtgs Nov 2002 Council MIgs Jan 2002 Applications 11/2003 Nelson/Carlson/Vacaled Oak PI Council MIgs Nov 2003 Applications Dec 2003 NelsorWCerlsonA/acaled Oak PI Council Mtgs 12/2003 1st Qtr 2004 - Contract CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 02A)9/04 6:28 PM Page 5 FEBRUAflV 2004 Chech 4mt invoice Comment Paid ChH# 077721 2/0/2004 J H LARSON COMPANY E10M1900-223 Bldg/Gfounds Meint. Supplies E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies ToUl J N LARSON COMPANY $539.13 4387752-01 $8982 4387806^)1 $608.95 Light Butts Light Bults Paid Chk# 077722 2/9/2004 KENNEDY t GRAVEN. CHARTERED 0 234-20200 Accounts Payable 0 101-20200 AccounH Payable 0 234-20200 Accounts Payable O 101-20200 Accounts Payable 0 234-20200 Accounts Payable Total KENNEDYAORAVEN.CHARTERED $3.770 66 59311 $140 00 59615 $1.077 42 59615 $43 80 59987 $2.037 45 59987 $7.069 33 Lurton Condemnation Oct 2003 Borgerl Condemnation Lurton Condemnations Nov 2003 Borgerl Condemnation 12/03 Lurton Condemnation 12/03 Paid Chk» 077723 2/9/2004 LABOR RELATKNIS ASSOC 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $6.174 00 1/1/04 Total LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC $6.174 00 Paid Chk« 077724 2/9/2004 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS E 101-42110-340 Oeneral Advertising $44 55 28236 Gnevance Arbitration Adv for Emp-CSO Totol LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Paid Chk# 077725 2/9/2004 LOPFLER COMPANDS. INC $44 55 E 101-42110-437 Training A Development $330 00 93248 Training • Digital Recorders ToUl LOFFLER COMPANIES. INC $330 00 ik« 077726 2/97004 LOGIS 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $1.643 00 23652 Police Records 12/2003 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $159 00 23652 Internet 12/2003 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $159 00 23652 Internet 12/2003 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $3000 23652 Henn County Con -12/2003 0 227-20200 Accounts Payable $7.15361 23691 Compaq DL380 Server G 227-20200 Accounts Payable $5.874 49 23691 Server 2003/Exchange Ser 0 227-20200 Accounts Payable $2,987 27 23691 PIX Firewall 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $553 04 23691 ArcserveBnghtstor G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $553 04 23691 ArcserveBnghtstor G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $211.79 23691 Etrust/Anti virus 0 101-20200 Accounts r ayable $211.79 23691 Etrust/Anti virus G 227-20200 Accounts Payable $2.464 05 23691 0*AX> Router G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $1,073 13 23711 Backup/Virus \99um G 101-20200 Account Payable $1.07312 23711 Backup/Virus Issues ToUl LOGIS $24.146 33 Paid Chk« 077727 2/9/2004 LONG LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE E 101-41300-433 Memberships & Subscriptions E 101-42110-433 MembersNps & Subscriptions Total LONG LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Paid Chk« 077728 2/9/2004 LONG LAKE GLASS SiC. E 601-49400-222 VeNde Equipment & Parts Tout LONG LAKE GLASS me. Paid Chk# 077729 2/9/2004 LONG LAKE STATE BANK E 101-41300-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges ToUl LONG LAKE STATE BANK Paid ChkS 077730 2/9/2004 LONG LAKE. CITY OF $5500 1/10/7004 S5500 1/107004 $110 00 $35 00 35505 $35 00 $210 00 271/04 $210.00 2004 Membership 2004 Membership MkrorSide Mirror Employee Rmiwdi CITY OF ORONO ^Check Detail Register® 02A)9A>4 6 28 PM Paged FEBRUARY 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 6 601*20200 Accounts Payable Total LONG LAKE. CITY OF $399 90 20030095 $399 90 Orono/LL Interconnect Paid Chk« 077731 2/9/2004 MCLEOD USA • PHONE BILLS E 601*49400*321 Telephone 6 101*42110*321 Telephone E 101-41900*321 Telephone 6 602*49450*321 Telephone 6 602*49450*321 Telephone 6 601*49400*321 Telephone Total MCLEOD USA-PHONE BILLS $22 56 $20303 $47373 $52 64 $39.45 $42.95 $834.36 3225179 Phone Service 3225179 Phone Service 3225179 Phone Service 3225179 Phone Service 3225179 Phone Service 3225179 Phone Service Paid Chki 077732 2/9/2004 MEDIA COM 6 613-49830-101 FuU-Time Employees Regular ToUl MEDUCOM $5 58 838392162003 Equip Rental $5 58 PaidChli« 077733 6101-15998 6 101*21706 6 101*21706 6101*21706 6 101*21706 6 101*21706 2/9/2004 MEDICA Non-Employee Health Ins Hospitalization/Medical Ins Hospitalization/Medical Ins Hospitatizatlon/Medical Ins Hospitalization/Medical Ins Hospitalization/Medical Ins Total MEDICA $1,549.87 $10,912.89 $1,760.70 $9.747 99 $2.883 99 $1,462 22 $2831766 104032102552 Medical Premiums 104032102552 Medical Premiums 104032122585 Medical Premiums 104032125488 Medical Premiums 104032125488 Medical Premiums 104032134225 Medical Premiums 2/2004 2/2004 2/2004 2/2004 2/2004 2/2004 Paid Chk» 077734 2/9/2004 MEDINA. CITY OF 6 101*20805 Due to govts*Local Total MEDINA. CITY OF $902 53 Safe/Sober $902 53 Medina* 1st Tnmester Share Paid Chk» 077735 2/9/2004 6 602*20803 Due to govts-Metro E 602*49450*383 MWCC*Current Charges Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS MET COUNCIL ENVSIONMENTAL SVCS $3.500 00 767607 $1.455 47 769065 $4.95547 lift Station Relocation Add Charges Jan/Feb 2004 Paid Chki 077736 2/9/2004 MOCSA 6 613*49830*433 Memberships & Subscnptions Total MOCSA $100 00 Steffenhagen 2004 Membership $100 00 Paid Chki 077 ^37 2/9/2004 MIDBfEST FUELS 6 101*14101 Gasoline Inventory E 101*43000*212 Motor Fuels & Lubncants Total MIDWEST FUELS $1.333 07 19819 $735 32 19819 $2,068 39 884 Gals * Unleaded 593 Gals * Diesel Paid Chki 077738 2/9/2004 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101*43000*224 Street Maint Matenais/Supply 6 101*42110*221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 6101*20200 Accounts Payable ToUl MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Paid Chki 077739 2/9/2004 MINNEAPOUS. CITY OF 6 101*42110*311 Data Processing Communication Total MBMiEAPOUS.CiTYOF $105 61 771502 Acetyiere. Oxygen $83 23 7724969 Medical Oxygen $3169 Rl 12030872 Cytindor Invoice $220 53 $432 00 406500016282004 APS AcceM $432 00 Paid Chki 077740 2/9/2004 MINNETONKA SOUND S UGHT1NO 6 101-4190040^ Repairs/Maint Bldgs/Grounds $116 60 1/13/04 Total MWNETONKASOUNOSUGHTBiO $116 60 Reset council Sound System u CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 02Mf04 6:28 PM Page? FEBRUARY 2004 ChecliAiiit Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 077741 2/9/2004 MN COUNTIES INSURANCE TRUST E 101-4190CM89 Other MisceNar>eou8 Charges $125.00 $125.00 2874 2004 Dmg/Alcohol Test Tout MN COUNTIES INSURANCE TRUST Paid Chk# 077742 2/9/2004 MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION E 601-49400-433 Memberships & Subscriptions ToUl MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION Paid Chk# 077743 2/9/2004 MN WEtONTS S MEASURES E 101-42110*319 Other Professior^ Services Total MN WEIGHTS S MEASURES Paid Chk« 077744 2/9/2004 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS G 101-21710 Life Insurance Totol NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS Paid Chk# 077745 2/9/2004 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110*321 Telephone Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Paid Chk# 077746 2/9/2004 OFFICE DEPOT E 101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900*201 Office supplies £101-42110*201 Office supplies Total OFFICE DEPOT Paid Chk# 077747 2/9/2004 ORONO ROTARY E 101-42110*433 Memberships & Subscriptions Total ORONO ROTARY Paid Chk# 077748 2^/2004 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS E 101-41900*401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip Total PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS Paid Chk# 077749 2/9/2004 QWEST E 613-49830-321 Telephone Total QWEST Paid Chk# 077750 2/9/2004 R T ELECTRIC. INC E 101-42110*403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip Total RT ELECTRIC. INC Paid Chk# 077751 2/9/2004 SCHARBER A SONS E 101*43000*221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total SCHARBER S SONS Paid Chk# 077752 2/9/2004 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN E 101-42110*331 Travel Expenses $195.00 2004 2004 MRWA Membership $195.00 $250.00 70683-12698 Calibrate Scales $250.00 $32.006732204 Bal Due-PERA Life $32.00 $674.18 506573311 Police Ceil Phones $674.18 $190.50 230337757 Office Supplies $190.50 230337757 Office Supplies $32.85 230692514 Office Supplies $3285 230692514 Office Supplies $446.70 ..— .. ...------------------.. — $127.00 109 Quarterly Rotary $127.00 EMS $227.53 D139798 Repairs • Fax Machine $227.53 $61.27 9524739904 Telephone-GC $61.27 $625 00 03*523 Siren Maintenance $625.00 $6.09 2037264 Oil Cap $6.04 2037266 Cap * Chainsaw $12.13 $1200 1/26/04 Parking Tout SCHOENHOFF. JOHN Paid Chk* 077753 2/9/2004 STAR TRIBUNE E101-42110-340 GenarslAdvefIMng S12.00 E101-43000-433 Mambarahipa & Subacriptiona Total STARTRMUNE S303S0 $27.95 $331.45 12757006 3009532 Adv fof Emp - CSO Nawapaper PW CITY OF ORONO 02A)M)4 6 28 PM *Check Detail Registei® P»g«8 j FEBRUARY 2004 CHeck Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chki 077754 2J9f2004 SUN NEWSPAPERS E 101-42110*340 General Advertising Total SUN NEWSPAPERS $94 60 664624 $94.60 Adv for Emp - CSO Paid CtM 077755 2/9^2004 THE BERRY COMPANY E 613-49630-340 General Advertising $129.00 9524739904 Directory Adv Total THE BERRY COMPANY $129.00 Paid Chk# 077756 2/9^2004 TOLL GAS S WELDING SUPPLY G101-20200 Accounts Payable Total TOLL GASS WELDING SUPPLY $6.17 4368751 $6.17 Cylinder Rental Paid Chk« 077757 2/9/2004 UNIV OF MINNESOTA E 101-41300-437 Training S Oevelopffient E 101-42400-437 Training S Development E 101-42400-437 Training S Development E 101-41300-437 Training S Development Total UNIV OF MWNESOTA $56 00 GOVT 008 $28.00 GOVT 006 $56.00 GOVT 006 $64.00 GOVT 008 $224.00 Municipals Municipals Municipals Municipals Paid Chk# 077756 2/9/2004 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA E 613-49630-437 Training S Development ToUi UNIVERSITYOFMINNESOTA $95.00 Steffenhage $95.00 2004 Sprirtg Turf Conf Paid Chk# 077759 2/9/2004 VERIZON - DIR ADV E 613-49630-340 General Advertising Total VERIZON-DIR ADV $18.20 380007594501 Directory Adv $16.20 Paid Chk« 077760 2/9/2004 VERIZON WIRELESS E 101-41900-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone ToUl VERIZON WIRELESS $169.32 3523674723 $16.75 508100225 $16.76 508100225 $202.63 Cell Phones Utility Cell Phor>e Utility Cell Phone Paid Chk« 077761 2/9/2004 VESSCOMC. E 601-49400-227 UtiUty System Main!. Supplies Total VESSCOINC. $2.81 30418 $2.81 Clamp Paid Chk# 077762 2/9/2004 VSCINO INDUSTRIAL CENTER E 101-43000-226 Clothing S personal equipment ToUl VIKING BIDUSTRIAL CENTER $57.21 133086 $57.21 Safety Glasses Paid Chk# 077763 2/9/2004 WAGERS E 101-42110-201 Office supplies Total WAGERS $128.39 ARIN02228 $128 39 Toner - PO Fa* Paid Chk# 077764 2/9/2004 WSXIAMS TOWBIG G 101-20200 Accounts Payable Total WSJJAMS TOWiiG $101.18 58674 $101.18 Tow Charges Paid Chk# 077765 2/9/2004 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC E 101-43000-381 Gas S Electric E 602-49450-381 Gas S Electric E 101-43000-381 Gas A Electric Total WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC S30.08 3t13 $40.93 3113 $21.19 5015782900 $92.18 Electncal S«yic« Electrical S«vica Electrical Service PeidChhe 077788 2/9T2004 VEUCMV BOOK USA E 813-49830-340 General AdvertisInQ $191.84 303866 Oireciory Advatfiting J f aTYOFORONO 02^)9^6:28 PM Pagt 9 *Check Detail Register® FE8IUMIIVa004 ClMCh Ami InvolM Commtnl Total YEUOW BOOK USA $191.84 10100 Primary Cash $185,251.90 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 227 IMPR/EQUIP CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND 234 DONATED PARK 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 425 NAVARRE FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 651 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND 10100 Primary Cash $126.285 65 $18,479.42 $6.885 53 $2,985.55 $8,118.95 $4.436 64 $13,531.93 $2,426.41 $2,101.82 $185,251 90 4. New PeveloDment/RedeveloDmeiit Techniques Porous Bituminous Pavement Porous Bituminous Pavement is standard asphalt in which the fines have been held to a minimum, allowing water to pass through the pavement. Bieneath the pavement is a uniformly graded, clean stone bed of sufficient depth to catch and store the water as it drains through the pavement. The bottom of the stone bed is underlain with filter fabric on uncompacted soils, which allows the runoff to infiltrate into the soil. This reduces the volume of runoff and replenishes the groundwater table and stream baseflow. A similar approach can be used w'ith standard asphalt if the water is conveyed to a stone bed beneath the paving. Puious pavement systems have been operating successfully for twenty years, and are a viable technology when properly designed and constructed. Rainstore3 Rainstore 3 is a specific manufactured product that allows the storage and infdtration of stormwater beneath parking lots, playfields. etc. Because it provides 94% void space and is structurally capable of handling truck loads, it provides a substantial opportunity for stonnwater management in a limited area. This system is currently proposed for the reconstruction of Hhringliaus Field. Direct Connection of Roof Leaders to Storage/lnflltration Beds Roof areas generate significant amounts of runoff that is generally clean and sediment free. However, as this runoff runs across the land surface or in channels, it has the opportunity to scour pollutants from the land surface and to cause erosion. Direct connection of roof leaders to sub-surface storage infiltration beds is a viable solution to this source of runoff. X'egelated Roofs Vegetated Roof systems can hold and e\ aporate the first half-inch or more of runofi'and evaporate the collected water via the plant community. Alternatively, systems to collect and store the water on the roof, and then use that water to irrigate roof plaza and lawn areas, can also be implemented. A system to collect tlic water on the roof of the new Ram's Mead Building will provide irrigation water for tie lawn and trees that will be located on the plaza of the Ram's Head Building Campus Retrofit Techniques In addition to larger structural measures such as porous pavement, vegetated roots, and Rainstore s\ stems, there are other smaller techniques that will be incorporated throughout campus to interx ene in the current stonnwater system. The existing drainage system collects and conveys the stonnwater ninotT from campus immediately, however, under SaB Cahill Associates Environmental Consultants Ll the campus Stormwater Plan, opportunities to intervene in this system will be evaluated and implemented. Specific techniques to intercept stormwater nmolT that can be incorporated into the landscape include the following: Woodland Berms Woodland Benns provide an opportunity to intercept runoff from upsU-eam development os it runs down the hillside. Shallow berms constructed along the contour collect and intercept the runoff, preventing erosive conditions and providing the infiltration necessary to maintain existing woodlands. Often, existing woodlands can die off when uphill development prevents infiltration and the soil moisture is reduced. Woodland benns address this issue and reduce the runoff impacts. This measure can be implemented within existing sloped wooded areas that are to be protected. Infiltration Bed An Infiltration Bed. consisting of a stone storage/recharge bed beneath plantings, con be used within the landscape to collect and store/infiUrate runoff from existing buildings, parking areas, and roads/sidewalks. This is an inexpensive option that can be incorporated within the existing campus areas to reduce stormwater impacts. A stone storage/infiltration bed can be located beneath landscaped areas or playfields. The 18 inches of soil above the bed allows for landscaping and plantings. Infiltration french An infiltration trench is essentially a storm sewer that is designed to leak. A perforated pipe is set in a bed of stone wrapped in filter fabric, with soil and a surface swale located above the pipe The trench should run along the contour or nearly level to allow infiltration to i>ccur along the length of the trench, infiltration trenches provide an opportunity to store and infiltrate runolT in areas where there is not a lot of available space, such as adjacent to roadways and parking areas, or between parking spaces. Porous Concrete Porous Concrete is similar to porous bituminous asphalt in that the fines are held to a minimum, allow mg w ater to pass through the concrete to a stone bed beneath. Porous concrete is ideally suited to sidewalks, provided an opportunity to store infiltrate stonnwater in areas where there is limited space available. Cahill Associates Environmental Consultants i . .i f ■ ■ •' PERVIOUS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT Riverjdcks Open Into Recharge Bed Pervious Asphalt Stone Bed With Void Space for Storage/Recharge I'ahill Associates - - - - - Kiisiruniiieiiiul I'oiisultaiils JD i ► ( ahiti XsNOiiati's i ii\iHMiiiii iilal ( oiiNultaiits Vegetated Roof - Before and After V ‘n. O, ,#* ■ ♦♦‘'O' - 4[#>( uliill \ssuciatcs - K.ii\ironmi-nial ( iiiisullanfv '^oofscapes me. Gicen IMluuiloyirln thr UriMB Eavuoimtnt i 4 ^ •»V. ” .IV A *1 *■*.*'* , --------- .jcr •■ >X iPteTj * If M.^:f:5\-><*r>mi fPli :,'*• f : .. i| 'WMm»«.' itei . • ■• .. . •: mi' Mf" HEuw. ■'‘J 2xID i^lwm^i-'^’V INFILTRATION BED Stone Bed wrapped with GeotextJlp Mertorated Pipe Uncompactod B(xj Bottom / . Inlet Overflow Outlet Sediment Trap V • 9 lA if i <•> Cahill Associuti's Kii\in»iiiiu‘iital CoiiMillaiiiN INFILTRATION TRENCH X Suffdce Svvcile •\ *• Slofie TffffKh vvr.ipped \Mth Gt*()U»»til»» I IJfuiMijfhtsI Sur>-So»i > ;>w Perforated Pipe for Distribution cind ()ve^tlov\ <•> < .ilnll I mintnnu'iilal ( ntiMilianis f 4 i V ■'■ ■'■■iiii-iii '' • i'- ■ i t\ j I ^ X % * t- ^ •* * * "^ V -j\# V ^ ^ sVmj • •-m >/ i- :1^l*:m ff^ nw' A k ^ J V i t' .■/■k 'L ISLA?^ v» i • •' U,-e ^ 4,^1 c\C 'J ^ ^ (Tit.✓ / ^U.- f I I I I I I I I 1 Dave Thompson 2542 East 9800 South Sandy, UT 84092 January 28,2004 Barbara Peterson Orono City Mayor 1261 Arbor Street P.O. Box 164 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Peterson: As you doubtless arc aware, I own the real property located at 3262 and 3268 North Shore Drive, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. My property abuts property owned and subdivided by Robert and Iris Waade, known as Maxwell Landing. On July 27*^, 1998, Orono passed a resolution approving the plat of Maxwell Landing subject to various conditions and requirements, most of which were imposed to mitigate negative effects on the surrounding property. See, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono, No. 4125 ("Resolution 4125"). A copy of Resolution 4125 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, with critical language of Resolution 4125 highlighted. The protective measures of Resolution 4125 are consistent with the public policy of the City of Orono as expressed in ordinances such as City Ordinance #125, which directs as follows: Reduce danger to health by protecting surface water and ground water supplies from impairment vshich results [from] incompatible land uses by providing safe and sanitary drainage. Reduce financial burdens imposed both on this commumty and on co mmunities within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the individuals therein by frequent floods and overflow of water on lands. Permit and encouraged [sic] planned development land uses which will not impede the flow of flood water or cause danger to life or property. In violation of Resolution 4125, however, and despite the clear language and intent of City Ordinance # 125, the development of Maxwell Landing has directly resulted in a serious flooding problem that has ruined my property. The flooding would never have occurred had Resolution 4125 been followed. It has occurred, however, because Mr. Waade has failed to adhere to the coixlitions imposed by the City upon his development of Maxwell Landing. It is very disturbing, not to mention illegal, that there appears to be no requirement that Mr. Waade follow the conditions outlined in Resolution 4125 and the public policies on which the City has, iq> to this point, prided itself. This situation has occurred despite the fact that there is an approved drainage grade plan in place to avoid the very problem that Maxwell Landing’s development has caused. Nonetheless, Mr. Waade, Mr. Lyle Oman and the City Engineer have jointly, and blatantly, ignored the existence of the drainage grading plan that the City and the Minndiaha Water District designed and tq)proved. I have been concerned with this situation since I saw the land in May of 2(X)0, almost two years after Resolution 4125 was passed. One of the requirements of that resolution was to have a grade 1 I I I I I i I I I lots within the platExhibit A, Page 1, Paragraph Number 4. The grade plan was, in fact, and approved and, had the plan been enforced, the easements contained therein would have properly addressed the drainage issue. The finish grades on the property of Mr. Waade, however, are definitely out of compliance with the City’s grade plan. That puts Mr. Waade in violation of Resolution 4125, and it has caused the destruction of my property and its diminution in value. In May of 2000,1 met with Lyle Oman about these issues, and he told me that he would talk with Mr. Waade. Two years later, however, when I met with Mr. Oman and the City Engineer Tom Kelly, they did not provide me with a copy of the approved drainage grade plan. Instead, simply relied on a hand-drawn grade summary, which did not reflect the grades on the original preliminary plan, let alone the approved grade plan. They insisted that they had to follow that summary, that my property was in a "low spot," that the "low spot" was my problem, not the City’s problem, and that if 1 chose to sue, the City has "a lot of attorneys." Although it may be accurate that the City has a lot of attorneys, nothing else conuuned in ^t statement was true. Up to that point, no one had even bothered to locate a copy of the approved plan, but it was clear that Mr. Waade’s development had the support of the City, regardless of what had been officially iqiproved. I subsequently located the plans at the Minnehaha Water District, where they are available for public review. I found that the grades that currently exist on the Maxwell Landing property, as developed, vary quite significantly from the grades specified on the approved plan. The obvious conclusion is that no one at the City seems to care. A careful look at the preliminary plan of the proposed Maxwell Landing development clearly shows the grade and water flow, which was to drain out through an easement on Mr. Waade’s property. See preliminary plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A review of the final drainage grade plan approved by the City and the W'ater District, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, makes it even more evident that the drainage water was supposed to flow into the drainage easement leading to a drainage pond with a bottom elevation of 926.75 feet. The top elevation of the pond was to have been 930.75 feet. My adjoining property has an elevation of 933. feet, which means that the improved drainage would have flowed away from my property into the drainage easement and pond. That easement and pond are located on Mr. Waade’s property. Instead, however, Mr. Waade has diverted the drainage by artificially raising the grade on his property and building a berm, as well as a non*confonning fence, so that water flows directly onto my property and causes flooding. See pictures of berm and fence, and resulting standing water on my property, attached as Exhibit D. Similar evidence shows the lower grade prior to the development, and the fact that after the Miimehaha Water District came to the property and approved the Maxwell Landing grading, Mr. Waade altered the grading. See pictures on Exhibit E. Resolution 4125 specifically provides that "No grading within the 0 - 75' lakeshore setback zone will be allowed except as needed to accommodate the drainage plan." See Exhibit A, Page 3, Paragraph Number 5. Mr. Waade’s grading is within 75 feet of the lakeshore setback zone. The raised grade of Mr. Waade’s property and the berm ob>dously do nothing to accommodate the drainage plan, rather, they actually cause water flow away from the drainage pond prescribed in the drainage plan. Clearly, this is additional evidence of Mr. Waade’s intentional violation of Resolution 4125. Pursuant to the City’s fence regulations, qo fence is allowed within 75 feet of the lake shoreline, and on a lakeshore lot, a side yard fence behind an average setback line is to be rx> more than 6 I I Pursuant to the City’s fence regulations, Bfi fence is allowed within 75 feet of the lake shoreline, and on a lakeshore lot, a side yard fence behind an average setback line is to be no more than 6 feet in height A copy of tiie City’s Fence Regulations is attached as Exhibit F. Obviously, Mr. Waade ’s fence is not in compliance with the City’s Fence Regulations. There is no question that the City has allowed Maxwell ’s Landing to be developed despite the feet that it has felled to comply with various specified requirements that were inqx>sed by the City as explicit conditions of d^lopment approval. Not only has the City failed to enforce its own ordinances, resolution and policies, it has turned a blind eye to intentional violations of a plan ^>proved by the Minnehaha Water District Any of tiiese failures would be actionable by the citizens of this area because of the potential for derogation of the water quality, i^ysical beauty and open q»ce on Miich their property values are based. Perhaps, however. Maxwell ’s Landing or die City of Orono’s attorneys might argue feat such damages are merely ^)cculative. In my case, however, there is nothing speculative about fee damages that the City, Mr. Waade and Maxwell ’s Landing has caused. Not only do I suffer, along with my fellow citizens of this area, the loss of open space, water quality and beauty, I suffer the reality that there is a major water problem on my property, created by die abutti^ property development. On any resale I would be required to disclose the problem. There is no way to discharge the water without substantial cost and agreements that would have to be reached wife other adjoining properties, uiiich noay or may not be possible. My ability to build a home on my property is severely limited. All of this is fee result of the fact that the City has felled to enforce its own law and regulations, its officials have willfully ignored flagrant violations and Mr. Waade has been given carte blanfee to destroy neighboring property value. I am willing to consider a resolution of this egregious situation, in order to avoid legal action. To that end, I am requesting that the following be accomplished: 1. Removal of the fence/berm within the 75’ zone. 2. Mr. Waade to implement a system to remove water from my property, subject to my approval, which shall be given in my sole discretion. I am planning a trip to Minnesota during fee week of March 22,2004, and would iqjpreciate a meeting with the Orono City Council to resolve these issuK in person at that time. Please notify me of the meeting date aixl time by February 9,2004. SiMcrely^ Dave Thompson 2542 East 9800 South Sandy, UT 84092 (801)870-8115 cc: Orono City Council Members, Orono City Planning Commission, Orono Building Official, Orono City Engineer 3 i I I I I [ I I I I I I Exhl)kA Exhibit B Exhl)itC Exhl>itO Exhibit E Exhibit F ExUbitG ExMbitH Exhi>itl Exhl>it leview RewhitioB #4123 the agroemols conceining dninage have been highlighted. This is the pieUnuiiaiy plan Lyle Oman Knt me when I about attenlii« the meeting on the devetopmenL It clearly shows the gnde and water flow. It his the dninage ckvly shown dnining to the ponl Thii is when I first voiced my concerns. Lykand 1 discussed the plan and agreed it was beiKfictal and I would not iBcd to attend the meeting. This is the approved drainage plan that I disoovered at the Minnehaha Water Shed office. This clearly shows elevatioos tetpiired and is a good pkn. Pictures showing standing water on nqr property These ate fik pictures fiomthe Water shed District when they inspected the site. It ckarly shows gnde is not altered when they inspected. Page 2 shows no riiaiig^ made within the 73* setback. Page 3 top pictures, has the property before the devebpmeot begatL It is easy to see the open level green grass This is wlqr we bought tins property. The bottom pictiises show the nkc wee^ and dirt kft mirtnithiri, this was nice green grass. Now it is a pik of left over dirt and an eyesore. 1 do not appreciate the cost to rqmir the landscape ftomMr. Waades reckless regard for n^ property. Fence reguktions the fence is in violation of the 6’ ma.ximum fence heighL Thk k what Lyk Oman and the dty engmeer gave me when I met them on the property to discuss the probkm. This is the survey 1 just had congdeied Showing my elevation being at 933’and the bw spot is where the drainage easement should start (Not itKhided) Video tape rtf the site before, during ami after oorMuctbn Hus tape shows Mr. Waade building an ilkgal berm anl phr«ir« trees to lade the 3268 house ftom his vkw. This is why I believe that he changed the grade kto hide the properties rsxt door ftomhkview. Tins k identified in the tape of the corntruction I I I I I [ I I I I I I I 1 I c( S / •.» 0 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 1 5> 5NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF MAXWELL LANDING FILE NO. 2340 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, tlie City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a three lot plat by Robert and Iris Waade (hereinafter "die subdivider"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the LR*1 C*1, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District finding that Lot 1 is of a size and configuration that would allow Its use for a single family residence and Lot 2 is of a size and configuration tliat would allow its use for a duplex to be fully developed without the need of any variances other than those granted herein and WHEREAS, the subdivider has agreed to complete all requirements of tlie platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all tlie requirements of Resolutioa No. 4092, die resolution granting preliminary approval of the subdivision. Dedication on the plat of drmnage and utility easements. j.Creation of a private toad shown on the plat as Oudol A. Concurrent with the creation of this private road in Outlot A, dedication to the City of road and utility easements granting to the City pennanent access, improvement and utility easements over said Outlot; and the creation of non-exclusive ingress, egress, drainage and utility easemeuts over said OuUot in ftvor of all abutting lots within the pint including a declaiatkm of covenants, cooditioos, restrictions and private roadway easement wherein any lot shall be sold, transfimed and conveyed Page 1 of 5 * • S'; ' o7 •• \\ jpsm GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 1 2 i?> together with an undivided one*half interest in Outlet A whereby benefitting lot owners covenant and agree to permanently maintain and pay cost of maintenance for said.pnyate.road. 5.Dedication to the City of drainage easements over all detention areas, wetlands, and drainageways within the plat providing for limitations on the use of these areas and shown on the plat as drainage easements. /^S.\Execution of a Developer's Agreement providing for the installation of improvements required as a condition of subdivision qqicoval, and posting of security to ensim that these required improvements ate conqrleted to the Citjr's satisfaction, subject to approval of die Engineer. 7. 8. Provided evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee for Lots 1 and 2 in the amount of $14,700. 9.Payment to the City for the final plat review fee and fee for legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of S400.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Maxwell Landing, Hermepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1.Variances are hereby granted for the 40 ’ width of Outlot A which does not meet the 50' required road outlot width; for Ae 20* widA of Oudot B which docs not meet the required 30 ’ driveway outlot vwidth; for the (T driveway setback in Outlot B does not meet Ac required 10 ’ setback; for the creation of a flag lot which is prohibited by code; and to allow 3 dwelling units to gain access via driveway Outlot B where only 2 dwelling units are normally allowed such access; per Ae findings cf Resolution No. 4092. Page 2 of S 1 I/O \ A 'ill // CITYof OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO. ^'41 2 .*% 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. A conditional use pennit is hereby granted for the berm including grading within S' of lot lines, subject to City Engineer review and qrproval of final grading plans. Lots 1 and 2 shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to North Shore Drive shall be allowed for any Lot. All dwelling units on Lots 1 and 2 may access Outlot A via Outlot B. The private road in Outlot A shall be allowed to access directly to County Road 51 subject to conditions for such access as imposed by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in their required access permit The private road in Outlot A and the stormwater pond located in Lot 1, plus all required drainage improvements and site grading per tljeprelimioaiy plat drawings and preliminarY gracing anA plan shall be constTUCted by ^e developer subject to a Developers Agreenim~IlY be executed between the City and the developer. Private road and stormwater pond construction can begin as soon as the final engineering plans for the road and pond have been approved by tire City and the Developers Agreement has been executed. No grading wi^nj]^ n-yv setback zone will be allowed except asneeded to accornmotfSEe^adiainage p^L Erosion con^l shall be rmuntained overall disturbed areas untiLnaturalgcoundcover Isrestored' " “ ....... No building permits for Lots 1 or 2 will be issued imtil a satisfactory road base and all drainage improvements have been installed per approval of tiie City Engineer. The private road and private driveway and respective outlots shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the develqrer, including easements in ftvor of die off-site users of saidroad The developer shdl create a homeowners association or otiierqipropriate vehicle for such ownenhip and nudnteruuice. Subdhrider shall grant dninage easements over the stormwater pond to benefit the Lot Owners and the City; and shall previde^fer rnaMauuDce tiieteof by tiie Lot Owners. 8. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlot A. Page 3 of S !l no o ■'4. '% ■,s ['Xfa VI CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 4185_^ '^*'^f===^Applicant shall grant to tiie City all necessary easements to accommodate existing sewer lines within dte property. 10. Prior to City release of flie plat for filing, applicant shall provide evi^nw off ownership of the property in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall provide copies of all eastements affiecting the mi^perty, and shall meet any other title lequiremcnts as may be leqiured by the City Attorney. 11.Applicant shall provide aU documents noted in this resolution in a format acceptable to the City Attorney prio- to release of the plat for filing. 12. Tlie aforesaid plat shaU be filed by the City of Orono with either the County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before Jan^ 27, together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the cAsenicntSy deeds and covenants noted above. for subdivision review. Dated this 27lh day of July, 1998. ATTEST: J' Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Paged of 5 A ;V*V«V ^ 'i / ■ / (ItvC. .A' V' ;:)0 ‘ t^tUi -iUt'i./ I ; » 137. I *T-r ■:3i5-----“'T. •(cr ^vfiTfC ^‘'■1s. /Se^ 84/)K v| V itW^f --" ! » »|UJ '1I ,v <,c; r r o»^♦ . 3‘*-V..I- i.y / M/Srs/~ S/.^4 - •.» ^^E-r^ZsS^y /e-b**r ilaMtllfli -^1/ I ' ^ < / c r. ■ kl <1 ■ V . J. r*kJ, l¥t V.?’ !i; t • • - . f . x«»< W 1-^ • r *. _**: I -5^#wV ^j *^»^. m ^^' - ’. I«t' ‘l-jiiS.J: M ?Aj »' ■' ■ - ]lb *•> J j if: Vi k‘i , ‘^1 * * 3 " 4 ■rs*. M m i?.r, >>ii. , •> ■ ij t fJ^v [- 'M<"’- ■ V I- --4rt }■ ■■-''Ff'*# -J.lisi'V -. .a# ^ * f MM KkX’A D ;>#• ! ,<^\ •■;? ■,-?|5^ ifSJiii •i -1 't i*!. hSr. ■• •*• ■'. I:V|;h'.fci'i,' • *’1'. ‘ V' .X f4 “K I xf'' 1. •< •.*1 ^ ^ ’• •• • ' ■ f»F !*;V I '•'*'i'’*' ^ 'j'\ \•» #• '•**»*' f' -} <••1 * f •►* ♦ ■• '■ v|, •« 11 s, -J mmm V^<* *•’U.I'A “■.■"'^'", “ uy^ , . • .. : • * Ja-'* ••i'7»l«u.' /’ - '- A ^ %w V.v.v;;.s-.;, • v.v ‘..* .V ' r ' *. «•* -‘-Mt^ * >. i - ’-^-vr'' ..............• .;Vv*: *■ I : ------------ * I.'‘ *-••••“ r' ;,.••• .-'Jx:•:*"“- I*^*• V *>*'**^”*’ **’ * (v/7 .•■)•,•-’* ■; t:Vni A*. AwvA. • . . —- *r vr.- • a-*4* (\ .f r*.*^ • A • •I- ‘ ' 0 * % 1 . .*••• i il) Ui : ^ 'IIE ..\-,-i ■ (f<^^ ^../■ k>ik^ .-wX'- •;'!.: C-vJ--' ■•-■ ■•:'■■• . :»/ ‘ -‘15 ^ ‘ V. V ' <>OPY * %-'■ • v» e/> UJ ^ t x% X.. V .6sS<^ ‘ '•■ • T-J^' • !*U"*%>» 1 ^ laj ,6!^^ .♦ ‘i. ■''t > : - ■# ' * «* ■ * ^ ^ /i..Kr'«%. /"' • .<•/, V ^i|fe 'Cllf • i4l »« kMH to ^ ^ 9 ^ V. . “- - ■V' ^^IdiBiSjik^''k P..;,, ^V' "'w ..’/ » N « f ^ • /y < ' .. m J ■*‘ • . •• •■. ^ * *Cr;' .: '.• •••.•'■ »*• •f« • •^7»5 t\ ry ■ •• i I • I- I m •«. *. I f •...x.v,: ' »> V ■^.V V- sil^'•’^' -V/ ^ • •. ,i • 'I'■'• 1-.? ' • '■ • ,-' ' ‘.'» - ’ *y s. »•.,. Vlt^ '-------^ ‘ '• •■’ ■ •■ • '■ i •*5j; J , .•' .. V;-{.. <tvi r»5c'AT'>--’-i; 'r.-^ .^,11 il'IS ,.L f'* « ... I '*• • _JMeaBK \'i • ' S^t' .-^j>’ -1 ai 5»...A ^ 13 — * *4>' • V ■* ^ ^ ^ ^* *• • I,:» 7i. • ■'• ’•■ •■ •- •*’.••- - -m • -* • • •- » •• •*• '. • • *’' ■ J r » '.' - -• •'. • ••• • t '« « • I '1 j i F CITY OF ORONO Fence Rggiilations General: 1. 2. 3. 4. Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a permit. Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback is required. The City of Orono does not require fences around swimming pools; however, property owners are advised to check with their insurance company. The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences. Fence Heieht/Location Standards Location Standard: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Lakeshore Lot: Lake Yard Maximum Fence Height 3 W 6’ 6’ 3 W Side Yard Street Yard Comer Lot: 30’ Sight Triangle Front Yard Side Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 6’ 3 W Ahead of "average lakeshore setback line", except np fence is allowed within 75 ’ of the shoreline Behind "average lakeshore setback line" (6’ along County & MSA Funded Roads) 3’ 3 W 3 6’ 6’ If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning Department at 249-4600. ^ X:\APFS\WPWLSSOVWPOOCS\FORMSVFG<CE Bob O'Bfien Safe & Sober liaison 13880 Kingsview lime Dayton, MN 5532/-9S16 Phone: Fox; E-moil; 763-427-0261 763-323-8183 ibob2©uswest.nef Crash Report for the City of Orono The cost is based on the National Safety Council figures for the cost of deaths and injuries in crashes and accidents. Thc.se are the figures that are used in national statistics and by most insurance groups. We have the exact number of deaths and injuries by severity in the state however; the numbers of severe, moderate and minor injuries are not broken down by county or city in the “Crash Facts Report ”. I used an average of the actual numbers of those injuries in Minnesota, so while it may not be exact it is ver>' close to the actual cost of crashes in Orono. Orono, 2002: In 2002 there were 2 Fatal Crashes, 56 Injuries in 42 crashes and 148 Property Damage Crashes. There were 20 fewer injuries in 2002 than in 2001 . This is an indication that drivers arc using their seat belts more and driving somewhat slower because of the education and enforcement. 2 Fatalities @ 4 Severe Injuries 20 Moderate Injuries @ 32 Minor Injuries @ 148 Property Damage @ S1,040,000.00 S 49,500.00 S 16,500.00 $ 9,400.00 S 6,500.00 Total S 2,080,000.00 S 198.000.00 S 330,000.00 S 300,800.00 S 962.000.00 $ 34*70.800.00 In the past ten years in Minnesota there has been an increase of: 502,103 LicenH*<l Drivers, and the number of licensed vehicles has increased bv 1,103,261. Spoirsoted by the Mrnnesoto Oeparlment of Fublic Safety