Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-25-2004 Council Packet
\ 'I i Public A ttendance Meeting D ate I j^ ^ Q^COUNCIL —I.— □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other r ■ Please fillolttme information requested BELOW FOR OLR CITY RECORDS. 1 NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER r> Itx^ UilLOf.<S. x_J/A£oU> __________/c ic^ !3<?a...y 3^*^7 5.. 6.I 7.. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.. M ^ UiInlMritiaf InppwtyPnmprnMi AWwtMli wpi r OffiCiHyL £o£-^ndt<. AGRNDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 25,2004,7:00 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 Courcil 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 ocr if 5 2004 CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend CITY Oh OHONO PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. 2. Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees - Resolution PRESENTATION 3. Sally Koenecke, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission - 2005 Proposed Budget APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 4. Regular Council Meeting of October 1 1 ,2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Pat Wolfe, Representative No Park Commission meeting November 1,2004. Next meeting scheduled for November 29, 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ~ Ralph Kempf, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) /.ONING ADMINIS I'KATOR'S REPORT 5. //04-3007 Harold and Mildred Bower, 1925 I.akeview Terrace - Variance - Resolution and Ordinance 6. #04-3024 Zoning Amendment - Permit for Large Vehicles * 7. #04-3048 Steven and Kathleen Persian, 1005 Hunt F'arm Road - Variances - Resolution 8. #04-3052 Lric Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road Variances * 9. #04-3053 Bart and Betsy But/cr/Aulik Design Group, 2625 North Shore Drive - Variance Resolution 10. #04-3055 Dr. Martha Spencer, 1005 Willow Drive South - Variances 1 1 . #04-3059 James Render, 1335 Tonkawa Road -- Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 12. Stonebay PUD Request for RPUD Flexibility - Lot 6, Block 1 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 13. Proclamation Housing Week 14. Recognition of Maggie Knutson's Milken National Lducator Award - Resolution PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 15. Stonebay Development Stomiwater Trunk Fee Reimbursement 16. Accept Quotations - Ca.sco Cove Drainage Project 1 7. Adopt Assessment Roll - West Farm Road (1 lomcstcad) Sewer I’rojcct - Resolution 18 Adopt Assessment Roll • Garden Court Sewer Project -- Resolution i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 25,2004, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CTl'Y ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 19. Establish Date and Time for Canvassing Board Meeting CITY A1 FORNEY'S REPORT • 20. LICENSES * 21. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2004 10/22 10/23 10/25 10/29 10/30 10/30 10/31 Ixaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.ni. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Absentee Voting at City Hall, Saturday, 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Daylight Saving Time 11/01 11/01 11/02 11/03 11/04 11/05 11/06 11/08 11/11 11/15 11/22 11/25 11/26 11/29 Absc:itce Voting at City Hall until 5:00 p.m. Park Commission Meeting - Rescheduled to November 29 GENERAL ELECTION, 7:00 a m. - 8:00 p.m. Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Observance of Veterans Day, Thursday Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison -Lili McMillan)) Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day • Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. (Council Liaison - Mayor Peterson) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCI 2 5 2004 DATE : Octdber Q5 .qKRNP ITEM NO c2-^ Department Approval;^ /K*/ Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Tom City Administrator's ' ReportTitle Finance Director item Description: Public Hearing Regarding the Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees Attachments: (A) Resolution providing for the collection of delinquent sewer, water. recycling program fees, septic inspection fees, ?nd general service fees. (B) Assessment roll. Each year the city certifies to the county, all unpaid annual service charges for the septic inspection program, the unpaid recycling program fees, all delinquent sewer and water accounts of $50.00 or more, and the delinquent general services for false alarm fees and developers improvement fees, to be collected with the following year's taxes. In addition to the outstanding amounts delinquent, eight percent (8%) interest is added to all accounts and an administrative fee is added to the septic accounts. At this time the total to be assessed is $88,551.85 including administrative fees. This amount will be decreased by any payments received up to the final payment date of November 24, 2004. A copy of the assessment roll is attached for your review. State statutes require the City hold a public hearing regarding the assessment of these fees prior to certifying the assessment roll to the County. Notices of the public hearing have been sent to all delinquent properties. The hearing is an opportunity for property owners to ask questions and provide comments regarding the proposed assessment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of resolution providing for the collection of delinquent charges for the 2004 sewer and water utility services, the septic inspection program, the recycling program, the false alarms, developers improvement fees, and other general service fees. V:\Cuuiiul Hcm»\2004VCCRT20(MUB due t if ;! i I 5- yf A RESOLUTION FOR THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT 2004 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES, RECYCLING PROGRAM FEES, ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT (SEPTIC) INSPECTION PROGRAM, STORM WATER CHARGES AND GENERAL SERVICE FEES Whereas, the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota has enacted certain ordinances under Minnesota Statues, therefore pursuant to Chapter 14, Chapter 42, Chapter 58 and Chapter 78, Orono City Code pertaining to payment and collection of water, sewer and storm water charges and annual service charges for recycling, and the on-site sewage treatment (septic) inspection program, and false alann fees, and developers improvement fees; and Whereas, the charges identified in tlie attached list of properties are delinquent in nature: and Whereas, ten days mailed notice and nvo weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon the 25di day of October 2004, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono as follows: That the Hennepin County Special Assessment Division is hereby authorized to place the delinquent water, sewer and storm water charges and annual service charges for recycling, and tire on-site sewage treatment (septic) inspection program, and false alarm fees, and developers improvement fees, on the 2005 property tax rolls, payable in 2005, at eight percent (8%) per annum, against the specified properties as set forth in the following Exhibits. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 25th day of October, 2004. ATTEST: S'. Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor yk ?Z. 2co^^ 0211723210019 0211723240003 0211723310011 021172331001S 021172r.10038 0211723310048 0211723330002 021V23430026 0.? 11723130006 031 1723:M 0001 0311723310001 0311723310002 0311723320020 0311723340001 0311723340007 0311723340015 0411723110011 0411723120018 0411723210001 0411723210014 0411723220003 0411723220026 0411723230010 0411723230010 0411723310004 0411723420003 0411723420017 0511723110002 0511723130012 0511723130028 0511723130032 0511723140002 0511723140020 0511723140030 0511723140031 0511723140062 0511723210023 0511723230004 0511723230013 0511723230014 0511723230040 0611723120008 0611723220019 0611723410104 0711723110007 0711723140018 $119.08 562.29 546.18 560 08 192.59 11461 $129 08 564 49 $119 08 $119.08 $11908 $119 08 $119.08 $119 08 $119 08 $119 08 $119 08 $11908 $119.08 $119 08 564 48 114.61 14645 46291 $119.08 $119 08 $119 08 $11908 564 37 22895 564.47 561 17 11461 260 92 238 39 130 71 602 17 368 92 564 49 238 39 564 49 $96 00 $11908 258 50 82 90 56449 0711723140020 0711723140060 0711723140063 0711723220016 0711723230002 0711723240023 0711723320003 0711723320027 0711723320034 0711723320054 0711723320057 0711723330005 0711723440005 0711723440020 0711723440021 0711723440026 0811723130002 0811723210017 0811723230011 0811723230024 0811723330027 0811723330066 0811723330075 0811723340059 0811723410007 0811723430014 0811723430014 0911723130009 0911723320011 1011723310006 1011723310017 1011723310036 1011723310049 1011723310050 1011723310072 1011723420018 1711723210001 1711723220003 1711723220012 1711723220025 1711723220028 1711723220029 1711723220034 1711723230016 1711723230019 1711723240023 509 90 1711723310030 21251 561 17 1711723310034 196 66 23839 1711723310041 868 68 $11908 1711723310050 57684 56449 1711723310051 414.70 228 72 1711723340023 422.70 564 49 1711723340027 362 54 56449 1711723340033 763 82 11461 1711723340034 1080 57 1276 84 1711723340057 158 47 108 01 1711723340059 304 50 560 08 1711723340070 158.47 521 17 1711723340078 386 34 564.49 1711723410023 868 30 2188 99 1711723420008 174 67 564 49 1711723430002 120 22 123 78 1711723430016 794.89 546 21 1711723430035 203 82 521 17 1711723430044 928 83 56449 1711723430047 346 36 564 49 1711723430056 722 90 521 17 1711723430058 295 12 56449 1711723430074 106 93 143 90 1711723430087 847 50 23839 1711723430095 995 87 152 20 1711723430098 1214.13 7005 1711723430121 463 63 $119 08 1711723430122 324 96 11461 1711723430124 894 88 564 49 1711723430129 723 21 562 35 1711723430132 961 04 368 92 1711723430138 264 57 292 03 1711723440006 123 60 56449 1711723440018 175 18 564 49 1711723440019 121 57 11461 1711723440031 170 41 168 02 1711723440041 257 57 154 16 1711723440059 489 00 50 43 1711723440066 197 99 982 11 1711723440079 841 02 703 34 1711723440090 1009 82 703 34 1711723440096 190 05 144 15 1711723440098 273 71 834 73 1711723440102 144 IS 703 34 1811723310001 $96 00 963 30 2011723120014 881 32 2011723120017 2011723120021 2011723120023 2011723120024 2011723120024 2011723220002 2011723230003 2011723240013 2011723240017 2011723310010 2011723310034 2011723310036 2011723310038 2011723310050 2011723320013 2011723320018 2011723430022 2011723430054 2111723210002 2111723220008 2111723230001 2111723240003 2111723240065 2211723310032 2311723220009 2311723220018 2311723230031 2311723320027 2311723320039 2511823310004 2611823310004 2611823310007 2611823330016 2611823330021 2611823330024 2611823330030 2711823320018 2711823330007 2711823420011 2711823420015 2711823430014 2711823430010 2811023330014 2811023330015 2811823340003 2911023410005 9262 850 47 572 84 25224 554 99 002 85 221 23 975 21 991 33 715 30 605 41 442.07 68975 177 57 177 57 78102 875 75 32316 142 85 053 28 1136.78 1583 41 972 62 $96 00 $96 00 $96 00 $96 00 $96 00 $96 00 $128 16 $119 08 $119 08 368 92 $119 08 541 92 560 08 $119 08 $119 08 230 39 $119 08 $119 00 $119 00 $11908 $119 08 10301 10 $11908 2911823410005 2911023430002 2911823430011 3011823310003 3011023330007 3111823120011 3111023210003 3111023220008 3111023410005 3111023420009 3211823210005 3211823220003 3211023240012 3211823440009 3311823240001 3311023310007 3311823310011 3311823330007 3311823410008 3311823410016 3311023410017 3311023430019 3311023430024 3311823440041 3511823430020 3611823330011 $119 00 $119 08 $119 08 $119 08 $11908 $11816 $119 00 $119.08 $11908 $119 00 $11908 $11908 $129 08 $119 08 68401 $119 08 $11908 $119 08 $11908 $119 08 $11908 $11908 $119 08 $11900 $119 00 $119 08 88551.85 AS Of October 22. 2004- Lasf year public hearing amount was $90,906.00 Amount that actual got certified $59.10178 W DATE: October 8,2004 ITEM NO; ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 2 5 ?0U4 CITY OH OHQnQ Department Approval: Nine Ronald J. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2005 Budget The Lake Minnetonka Conununication Commission administers the cable communications ihuichise that serves 16 cities in the Lake Minnetonka area. This involves monitoring the provision of cable communications services by the cable company under the fhmehise agreement, and providing for public, educational, and governmental access programming. Sally Koenecke, the Administrator for the Commission, will attend the Council meeting to review the 2005 Communications Conunission budget, and to provide an update regarding the activities of the Commission. The 2005 budget is attached. Overall, the expenditures are proposed to remain relatively stable. The expenditures related to the franchise administration have increased from $124,765 to $130,080, This is an increase of 4.3%. The expenditures related to franchise compliance enforcement have increased from $12,700 to $22,000, due to the bi-annual cable operator audit. The expenditures related to the operation of the access studio have been reduced from $254,950 to $252,178. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Lake Minnetonka Communications Conunission 2005 budget. Lake Minnetonka Communicationa Commission Year 2005 Budget The Lake Minnetonka Conununications Conunission budget format includes three separate funds: Franchise Adnunistration, Studio/Arr,..ss Production, and Capital Improvements Fund. The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission is not funded by tax dollars and its operating budg^ is derived from cable franchise fees and PEG fees to cable sub^ribers. The Lake Miimetonka Conununications Conunission maintains a fund balance as a reserve to maintain operation if unforeseeable funding losses should occur. These could include lowered franchise revenue, legislation resulting in reduced funding, or other revenue losses. The LMCC has some financial obligations, such as a building rental contract, that would have to be paid even if the legislature eliminated franchise funding. The LMCC studio and offices are still located at 4071 Sunset Drive in Spring Park. The following is a summary of the categories of the budget: Franchise Administration Fund This fund is supported entirely by franchise fees and interest on investments. Activities accounted for in this fund are related to the oversight responsibility of the Commission representing the member cities' interest in the cable operators compliance with the franchise agreement. The LMCC also represents its member cities by monitoring and participating in the legislative activities at the state and federal levels. Studio/Access Production Fund This fund is to account for all public access activities. Expenses cover staff time and all operating costs of assisting residents and inshtuhons in producing video presentatiorv» to be played back over the local public access channels 8, 12, 19, 20 and 21. Revenues for this fund are derived from interest on investments, PEG fees from our cable subscribers, a portion of the franchise fees, and additional charges to entities outside of our franchise area (Mound) who have a need to access the public access channels. The Wayzata Schools are providing the programming function for Channel 19 and have included all the school districts in the LMCC service area in their progranruning. Capital Improvement Fund The Capital Improvement Fund supports the acquisition of new equipment as well as to recognize the depreciation and need for replacement of equipment and lease-hold improvements presently existing. A listing of a proposed equipment list is included. The equipment list is projected as pricing may have changed prior to the time of purchase. Purchases are subject to approval by the commission and may change if technology dictates better options. Submitted by: Sally Koenecke, LMCC Administrator i Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2005 Budget Summary Projected Revenues:$ 417,110 Projected Expenses:$ ^22.258 Reduction In Fund Balance:S (5.148) 2005 Beginning Fund Balance $ 306,950 2005 Ending Fund Balance $ 301,802 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2005 Proposed Budget ii Projected 2005 Expeases Projected 2006 Beginniog Fund Balance 422,258 301,802 Franchise Studio Capital Total Administration Production Improvement All Funds Revenues Franchise Fees 127,532 160,586 288,118 PEG Fees 39,528 18,000 57,528 Mound Usage Fees 45,488 45.488 Studio Rental Dub Fees 5,314 5.314 Interest 8%1,094 1,990 Insurance Refund 1,672 1,672 Audit Adjustment 17,000 17,000 Projected Total Revenue 147,100 252,010 18,000 417,110 Froiecled Total Fvnense 130,080 252,178 18,000 audil/legal expense __22LQQQ total 152,080 422.258 Projected 2005 Beginning Fund Balance 306,950 Projected 2005 Revenues 417,110 Lake Minnctooka CommaBications CommissloB 2005 Proposed Badgct EiptBsn PaiOMi Scmcci 101 SilarMFuU^ 103 Silihed Pait-linic 121 Pm Com. l22FICACont 131 HmIOi Insurance 151 WortoiComp Insurant Holiday Bonus Total Pmooal Servlm Supplici 200 Office Supplies 210 Special Evcnts/Mcctangs 220 Repair St Maml. Supplies Total Supplies Proien wnil SsTYicti 301 Audit Fees 314 PayroU Services 318 Jamlorial Services 319 Security Services 325 Computer/Coiwilting Total Prolesskmal Services 321 Telephone/Communicaiions 322 Postage 331 Travel School A Conference 332 Mileage 350 Printing and Publishing 360 Insurance 310 Utilities 384 Refuse A Recycling Collectiofi 401 Contracted Building Repair 404 Maim. Repair Equip. 412 Building Rem 413 EquipmeiU Rental 433 Dues A Subscriptions 438 Property Taxes 439 Contingency Total Other Charges Capital Outlay 599 l.raMliotd Inprovtatitt rnafliitrmiiflnnril 49855 Cable Opeator Audit 301 LsQalFuM 303 Total Franebito EntorcamMl Total 2003 Actual 2004 Adopted 2004 6 Mo. Act. 2004 Projected 2005 Committee Proposal 32.10000 32,600 17,100 34,200 35.226 12.034 00 16.200 8.741 17.482 18.356 3.304.00 2.601 1.487 2.974 3.200 3.289.00 3.733 2.246 4,492 4600 9,395 00 10,000 5.193 10,386 11.000 390 00 360 349 349 37C 21000 0 •0 0 60.722.00 65.494 35.116 69,883 7^752 1.16700 1.250 787 1,500 1.300 36700 550 36»722 550 21500 200 259 259 250 1.74900 2.000 1.407 2.481 2100 2.437 00 3.200 1.064 3.200 3.500 87200 950 477 900 950 1.554 00 1,800 1.156 2.300 2.500 527 00 800 279 558 600 -1.000 -0 1.000 5.390 00 7.750 2,976 6,958 8.SS0 2.934 00 2.600 1,522 3.044 3.000 1.341 UO 1,300 546 1,300 1.300 8.764 00 9,000 800 9,000 9.000 1.477 00 2,000 374 2,000 1.500 2.045.00 2.400 1,101 2,400 2.400 3.969 00 3.700 3,019 3,019 3.500 2.990 00 3.400 1.705 3,400 3.600 144 00 300 95 300 300 524.00 1,000 •600 1.000 -1,400 1,407 1.400 1.400 9,781 00 9,980 4.988 9.980 10.180 2.454.00 1.800 720 1.200 1.500 760 00 3.500 2.078 3,500 3.500 2,00200 2,200 988 2,000 2.200 999 00 2.500 352 2,000 ^000 40.184 00 47.080 19.695 45.143 46.380 300 •300 300 107.835.00 122.624 59.194 124.765 130080 19.64000 10.000 4.418 8,000 17.000 6.83300 5.000 2.307 4.700 5.000 b.o6o 6.725 i2,7ob 22LiUiu 134.368 00 65.91^137,465 —IBOTT Arrus* Shirfin Expenses Lak« Minnetonka Communioalions Commission 2005 Roposed Budget 2005 2003 2004 2004 2004 tCoiiuBittee Actual Adopted 6 Mo. Act.Projected Proposal PfilSODftl SfilYiCfiS 101 Stiaried F\iU-time 8A924 9L778 44,473 91,778 96,366 103 Saluted Part-time 16,215 27,641 13,246 27,641 19,658 121 Peta Coni 6,309 6,365 2,839 6,000 6,180 122 FICACont 7,047 9,136 4,812 9,624 8,875 131 Health Inturance 8,290 9,000 4,583 9,000 9,500 151 Wotken Comp. Insurance 508 500 453 453 500 Total Personal Services 123,293 144,420 70,406 144,496 141,079 Suppliei 200 Office Supplies 283 300 158 300 300 210 Special Events/Meetmgs 856 1,000 843 800 700 220 Repau & MainL Supplies 258 300 311 500 300 225 Studio Expendables Z928 5.000 1,262 5,000 5,000 Total Supplies 4325 6 600 2.574 6.600 6,300 Piofe55innftl ServiCBs 301 Auditmg Fees Z373 3,650 1,036 3,650 3,700 302 Access Contractors 17.828 2Z000 8,105 20,000 21,000 304 Legal Fees 3,104 2,300 1,038 2,300 2,400 314 Payroll Services 872 930 477 930 970 318 Janitonal Services L467 1,300 1,092 2,184 2,300 319 Security Services 377 500 199 400 550 325 Consulting-computer 2,185 1,300 1,462 3,000 2,000 310 Camera Production 1,950 -600 600 - Total Professional Services 30.156 31.980 14,009 33,064 32,920 Other Services and C^uges 321 Telephone/Communications 2,323 2,500 1,169 2,500 2,600 322 Postage 1,340 1.250 546 1,200 1,250 331 Ttavel School & Conference 1525 3,000 2,095 3,000 3,000 332 Mileage 350 Printmg and Publishing 284 5.540 600 6,000 221 3,343 550 6,500 360 Insurance 3,755 3,500 2,856 2,856 3,200 380 Utilities 5.979 6,500 3,410 6,500 6,700 384 Refuse 8t Recycling CollecUon 144 250 95 250 250 401 Conttacted Building Repau 524 750 .500 750 404 MainL Repau Equip.Z585 3.600 2,994 410 Van Opetauon 874 2,000 473 1,500 1,700 412 Building Rent 29.187 29.784 14,885 29,784 30,379 413 Equipment Rental 3.213 2.250 900 2,100 433 Dues & Subscnpuons 127 650 346 650 600 438 Proper^ Taxes 6.468 6.850 3,194 6,500 6,850 439 Contingency 1.164 Z500 410 1,500 Total Other Chuges 65,032 71 36.937 70.790 71879 Total Expenditures 22Z806 254.984 123,926 254,950 252,178 k LLMCCLAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE • RO. BOX 385 • SPRING PARK. MN 55384 0385 • 952. 471-7125 • FAX 952 471-9151 September 8,2004 DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR rNDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE ti 9 !i0d4 * . •: ;i 4 • ' i. J Mayor and City Council Members City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 GREENWOOD Deaf Mayor and Council Members: LOBETTO MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACtUS SHOREWOOO SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOOOLAND The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) passed the enclosed budget for 2005, at the the quarterly Full Commission on August 17. This budget is not funded with tax dollars, but rather a cable company franchise fee paid annually to the LMCC. We are also receiving a PEG (public, educational, governmental) access fee for community use of the production studio. I am submitting the budget to all city members of the LMCC for review and approval according to the Joint Powers Agreement. The LMCC is asking all 16 cities to bring the LMCC Budget before your City Councils for approval and notify the LMCC of your action with a copy of your council minutes. Please notify the LMCC of your action within 30 days of the receipt of the budget according to the LMCC Joint Powers Agreement. If your city would like to have me make a presentation of the budget please call me at 952-471-7125. In past years I have attended council meetings to present the budget but due to very full agendas some cities have requested the budget be mailed with no presentation. I would be happy to attend your council meeting and answer any questions concerning the budget or call me with any questions. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION '/LiuLi) Sally koenecke Administrator 2005 Capitol Expenditures Budget 2 Istudk) & Control Room Needs:i i i t'$279Tar~^2 Channel Audio Gate/Compressor-Studio I GBX 266LB $594 27rRoll Around Ladder for Studio/Lighting Use I Rolo L-14b ; $750.00 $798.75 13“ Monitor-Coniroi Room ! JVC TM-H175XGU $795.00 $846.68• • • 1 ■9“ Monitor-Control Room JVC TM-A9U $540.00 $575.10 •Production Van Needs: T ^Portable Wave Form Monitor/Vector Scope for Van Leader 5982B ^r$3.495.00 $3,722.18 '2 Headset Mies for Van Sports Productions-Van Telex TELDS4 $80.00 $170.40 1 '-DV/Mini DV Deck for Van Panasonic AG-OV2000 $2,300.00 $2,449.50 *1 .Graphics Generator for Van Information MXProDV $2,790.00 $2,971.35 ‘l 4 Input TBC Unit for Van i Oatavideo TCB4000 $929.95 $990 40 1 Equipment Room Needs:____1___ ■ 6 'DV Camcorder Batteries-Equipment IDX I! E-50 $247.00 $1,57*8 33 ; _ ___ __ I I ■Playback Needs:'----- ^ 1 "^CG Computer for Playback Scala EPCSCALA $3,115.00 $3,317.48 ... _iL J______, > r $18,014^ S/9/04 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. MccTiNir; OCT 2 5 2004 CilY Ui- OMUaU 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. Representing Staff were City Attorney Thomas Barrett, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planner Janice Gundlach, Public Ser\'icc Director Greg Gappa, Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Administrator Ron Moorse were absent. Acting Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1.APPROVE/AMEND This item follows Item #2. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:02 P.M. - 7:39 P.M. 2.EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON MEDIUM/HIGII DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 19,3"“ SERIES White noted the Orono City Council adopted a moratorium appro.ximatcly six months ago on subdivision, rezoning, or PUD approvals for property that is currently guided in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan to allow residential densities in excess of two dwelling units per acre, with the exception of the property within the plat of Stonebay. The moratorium is scheduled to expire on October 12,2004. White stated the Council will not be able to complete its review within the six months and would like to extend the moratorium. White inquired whether an Affidavit of Publication is on file with the recording secretary. Gaffron stated the Affidavit of Publication is included within the Council Members’ packets tonight. White opened the public hearing. Charles James addressed the Council regarding his property affected by this moratorium. James indicated he has owned this property for over ten years and requested he be allowed ten minutes to give the Council some background on the property. James indicated he has been in the commercial real estate development business for over 25 years and has an impeccable record concerning his developments. James stated that in 1994 and 1995, he developed a new Byerly’s store and shopping center in Chanhassen consisting of approximately 100,000 square feet. James noted he was asked to attend a meeting of the NAIOP, National Association of Industrial Office Property Developers, and the Min.nesota Shopping Center Association, and was given an award for project of the year for the best designed and built shopping center. James stated at that time the need for a grocery store in Orono was perceived and he started to work toward that vision. James indicated he consideted a number of properties in Orono and also looked at the PAGEl & i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Extension of Moratorium, Continued) availability of utilities in connection with this project. An architectural rendering was presented to the City of what was being proposed and a request was made to be on the next City Council agenda. James commented in his opinion apparently a flurry of nonpublic actions were set off by his proposal and the mayor at that time contacted the owner of Bycrly’s and spoke with him regarding the shopping center in Chanhassen. James indicated in addition he was never invited to any meetings regarding the new Highway 12 corridor and was never informed of any discussions had by the City concerning his property. James indicated he was waiting to hear whether he would be allowed to speak to the Council concerning his proposal. James stated it is his understanding at a work session there apparently was a consensus among the council members that they did not want any big box retail stores. James stated his proposal was for a 60,000 square foot grocery store that would offer essential services to the residents and would be approximately one-fourth the size of any big retailer. James indicated there were a number of inter\ ening issues encountered during this process, including the failed attempt to merge with the City of Long Lake, the new Highway 12 corridor, and the mandated comprehensive plan update. James noted he was never invited to any discussions and never advised of any meetings concerning this property except for one possible exception. James stated he found this process to be very disturbing. James stated in other communities typically there is a collaborative process that involves public hearings and input from the residents, but in Orono there was apparently a top-down planning process that he personally finds very disappointing. James indicated he basically gave up on any idea of a grocery project since he was told that the comprehensive plan was to be ch,ingcd. James stated following that time he happened to sec a city brochure concerning affordable housing and that his property was identified as a potential for affordable housing. James stated he was not informed of this. James indicated he then spoke with Staff and found out what the City was thinking in that regard and then he went out and interviewed other developers in this area in an effort to find a suitable contractor. James stated the developers he spoke with were advised to speak with Staff concerning what could be constructed on this lot. James stated during this process he attempted to pick a developer that would be able to offer a higher quality product and a lower density. James stated he elected to go with Brenwood and attempted to follow the stated vision of the City for this property. James noted he normally does not do residential projects, and that it has not been his vision to have residential on that property, which is fronted on one side by old Highway 12, one side being fronted by the new Highway 12 corridor, one side being fronted by Crystal Bay Road, and one side being located across the street from some industrial uses. James commented he personally would not want to live in that area but that he still continued to try to follow the vision of the City for this property. James stated he completed the necessary wetland delineation, submitted sun eys, and did design work in connection with his propo.sal only to be informed that the City was going to place a moratorium on developing this property. James stated it is his understanding this moratorium is applicable only to his property and designed to stop the development process on this site. James stated he does not understand w hat a moratorium is going to accomplish that the site plan approval process would not accomplish. James indicated he is continuing to pay taxes on the property even though he has now lost a whole construction season and work still w ill not be able to be commenced if the moratorium is extended. James noted there have not been any offers by the City dunng this moratorium to pay the property taxes PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Extension of Moratorium, Continued) for this property and that he is very concerned about losing the opportunity to oh'*’:., uirt from the highway project. James stated he hopes by giving the Council a little bit of background concerning this property the Council can understand where he is coming from. James stated in his opinion there has been a subversion of the democratic process in this instance. James commented in his view it is very indicative of this whole thing that hs was sitting at his residence at 5:30 p.m. and received a call from somebody at Brenwood, not the City, notifying him that there would be a moratorium adopted by the City. James stated he does not understand the process where his property can be discussed and he is not notified of the meetings. James indicated he has spoken with Mr. Shardlow and has seen a copy of the letter that contains his propo.«als. James noted that letter discussed all the steps and processes the City should follow but there was not one mention in the letter about contacting the property owner about what he would like to do with his property. There was also no mention of a public hearing being held or notifying the property owner. James commented in his opinion that is shameful. James stated he is here tonight to ask what it is the City is so afraid of concerning this property. James stated he has given up his vision for this property and has been attempting to work towards the City ’s vision, but that the City needs to be open with the property owner concerning their plans for this piece of property or any other piece of property. James indicated in his opinion he has a right to be notified of what plans the City has for this property. Sonsevere stated he was opposed to the type of density that w as being proposed at the time the developer made his presentation and that he could not envision that for this area. Sansevere commented the City cannot allow a property owner to do whatever the owner would like to do with a parcel of property and that property owners need to have some guidelines concerning development tliat should be followed. Sansevere commented in his view' this is a nice piece of property and will be attractive to w hoever lives on it someday, but that the density being proposed was too high in his opinion. James stated he does not have a problem with the concept of zoning, but that he is speaking to the process where he has not been invited to give input concerning the decisions being made on his property. Sansevere stated it is also his belief that more properties are impacted by this moratorium than just this parcel and that it is the entire corridor to the west of this property that the City is looking at with this moratorium. Sansevere indicated the (’ity would like to create a vision that ties these properties together and that the moiatonum enables Staff to look at what is best for this area. Sansevere noted the City is also looking at the apple orchard property and how that possibly might be developed in the future. McMillan stated another piece of property under this moratorium is the land east of the Long Lake Lire Station. James inquired what has been accomplished w ,th this moratorium in the last si.x months and what Staff hopes to accomplish in the next six months. PAGE 3 ! 1 1 m w MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Extension of Moratorium, Continued) Gaffron stated the Council has tried to determine what process should be gone through, which has been accomplished by hiring a consultant and creating a vision for this area. Gaffron noted it took the Council approximately tw'o to three months prior to the hiring of a consultant before the Council was able to focus on the real issues that need to be addressed. Gaffron noted Mr. James was provided with a copy of Shardlow’s proposal. Sansevere commented prior to being elected to the Council, he had no idea of the timetable that the average resident goes through before obtaining approval and that the process can be frustrating at times. James stated he has attempted to do what he could to facilitate what he has been told the City envisions for this property. Sansevere inquired whether a small grocery store could be constructed on the lot off of Willow and Highway 12. James indicated he originally looked at the lot off of Highway 12 and Willow but that the property had issues with high water table and bad soils that would preclude any large footprint building. James stated he had envisioned building a high quality development on this pioperty that could be identified as the center of town and provide essential services to the residents of this area. James commented he was not given the opportunity to discuss his proposal or be able to pursue it. Murjihy stated he personally was not aware of Mr. James until he became a council member and that this situation is not ix'r.sonal. James indicated he is very comfortable with his reputation in this town. Murphy indicated he is aware that the big box retail was discussed w ith the merger betw een Orono and Long Lake, but that the reason the Council requested a moratorium was to give the City an opportunity to step back and analyze the particular housing being proposed for certain sections of the City. Murphy indicated a number of discussions have been held regarding affordable housing in Orono and other cities. Murphy stated he is not convinced affordable housing is workable in Orono and that the City is not in a position to subsidize affordable housing given the population of the City. Murphy stated the third reason for the moratorium is to allow the City time to determine the density the City would like to see in this area and ways in w hich the rural character of Orono can be maintained. Murphy stated another issue before the City is the turn-back of old Highw ay 12. Murphy stated the City is four months into a three-year piece of work, with the City having held tlirce public hearings concerning the construction and the vision for the new corridor. Murphy stated these meetings w ere well publicized, but noted that ver>’ few residents showed up at the hearings. Murphy commented the construction of the new Highway 12 corridor gives the City a one-time opportunity to take a close look at the vision for this area. James stated he also enjoys the rural area of Orono, but that a sewer and water main sits in front of this property that provides an opportunity to hook into existing services. James commented that he does not sec development spreading to other parts of the city simply because this property might be developed PAGE 4 .jiiM MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. (Extension of Moratorium, Continued) since the infrastructure is not available to the other properties in this area. James stated in his opinion this type of density should be looked at seriously given the availability of utilities for this lot. Murphy stated the fact that the City has placed a moratorium on this whole process means that the City is not going to wind up suggesting something that Mr. James would not be a part of. Murphy stated he has great reservations regarding the high density that has been proposed for this property and other properties in Orono. Murphy commented the moratorium allows the city to look closer at future development of this area. Sanscvcrc inquired what James would like to sec happen in order to be kept better in the loop. James stated Gaffron mailed something to his home address notifying him of tonight's meeting. James indicated it is possible the notices in the past have gone to the family in Arkansas, but that he has been informed that they have not received anything from the City. James stated he feels he is being kept better informed by the City. James reiterated that utilities arc currently in place for this property. James encouraged the Council to review the project that Rottland constructed in Eden Prairie, which is a very attractive project in his view. James indicated he has changed his design plans for this property based on what he thought the City was envisioning for this property. White stated as the City goes through this process of the moratorium, Mr. James should be kept notified of the steps the City is taking. White encouraged Mr. James to continue to work with the City in developing this property. White pointed out the property o\%ner typically is notified of any aetion the City takes that affeets a particular property and that the City is not trying to keep anything secret. White indicated the City ’s work sessions are open to the public and that Mr. James would be kept in the loop concerning this property. San.severe suggested James also contact the City periodically to see what the status is. Wlnte inquired whether there were further public comments regarding this .npplicalton. Hearing none. White closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Muqihy stated he would like to see the City follow the process being recommended by Shardlow. Murphy moved, Sanscvcrc seconded, to adopt ORDlN.-%N'CE NO. 19,3'** SERIES, an Ordinance Extending an Interim .Moratorium Prohibiting the Granting of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Re/oning, or PUD Approval Within the Moratorium Area as Defined in Ordinance No. 7, Third Series, as Amended by Ordinance No. 8, Third Series. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CONSENT .\GENDA 1.APPROVE/A.MEND Items 5, 6. 7,1 1.12.13. 14.15,16.17, and 18 were added to the Consent Agenda. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Consent Agenda, Continued) Sansevcre moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 Sansevcre stated Comick is on asset to the City and has done a tcmfic job. Murphy suggested better publicity concerning these types of situations be done by the Cit>'. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *3. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 Sansevcre moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council regular meeting of September 27,2004. V’OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - MICHAEL HUDDY AND ANDREW MCDER.MOTT, REPRESENTATIVES McDcnnott stated he would like to recognize Paul Pesck for l.is efforts in attempting to obtain temporary access to Lowry Woods. McMillan inquired whether the City currently has access to Lowry Woods. McDermott indicated they arc attempting to get an casement from one of the property owners. McDermott stated overall the Park Commission feels the parks are in excellent condition with only a few minor items needing to be addressed prior to winter. McDermott indicated the Park Commission is excited about the recently acquired parcel next to Navarre Park and that two neighbors are interested in becoming involved with this park. iluddy stated he has toured the majority of Orono ’s parks and that he has enjoyed his limited time on the Park Commission. Muddy noted one of the issues discussed at the last meeting was the concept of term limits and that the Park Commission felt that while tenn limits are generally good, an exception should be made in this situation, iluddy indicated the current members of the I’ark Commission have not expressed a desire to assume the position of chair. Murjihy indicatcil the Council has discussed term limits on and ofTover the years and that in his opinion term limits arc very important for two reasons. One, the City needs to encourage more people in the Orono community to step up and serve on various committees and, two, given the amount of work that needs to be done on a volunteer basis in this community, people should be encouraged to participate on the City ’s committees for a period of time and that once tlicir term limit is up, they should step down and find other endeavors. Iluddy indicated in his view the Park Commission has not done an adequne job of preparing someone to step into the chair's position and that the function of the commission would be jeoparaued over the next PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Park Commission Comments, Continued) year until someone can be trained to take over that role. Huddy stated the Park Commission is requesting to extend McDermott’s term another year m order to train someone for the chair position. Murphy inquired how many years McDermott has been the chair. McDermott indicated he has been the chair for approximately five years. McMillan noted the Park Commission used to have a vice chair. McDermott stated no one was willing to accept the vice chair role the last couple of years. Sansevere stated he personally is against term limits, noting that this is a volunteer position and that someone with a great wealth of experience is an asset and should be allowed to remain. Sansevere noted another member of the Park Commission was lost a year or two ago because of term limits. Sansevere inquired how long a person has to remain ofT a committee before reapplying for the position. Barrett stated it is his understanding the person should step do\vn for at least one year. Murphy noted by and large the people with the City arc volunteers and that the City may not ha%’C done an adequate job of recruiting someone for the vice chair ’s position. Murphy stated the City should have addressed this situation sooner, but that in his opinion there arc people on the Park Commission who could step up into this position. Sansevere concurred that there arc other people on the Park Commission currently who could assume the chair position, and that one reason the members of the Park Commission did not volunteer to take over could be the fact that they do not want to lose McDermott. iluddy stated at the last Park Commission meeting a poll v as conducted and not one member of the Park Commission was willing to step up to assume the chair. Huddy noted that McDermott had recommended someone step up into the vice chair to prepare for becoming the chair. HuJdy stated in his opinion there will not be a smooth transition. Sanscs ere slated he would like a recommendation from the Park Commission for a vice chair or a short transitional period. McMillan stated at limes people are hesitant to assume a role of this l>pc and that some people arc not aware they have the potential until they arc given the opportunity. McMillan fwmted out the rest of the Park Commission would help the person who assumes the chair position. Willie slated the (\nincil would need to discuss this at their nc.xt work session. WTiitc noted that McDermott was responsible in large part for the Navarre Park and that it would be difficult to replace him given his experience. .McMillan slated she would encourage the Park Commission to continue to consult with McDermott once his term limit is over to gain his insight into different issues facing the Park Commission. PAGE? MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Park Commission Comments, Continued) McMillan stated she would like to have a visual drawing of what the Commission is looking at for the different areas of the newly acquired property next to the NaNwe Park. McMillan encouraged the Park Commission to continue working with the neighbors on this project. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - DAVE RAHN, REPRESENTATIVE Rahn indicated he would be available for any questions the Council may have concerning tonight’s application. PUBLIC COMMENTS None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4.«04-3048 STEVEN AND KATHLEEN PERSIAN, 1005 HUNT FARM ROAD VARIANCES Steven and Kathleen Persian, Applicants, w'crc present. Gundlach stated the applicant originally requested a number of variances to construct a 2160 square foot structure. The first variance was to pemiit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. The second variance was to permit a north side yard setback variance to permit the structure to be located 15 feet from the lot line when 30 feet is normally required, and a third variance was requested to permit an oversized accessory structure. ITie applicant has indicated prior to the meeting that he would like to c.iange his proposal to meet the Planning Commission recommendation, which was approval of the variance to allow the accessory building to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building and denial of the tw o other variance requests. The two dissenting votes on the Planning Commission felt no variances were justified on this application. Gundlach indicated there are a number of restrictions on this property mainly related to septic and wetland setbacks that need to be dealt with. Gundlach indicated the current septic site is located within the easement and that there is also some sloping topography in the rear of the property due to the wetlands located in that area. Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the setback restrictions and the Planning Commission recommendation. Sansevcrc inquired whctlicr the applicant was agreeing to reduce the structure to 1200 square feet. Gundlach stated the building would be 1200 square feet, but that it would still require a variance to be located in front of the house. PAGES MINUIES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. (^04-3048 Stc%'cn and Kathleen Persian, Continued) Schoon indicated it would be and that they would prefer to have it located in the comer. Persian slated if the building was located in the corner, they would have to drive over a pressure line that goes to the septic, which they have been advised to avoid doing. Persian stated the interpretation of a front lot line is a little unique given the configuration of the lot and that they also have concerns regarding access if the structure is located elsewhere on the property. McMillan commented they would probably went to avoid driving over the alternate septic site as well. Persian stated it the structure is located in the comer and they ever need to use their alternate septic site, they would need to cross over the alternate septic site. Murphy noted the applicant is willing to reduce the structure from 2160 to 1200 square feet, which is practically half of what was originally proposed. Murphy inquired what that does to the profile of the building. Persian slated the building w'ould be significantly lower, with the sidewalls being reduced. Murphy stated the fact that the building is smallei changes a lot of issues that the Planning Commission had discussed. Rahn indicated the height was a big issue, and the question remains what the side walls would be with the smaller sized structure. Murphy inquired whether it would be better to send this back to the Planning Commission for their review and input on the revised proposal. Barrett indicated the Council snould send it back to the Planning Commission if it is a substantial change that was not considered by the Planning Commission at the time the application was reviewed. Barrett stated if the Council w ould like the exact dimensions of the building, that is a reasonable request. Sanscvcrc noted the Planning Commission already approved the 1200 square foot size. Persian staled they were made aware of a senes of covenants as part of the homeowners association. Persian indicated they are willing to adhere to those covenants. Persian slated they would submit their plans to the homeowners association for review. Sanscvcrc requested the individuals from the homeowners association identify themsehes for the record. Sue Wilson, 840 Hunt I'ami Road, indicated she has resided in this neighborhood for approximately 12 years. Bridget j-Vrmbrustcr, 870 Hunt Farm Road, stated she has resided in this neighborhood for approximately one year. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (M04-3048 Steven and Kathleen Persian, Continued) Schoon stated he is the president of Hunt Fanns Homeowners Association and that he has some points he would like the Council to consider as part of this application. Schoon commented he and his wife have some reservations concerning the prospect of a large steel-sided structure being constructed that would be visible from their home. Schoon stated they could probably get over having one structure constructed, but that he forc.sees a problem with additional sheds being constructed on this property or other properties within this development. Schoon stated he has spoken with the developer of this property who indicated that he did tear down a practically new pole bam structure in this area as part of the development since he felt it was incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. Schoon stated the homeowners association docs have a process in place to deal with structures of this type and indicated they would like some tunc to work with Persian in order to work with them to insure that the covenants arc being met. Schoon indicated he felt this could be accomplished within 30 days. Sanscverc inquired whether the Council could rule on this and then let the homeowners association work out the issues with the covenants. Uarrett stated the City of Orono has gone to some length to not become invoK cd in enforcement of private covenants and that it is up to the private homeowners to insure that the covenants arc being complied with. Barrett stated the City does allow the homeowner to build or make the change that he desires if it is in compliance with city code. Barrett stated the ('ouncil has the option of requiring as a condition of the variance approval that an opinion of his counsel be obtained from the applicant stating that this proposal is consistent with the covenants. Barrett stated if the applicant docs come back w ith an opinion of counsel that the covenants are being complied with, that should satisfy the City, but that private enforcement of the covenants is up to the homeowners association. McMillan slated she would prefer to sec a variance on the north side setback than on the front of the principal building. McMillan noted this is a somew hat funny shaped lot. but that the pioposed structure docs have some visual impact. McMillan stated in her opinion the building would have to be relocated somew hat to fit in that new' location and she is unsure w hether that option is workable for the applicants. McMillan noted she was not able to visit this lot prior to tonight's meeting. Sue Wilson stated the homeowners have bylaw s to follow and there may be an issue with a pole bam in this community among the eight homeowners that currently live in this area. Wilson stated they do not w ant to have other property owners constnictmg similar pole bams if the Council approves this application and tlut they moved to this area because of the rural nature. Sanscverc inquired wlielher the bylaws specifically prohibit pole bams. Schoon indicated he could leave a copy of the bylaws w ith the Council, but that this type of construction is up to the discretion of the ihicc person aichitccluial committee. Muiphy noted the applicant did agree to meet w ith the homeowners association. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-3048 Steven and Kathleen Persian, Continued) Persian stated his goal is to have the Council support the recommendation of the Planning Commission and that his next step would be to turn over his plans to the architecture committee of the homeowners association. Persian stated he has some concerns over the lack of consistency of this particular committee being in place but that is an issue for the homeowners association to deal with. Sansevere inquired whether the location suggested by Council Member McMillan would work on this property. Persian stated the location suggested would need to be accessed through approximately 150 trees. Sansevere stated he has seen the property and that the proposed location of the structure does not appear to be a front yard. Sansevere stated he would be willing to go along with what Counsel Barrett has suggested. Persian stated it i? their goal and intention to meet the architec.ure committee’s recommendation. Sansevere inquired whether the applicant would be opposed to tabling this to allow him time to meet with the committee. Persian indicated he is not opposed to tabling this, but that he would prefer to go forward with the recommendation of the City Altomcy. White stated he would like to sec the plans prior to approval since the size of the structure has changed dramatically. Murphy stated given the changes to the proposed structure and the covenants of the homeowners association, he would prefer proceeding with Mr. Barrett’s suggestion as well as give the architectural committee an op|>ortunity to look at the psoposed structure. McMillan inquired about alternate sites. Sansevere slated he docs not have a problem with the proposed loeation based upon his review of the lot. Sansevere stated he is in favor of Mr. Barrett’s suggestion, with approval being contingent upon the applicant providing an opinion letter. Sansevere noted the applicant has indicated he is willmg to meet with the architecture coir.inittee. Murphy inquired what the size of the new building would be. Gundlach stated the new building is proposed to be 30 by 40. Murphy inquired what the setbacks would be. Gundlach stated originally with the larger structure they would have been 40 feet from the edge of the undeveloped nght-of-way, which is 30 feet wide, but with the size of the building being reduced, they would be at least 44 feet from the edge of the undeveloped right-of-way and w ould be able to meet the i PAGE 12 I . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (ff04-3048 Steven and Kathleen Persian, Continued) 30 ’ north side yard setback. Gundlach indicated they are still nonconforming by approximately 36 feet with the front yard setback. Murphy noted the structure is clca-ly out of line in that location no matter what the size of the structure. White inquired how the front lot line was arrived at for this lot. Gaflron stated from a policy standpoint for the last 15 to 20 years the City has been defining average setbacks and setbacks parallel to the front lot line, not parallel to the house. Persian stated the proposed location docs not appear to be the front yard. Barrett stated he could also get the consent of the architectural committee rather than an opinion of counsel. Persian stated it is his intention to have the homeowners association be comfortable with his proposal and that he is willing to work with the committee to arrive at a solution. Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve Application tf04-3048, Steven and Kathleen Persian, 1005 Hunt Farm Road, the granting of a variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building, with the condition that the Persians submit to the City either a legal opinion that the covenants of the homeowners association are being complied with or submit written approval from the homeowners association for construction of the structure, with the understanding the size of the proposed structure will be no larger than 1200 square foot. McMillan inquired whether a second building would be constructed in the northwest comer. Persian stated he is willing to agree to the condition that they will not construct another structure outside of the ones that are currently on this property. Sansevere stated in his opinion that type of condition is not necessary by the City since the homeowners association would take care of that. Sansevere stated he still has to get the approval of the homeowners association for any other structure, with any new' property owner also needing to get the same approval. Gaffron indicated because the applicant is limiting the square footage to what is legally allowed, that it may not be appropriate to limit him further based upon a location issue for this structure. Murphy stated he would like to see the homeowners association and the Persians be able to arrive at an agreement. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Mc.Millan opposed. McMillan indicated she feels there arc other ways to reduce the visual impact of this building and that the building could be relocated rather than encroaching into the front yard setback. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sanscvere noted Mag;gic Knutson was one of 100 people in the United States to receive the Milken Educator Award, wh ch is a tribute to the City. Murphy recommended ? resolution be drafted and adopted by the City. McMillan noted she has recently viewed the NURP pond in the area of Culver’s and Snyder’s and that a huge section of the wooden railing is missing and has fallen into the pond along with a bunch of other debris. McMillan stated tne rail.ng in this area is very deteriorated and poses a safety hazard, noting there is a large drop-off down to the pond. McMillan indicated there is also some erosion going on m this area. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *5. ACCEPT QUOTATION FOR GARDEN LANE SEWER PROJECT Sanscvere moved, McMillan seconded, to accept the quotation from GL Contracting, Medina, Minnesota, in the amount of $25,757.98 for the 1220 Garden Court Sewer project to be funded from the Sewer Fund with approval of a budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 *6. BASEBALL FIELD TRAIL CHANGE ORDER NO. I Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Change Order No. 1, Lee Carlson Baseball Field Trail Project, for DMJ Contracting, Medina, Minnesota, in the amount of $5,500.00, to be funded from the 2004 Municipal State Aid Fund Budget with approval of a budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 *7. ACCEPT QUOTATION FOR 3422 LYRIC AVENUE HOUSE DE.MOLITION Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to accept the quotation from Green Acres Tree Service, Maple Plain, Minnesota, in the amount of $9,000 for the 3422 Lyric Avenue house demolition project, to be flinded from the Park Dedication Fund with approval of a budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 8.STONEBAY DEVELOP.MENT P,\RK DEDICATION FEE CREDIT Sanscvere inquired whether $175, 500 is the total that has been collected thus far. Gappa stated that is correct and that phase two has not yet been collected. Sanscvere inquired where the money was allocated. PAGE 14 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Stonebay Development, Continued) Gappa stated there was a deficit in the Park Commission Fund but that any surplus has been applied to the purchase of the property next to the Navarre Park. Gappa indicated the next stage of Stonebay is similar to the first phase, with approximately the same amount of park fees being owed. Murphy inquired whether the developer has agreed to pay the S28.000 in fees owed to Bonestroo. Gappa stated multiple conversations have been had with the developer, with the developer being informed that the City inspector will be on the site if the developer is not properly overseeing the project. Gappa noted there is a long punch list of items that still need to be corrected. Gappa stated the developer is probably not aware of the S28,000 bill at this time. Murphy mquired what the current status of the project is. Gaffron stated he has spoken with the developer recently over some proposed changes to the buildings and that he expects the developer to be able to perform on those changes. Gaffron stated the developer would be appeanng before the Planning Commission in December concerning the lofis being proposed but that he is not totally aware of their financial situation. Gaffron indicated he is not sure whether the City will be reimbursed in a timely fashion. Gaffron stated a certain amount would be withheld from their letter of credit if the City is not reimbursed. Murphy inquired whether the developer would owe the City money by the end of the year if this trend continues and the letter of credit is used up. Gappa slated the City is also covered by an escrow. White noted the trail in this area, once it reaches Willow, could be extended to the next neighborhood. Sansevere inquired whether Landform is adequately performing their role in this development, noting that there arc a number of staff hours that arc also being incurred on this project. Gappa stated the City would not have had to s|x*nd as many hours on this project if the work had been properly performed the first time. Barrett stated he is unsure whether the developer agreements allow the City to offset one claim against another and that he is uncertain whether the developer has a contractual duty under the developer agreements to pay the City for the hours. Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve a Park Dedication fee reimbursement of $34,1 25 to Dahlstrom Development to be funded from the Park Fund and approval of a budget adjustment for the 2004 Park Fund budget to reflect this expenditure. VOTE: A> es 4, Nays 0 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approv a temporary loan from the General Fund to the Park Fund to cover the $34,125 expenditure with repayment of this loan to be as soon as possible from future Park Dedication Fees. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 PAGE 15 e i Im MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Sloncbay Development, Continued) McMillan moved, Murphy seconded, to authorize collection of $28,013 in outstanding reimbursable professional services from Dahlstrom Development through a reduction of the $34,125 Park Dedication Fee credit due to the developer. The $6,112 fee credit balance to be applied to future professional service fees incurred by the City for the Stonebay Development project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 Murphy stated since the City is going to be in a relationship with this developer for the next several years, he would like the relationship to not become adversarial. Murphy inquired how the developer would be notified of the City’s action. Gappa stated a letter has been sent to the developer requesting the fees. Gappa staled the developer is getting the full credit for the park dedication fees. Gappa stated another letter would be .sent to the developer explaining the action of the Council tonight but that prior notice was not given to the developer since this was a routine billing matter. Sanseverc requested Staff give the developer notice if any items relating to this development appear on the Council agenda in the future. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 9. APPOIN r PARK COMMISSION MEMBERS McMillan moved, Murphy seconded, to appoint Jeff Soderstrom to fill the unexpired term on the Parks Commission expiring on December 31, 2005. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 White moved to table action on appointing someone to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Parks C?ommission. Motion died for lack of a second. McMillan moved, Sanseverc seconded, to appoint Charles Krogness to nil the upcoming vacancy on the Parks Commission beginning January 1, 2005, and expiring on December 31,2007. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 10. APPOINT PLANNING COMMISSION ME.MBER McMillan moved, Murphy seconded, to appoint Travis Winkey to fill an unexpired term on the Planning Commission expiring on March 31, 2005. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 •II. ESTABLISH ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD - RESOLUTION NO. 5234 Sanseverc mused, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5234, a Re.solution cstabibhing an absentee ballot board composed of at least tsvo election judges of different piditical parties appointed by the City Clerk, ssith absentee ballot board members compensated at the same rule as election judges, ss hich is currently $7.00 or $7.50 for head judges. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 PAGE 16 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. *12. TEMPORARY, PARK-TIME CLERICAL EMPLOYEE TO ASSIST WITH ELECTION DUTIES Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the hiring of a temporary, part-time clerical employee for no more than 60 hours, at a pay rate of $10.00 per hour, effective October 7 through November 2, 2004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 *13. PROMOTION OF JIM CORNICK TO SERGEANT Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the promotion of Jim Cornick to the position of sergeant, effective October II, 2004, at a pay rate of $29.77 per hour. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 TEMPORARY OUT OF CLASS SERGEANT POSITION Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to create a temporary ‘Svorking out of class ” position of sergeant at the 2005 entry level sergeant rate, or a rate 5% above the assigned officer's current rate, whichever is greater, for a period of one year beginning January 3,2005. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 *15. FILL VACANT PART-TIME COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER POSITION Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the hiring of part-time Community Service Officer David Klisxcz at the beginning pay rate of $11.00 beginning October 11, 2004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 * 16. LE rrER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT SQUAD CARS Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the sending of the needed Letter of Intent to purchase police department cars. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 *17. SALE OF SURPLUS XTIHCI ES Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the sale of the DWl forfeiture vehicles consisting of a 19% C'hevrolet Blazer, 1995 Dodge Caravan, 1991 Chevrolet Beretta, and a 1995 Jeep Wrangler, as titles are received, with sale proceeds b;ing transferred into appropriate city accounts. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 PAGE 17 J L • I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. * 18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT SAFE AND SOBER PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 5235 Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve participation in the Safe and Sober Program by the Orono Police Department. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 5235, a ^**®*“*'®" Authorizing Execution of Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. VOTE; Ayes 4, Nays 0 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Barrett indicated he has nothing to report. Murphy inquired whether there is any news regarding the Demuth matter. Barrett stated the matter is still being handled administratively and that the initial offer has r.ot been accepted by the city. Barrett indicated it is his understanding the City Administrator will continue to handle this matter. Murphy stated he has reviewed the plans of the City’s forester and has spoken with Ron Moorse and Clark Jenney concerning this matter. Murphy stated it is his understanding Mr. Demuth has been visited by both mayoral candidates for Long Lake and that Demuth has indicated he would like to get the issue resolved as quickly as possible. Barrett stated the City is attempting to get a handle on the situation. *19. LICENSES None *20. BILLS Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting of October 11,2004, at 9:09 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Jim White, Acting Mayor PAGE 18 -■ •_. 3048 V il JuS -I 1 9 B 7 { { } -IV ^ >_r ”*«•- - -rs^~'- m* ST / i ’ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 25. 2004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KE^LEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (•) Asterisk items arc considered to be routine items to be cnictcd upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agcndiu Memos regarding each of the Agenda items arc availabtc in the Public Packet • located oo the counter near the sign m sheet ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA \. Approve/Amend PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. 2. Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees - Resolution PRESENTATION 3. Sally Koeoecke, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission - 2005 Proposed Budget approval of \nNUTES • 4 Regular Council Meeting of October 11, 2004 : | PARK COMMISSION COi%LMENTS - Pat Wolfe. Hepresentative No Park Commlssioo meeting November 1, 2004. Next meeting scheduled for November 29, 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Ralph Kempf, Representative PUBLIC COMME.NTS - (Limit 5 .Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 5. 404-3007 Harold and Mildred Bower. 1925 Lakeview Terrace - Vanajice - Resolution md Ordinance 6. 404-3024 Zoning Amendment - Permit for Large Vehicles • 7. 404-3048 Steven and Kathleen Persian. 1005 Hunt Farm Road - Variances - Resolution 8. 404-3052 Enc Vogitrom. 2618 Casco Point Road - Variances • 9 404-3053 Bart and Betsy Butzer/Aul.k Design Group, 2625 North Shore DnVC - Variance - Resolution 10 404-3055 Dr. Martha Spencer, 1005 Willow Drive South - Variances 11 404-3059 James Render, 1335 Tonkawa Road - Condiiion.il Use Penult - Resolution 12 Sloncbay PUrD - Request for RPUD Flexibility - Lot 6, Block I MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 13 Proclamation - Housing Week 14 Recognition of Maggie Knutson’s .Milken National Educator Award - Resolution PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 15 Sloncbay Development - Stormwater Trunk Fee Rcinibursemcni 16. Accept Quotations - Casco Cove Drainage Project 17. Adopt Assessment Roll - West Farm Road (Homestead) Sewer Project - Resolution 18. Adopt Assessment Roll - Garden Court Sewer Project -* Resolution CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 19. Establish Dale and Time for Canvassing Board Meeting CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT • 20 LICENSES • 21 BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS im lCJ/22 - Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9 00 a m - 3 00 p m IOf23 - Leaf and Grass Disposal. Saturday, 9 00 a m. • 3 00 p m. 10/25 - Council Meeting. 7.00 p m. 10/29 - Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9 00 a m • 3 00 p m 10/30 - Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9 00 am. • 3 CIO p m 10/30 - Absentee Voting at City Hall, Saturday. 10:00 a.m. - 3;00 p.m. 10/31 - Daylight Saving Time ends 1 l/Ol - Absentee Voting at City Hall until 5 00 p.m 11/01 - Park Corrjnission Meeting - Rescheduled to November 29 11/02 - GENERAL ELECTION. 7:00 a m - 8 00 p m 11/03 - Planning Commission Work Session. Wedneiday, 5 30 p m 11/04 - Council Work Session. Viursday, 5 30 p .ni 11/05 - Leaf and Grass Disposal. Ft uij\. 9 00 a m • 3 00 p m. IL06 - Leaf a;»d Grass Disposal. Saturday, 9 00 a m - 3 00 p m. 11/OS - Council Meeting, 7.00 p m 11/11 - HOLIDAY, Observance of Veterans Day. Huosdav \ 1/15 - Planning Conur.ission Meeting. 6 00 p m. {Council Liaison ^LiU McSUllanii 11.'22 - Council Meeting. T 0*) p m l L25 - HOLID.AY. Observance of Thanksgiving Day 11'26 - HOLIDAY. Obsen^nce of Tharkjjiv mg Day U 29 - Park Comnussion Mceung. 15 p m iCcumd Lian.^n - \h\o* Fcut%ant Iwr ►' -1 4# • Date Application Received: 4-19-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5-6-04 Initial 60-Day Review Period Expires: 7-5-04 60-day Extension Notice 5-19-04; Extended to: 9-3-04 Additional 60-day Extension granted by Applicant on 8-16-04 to: 11-2-04 s-ircTfMr; OCI 2 b 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cn y OF OHOfvo Date: October 21 , 2004 Item No. Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: t^04-3007 Harold & Mildred Bower, owners of “1925" Lakeview Terrace 1) Revision of City Wetland Map 2) Lot Area Variance List of Exhibits A - Submitted conceptual house plans, grading plan B - Resolution C - Ordinance D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7-20-04 E - Correspondence 8/16/04, 8/18/04, 8/19/04, 9/22/04 F-PC Minutes 7-19-04 G - Memo and Exhibits of 7-15-04 Application Summary: This vacant lot was created within the plat of Long Lake Country Club Addition in 1961. The applicants arc the property owners of the adjoining developed residential lot at 1080 Brown Road North which they purchased in 1970. The applicants have owned this vacant parcel since 1974. Applicants request that the City revise its June 1975 Wetlands Inventory and Classification to exclude the portions of this vacant lot that are not wetland under the recent delineation, and to grant a lot area variance to allow the lot to be sold as a building site. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions: Planning Commission reviewed this application on JuW 19 and on a vote of 7-0 recommended approval per the staff recommendation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to a number of conditions outlined in this memo. Planning Commission concluded that the City’s official wetland maps should be modified to match the current wetland boundaries as delineated, and that the lot area variance is supported by substantial hardship. The motion for approval included the following conditions as recommended by staff: 1.The delineated wetland and a 26' buffer around its perimeter shall be subject to a Conservation and Flowagc Easement which will disallow any filling or structures within the wetland and buffer area. ff04-3007 October 21,2004 Page 2 2.An additional drainage easement shall be required along the route of the ditch, to the 1012' elevation contour. No filling, structures or obstructions may be allowed within the drainage easement. 3.All structures shall be set back a minimum of 10' from the drainage easement, to allow for protection of the structures and to allow access to the rear of the house. 4.The lot shall also be subject to the standard LR-1A setbacks of 50' front and rear, 30' on the sides. The various setback requirements noted here and above result in a buildablc envelope approximately 50 ’ deep by 75 ’ wide. 5.A driveway to access the site shall be located so that it meets the required wetland setbacks and does not encroach the drainage easements. 6. 7. Lowest habitable floor elevation shall be no lower than elevation 1014'. Prior to Council action on the variance application, applicant shall provide for City Engineer approval a schematic house design and grading plan showing how all of the above conditions can be satisfied. 8.Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide sufficient soils/geotechnical and design information to establish that the proposed improvements will be structurally stable. 9. The City will concurrently with the resolution of variance approval adopt an ordinance amending the City ’s wetland map. 10. Applicant shall gram an casement and construct stormwater rate and quality control ponding in the area west of the existing ditch. Applicant shall panicipate in the costs of replacement of the culvert under Lakeview Terrace. The applicant has expressed an objection to Condition 10 which requires the property owner or developer of this lot to grant an easement west of the ditch and construct ponding, as well as pay for a portion of the road culvert replacement. The culvert replacement is part of a stormwater system upgrade for this sub-watershed as spelled out in the Orono Surface Water Management Plan. This culvert upgrade is necessary regardless whether this lot is developed, so there is a basis to eliminate this approval condition. Also in relation to Condition 10, the construction of ponding along the west property boundary is suggested by the City Engineer as a potential City project, although it would be relatively inexpensive to construct if such ponding became part of the required site grading plan rather than done by the City at a later date. Such ponding may reduce the overall size of any future upstream ponding needs. As a minimum, staff feels r' #04-3007 October 21.2004 Page 3 the City should require the casement at this time for future ponding, and require that an unmowed vegetative buffer be maintained west of the ditch and 10' east of the ditch. However, if the City could pay the incremental costs of having the ponding created as the home is built, this may be a suitable alternative for consideration. The applicant has indicated he would prefer to not grant the easement not be required to construct any ponding. He did question whether it might be feasible to construct a pond in exchange for the ability to fill a portion of the wetland to provide additional house site flexibility; however, he is apparently not pursuing this. Staff RccommendatioD Approval of the wetland map amendment and the lot area variance per the attached Ordinance and Resolution. Condition 10 has been revised to not require the property owner’s participation in culvert replacement, and merely requires granting of a drainage easement west of the ditch for future City use, plus maintenance of buffers. council action requested 1) Adopt Ordinance No.__, Third Series Approving an Amendment of tlie Orono Wetland hivcntory and Classification Map. Adopt the attached resolution approving a lot area variance with conditions. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR HAROLD BOWER OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2, LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION------- HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNES9JA-. L egal description of premises : Lo» 2. Block 2. LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION 0 : denotes iron marker found (908 il denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum ---------: denotes exis^ng contour ime. mean sea level datum —— : denotes pfoposed contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property. and die location of wetlands stakes, as delineated by SP Testing, thereron. it does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. I bu. ^ "T“"\Vrr \J- = ::'tyTj:iTY e*SEMCflTS N 87 “34'50" W 0«rt OtSCATTON •/n/05 jBBivotm mMua tAiMNt. ibum »Boto m OIMuni cco OCCMCS lOO GRONBERG Sc ASSOCIATES, INC. C0NSU.TMG ENGtCERS, LAND SURVEYORS. SITE PLANtCRS 445 NORTH WILOW ORIVC. LONG LAKE. ML 55356 952-473-4141 I MtHCBY tturrT THAT Ti«s PI.AM. sPtarcAtiON. cm rcport«AS PHtPAWO BY K on I44XX MY DMtCt RMMVSlON «© T hat I AM A oat wCfNSCO PWCSSIONAL DOCCa AND LAK) vtYoa Lfcca tHC LAWS or t^c statc or wim<sota SCAit r-20* CATC 5-5-04 C*’E AM UCCWSE H*»I».T JOB NO. 04-030A 08/18/2004 08:11 8287714848 BILLY GRAHAM TR CTR ■\ A'"'; ...f]:,;-, \® **2.7**-*.. .. *. \'...A ' ' 1 ...............' % ......................... \'i-\\y ----, v^-*' A:-- '■ 1*0 ’V2* - -10V1 009 .\*V\ON 57034'50'* ^ \ 24.00 jf • oft \l/n// fTTf\ /*^i>Cxn(?wAL. ^ ff/f/f /f //A - yviAfsj * - <■ £j \ /JO STf-i-' CT y^.tsC, /AO ^-li.\ i ' » ^CF^orir*’- of feoFcsei> /?> ^ w. # • U3 CD KJ CU O tMi CDro CO •vi •vj 'flu- <522?'^“ Tzk‘ :4 i- ':' usi^Tr TO SC/fl^ CU h-irr < 7) O “H:a) 1 <?r» y ^ j *». V w» \f cs> V CqS (.0 r 08/10/2004 08;11 B2B7714848 BILLY GRflWM TR CTR PAGE 04 N #41-369 (3324 if of^ 'S' n:-mi ;R - : tetaa^KMtu ! k^! rnr>m , -l-y.-" «1J. J r -‘r h-'- j/j.ii |u', , •. tt exterior of Plan 41«340 _____________f 7f jepSjSr WOKtT •(••TO XIK.IT;;. 11 l>KCK DININO i LIVIWO i4AtaAir/o fAMILY I6r0ll4/O s«3|lPHHiSuBdi »KN OYEU^teMaiiyo OAKAOi t9fo»tr/t tw Main Floor of Plan 41-169 WW ii ■ i € i /. _L 08/18/2004 08:11 8287714848 BILLY GRAHAM TR CTR PAGE 05 i ll XI **! .“..V.,#• •. • • • .v»» . . <1 # «r o^s upper noor of PiM 41<388 Dotallt: PtM# Total SqR WIdlli Depth Celling 41<368 4 3324 WOT 37* 4f IMn Floor ff upper Floor 8* Wall Tbtckneee Prtmary Roof Pitch Ridge Height Master Bedroom (Coved) 9 -10* 2x6 10 32* or* Total healed Nving space U34 agR ; .•• . •. a * * A'T r * ** • •• :: • • .-..rP • ••• «• I-I B A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305 FILE NO. 04-3007 WHEREAS, Harold F. Bower and Mildred Bower, husband and wife (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1925 Lakeview Terrace within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 2, Block 2, Long Lake Country Club Addition, Hennepin County, Miiuiesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an application requesting a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to pennit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of 29,700 s.f. or 0.69 acres in dry buildable area where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. or 2.0 acres is required; 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 Coirunission held a public hearing on May 17 and J uly 19,2004, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This applicafion was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3007. 2.The property is located in the LR-1A Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and aminimum lot width of 200’ for residential development. The property is 0.69 acres in dry buildable area and approximately 280 feet in width at the rear of the required front yard. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed the variance application at public hearings held on May 17,2004 and J uly 19,2004 and recommended approval by a vote of 7-0 based on the following findings and hardships: Page I of 7 The area variance is necessary to allow use of the site for residential dwelling purposes. The property has been in separate ownership not legally combine with any other parcels, although it has been owned in common with the adjoining developed residential parcel since 1974. The property contains a wetland that has been delineated under current WC A rules and which is not included in the calculation of dry buildable land area. The lot size and wetland status ate factors unique to this lot and not under the applicant’s control. Granting of a lot area variance to allow a house to be constructed on the site will have only a minor impact on the character of the neighborhood, as long as the house meets the setback standards for the 2-acre zone (which will center the house on the lot more than for other lots in the neighborhood which were developed under a lesser standard under prior codes). The lot size is typical of the immediate:a, and all homes in the immediate area are subject to the 2-acre standards eren though they are I-acre lots. The wetland condition is a unique factor to this property and tlie vacant lot across the street from it. Virtually the entire property was identified as wetland on the City *s 1975 Wetland Inventory and Classification Maps. Filling on the property in the 1960's resulted in significant changes to the property such that in 2004 the wetland remaining on the property as defined under cunent regulations is approximately 0.19 acres in area, or 1/5 cf the gross area of the site. The applicant has demonstrated that the area designated as wetland in the City’s 1975 Wetland Inventory is no longer serving wetland functions and catmot legally be required to be restored to its condition prior to the filling. A 0.13 acre drainage easement to accommodate a drainageway on the property reduces the buildable area to 0.69 acres, leaving a buildable envelope meeting all applicable setback requirements of approximately 50' x 75 ’, adequate to construct a reasonable size home and garage. Therefore, granting of the area variance to allow a house on *he site will not be contrary to the intent of the Code, and no additional variances are necessary to construct a residence on the property. The applicant has concurrently requested a wetland map amendment to revise the boundaries of the wetland on the property. The City Engineer has provided comments regarding the stormw'atcr management implications o f amending the Page 2 of7 4. 5. wetland map and allowing the lot to be buildable. His recommendations include expansion of the drainage easement to the 1012' elevation contour, which further reduces the buildable envelope; future City expansion ofponding to the west ofihe ditch easement to provide water quality and rate control benefits; and the lowest floor elevation to be no lower than elev. 1014.0'. g) The City ’s wetlands consultant, has indicated he believes there is currently no wetland basis to deny buildability of the site, since the filling occurred long before the Wetland Conservation Act went into effect in 1992. The former wetland would not be required to be restored under WCA lules nor under current City ordinances. The area not delineated as wetland contains many mature trees. A driveway access could be established to sen e tlic site without encroaching the delineated wetland or the existing/proposed drainage easements. h) Construction of a single family residence on the site must be subject to appropriate conditions to provide reasonable assurance that development of the site will have minimal impacts on drainage in the neighborhood and be minimally impacted by drainage from the neighborhood. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, report.s 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. Tlie City Council finds tliat the conditions existing on this properly are peculiar to it and do not apply gcticrally to other properly in this zoning district; tliat 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 neccssar>- to prcser\e a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of7 i 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 78-305 to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of29,700 s.f. or 0.69 acres in dry buildable area where a lot area of87,120 s.f or 2.0 acres is required, subject to the following conditions; 1.Council approval is based on the site buildable envelope plan attached to tliis resolution as Exhibit A. No variances other than this lot area variance will be granted for the property. Construction of a single family residence shall adhere to the standards of the LR-1A zoning district and the Orono Zoning Code. 2. The following conditions of approval shall be adhered to; The delineated wetland and a 26' buffer around its perimeter shall be subject to a Conservation and Flowage Easement which will disallow any filling or structures within tlie wetland and bufTcr area. A' additional drainage easement shall be required along the route of the ditch, to the 1012' elevation contour. No filling, structures or obstructions may be allowed within the drainage easement. All structures shall be set back a minimum of 1 O' fiom the drainage casement, to allow for protection of the structures and to allow access to the rear of the house. The lot shall be subject to the standard LR-1A setbacks of 50' front and rear, 30' on the sides. The various setback requirements noted here and above result in a buildable envelope approximately 50' deep by 75' wide. A driveway to access the site shall be located so that it meets ‘.he required wetland setbacks and does not encroach the drainage easements. The lowest habitable floor elevation shall be no low er than elevation 1014'. g)Prior to Coiuicil action on the variance application, applicant shall provide for City Engineer approval a schematic house design and grading plan showing how all of the above conditions can be satisfied. Page 4 of 7 3. 4. 5. 6. h) Prior to issuance ofbuilding permits, applicant shall provide sufficient soils/geotechnical and design information to establish that the proposed improvements will be structurally stable. i) The City will concurrently with the resolution of variance approval adopt an ordinance amending the City ’s wetland map. j)Applicant shall grant an easement for future City use for stonnwatcr rate and quality control ponding in the area west of the existing ditch. Applicant shall maintain this casement area, as well as an area 10’ easterly of the ditch bank, in uninowed bu ffer strip to enhance water quality of runoff entering the ditch from the lawn and developed areas of the property. Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that all required easements have been executed and filed witlt the I leiuicpin County Recorder prior to issuance ofbuilding or grading permits for the property. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but arc pcmiissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a land alteration peimit for tlie rev ised grading plan within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (October 25, 2005). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of tire /xming code, sliall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Tlic undersigned appliciuits have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalfof the applicants and the applicants’ 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 25th day of October, 2004. ATfEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owncr(s) Pagf 5 of r ' i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instniment was acknowledged before me this Harold F. Bower, husband of Mildred Bower. day of .,2004 by Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNFPIN Tliis instrument was acknowledged before me this Mildred Bower, wife of Harold F. Bower. day of .,2004 by Notary Public Page 7 of7 f CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 04-3007 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 20, 2004 TO: Harold &. Mildred Bower 68 Copperhead Cove Trail Old Fort,NC 28762 COPIES:Mark Brickman (Fax) 952-474-9583 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Wetland Map Revision DATE OF MEETING: July 19,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the wetland map revision stipulating impleinenlaticn of the *en (10) stipulations outlined within the staff report dated July 15, 2004. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled for: City' Council - Monday, August 9, 2004; meeting starts at ‘’:00 p.m, If you desire certified copies of the official Plamiing 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. « e-l %* f CITY of ORONO & Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 K'ley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 TELECOPY COVER LETTER Mailing Address: P.O. Bo« 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Please deliver the following page(s) to: Name:Harold Bower (828)771-4848 Mark Brickman (952)474-9583 / f, A'From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director - ^ Total number of pages including this cover letter: 5 Date: August 16,2004 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PACES. PLEASE CAI L US AS SOON AS POSStBI.K, Phone: (952) 249-4600 and ask for: Mike Our fax number is: (952) 249-4616 Additional Message: Harold - this memo is in response to your request as to what additional information is needed by the City to bring your application to Council for final action on the variance. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the 10 items listed on page 3 of the July 15 staff memo. Item 7 states: "7. Prior to Council aciion on the variance application, applicant shall provide for City Engineer approval a schematic house design and grading plan showing how all of the above conditions can be satisfied.” The schematic house design and grading plan must be provided before this can be scheduled for Council. This plan should be prepared by your surveyor in conjunction with a builder or house designer. The plan must address items 1 thru 6 of the 10-item list. While it is not critical to luve a complete house design, you must show a house footprint including driveway, sidewalk, decks and any other expected amenities; and show- proposed grading using existing and proposed contours (preferably I’ contours). The intent is for staff and the City Engineer to have enough infomiation to assess whether the parameters in items 1-6 can reasonably be satisfied. Your provision of the detailed plan will help us identify whether any of the conditions can’t be successfully satisfied, and to reveal any unexpected negative impacts resulting from these conditions. I know Mark Brickman was working on this 10 days age; I haven’t heard from him lince then. If the plan is submitted by this Wednesday, we can scnedu'.e this for final Council action oti Aug.23. Please call if you have more questions. Tefepbooe (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www..d.oroiiojnn.ua 08/10/2004 08:11 8287714848 BILLY GRAHAM TR CTR PACE 01 OLD & MILDRED BOWER Telephone: (828) 724<4643 Middy’s vrork telephone: (828) 77M877 umber: (828)771-4848 (Attn: Middy Bower) CityofOrono. ATTN: Mike GafTron, Planning Director (952)249-4616 Brickman (952) 474-9383 Dll: August 17.2004 . thank you for your prompt response to my inquiry for additional ion concerning your need for a response to Item 7 on the July IS memo eraing requirements necessary for Council approval of our Variance request. While loot our intention to construct a house on the subject property. 1925 Lakeview . but merely to have it approved as a buildable homesite, we are enclosing that satisfies all of the requirements of Items 1-6 of the aforementioned memo, perative that this item be resolved at the Orono City Council meeting on August if there are any additional questions or requirements please call us at home or fax the above numbers so that we can respond immediately. Thank you for your on to this matter. Si Merely. Id Bower. 'e believe that the enclosed house plans demonstrate that all of the requirements met and that a house similar to the one depicted would “fit” nicely ioto the general letics of the surrounding area. Yllt^uld receive four (4) pages in addition to this page for a total of five (5) pa^^ 08/19/2004 10:11 8287714848 BILLY GRAHAM TR CTR qSI^m TRAINING CENTER^ PAGE 01 FROI FACSIMILE COVER SHEET City of Orono: Attn: Mike Gaffron. Planning Director (952124fl 4616________________________ 19 August 2004 Harold and Mildred Bower (8281771 4848 NUMI eR of pages including the cover SHEET: 1 Mr. Gllfron, lectfulty request a sixty day extension beyond the September 5 (extended) for our Variance Application. This extension is necessitated due to your for additional detailed drawings as mentioned in your letters dated August 16 lust 17. ThanI ou for your consideration and attention to this matter. SIncMy, 77^ Jpu/w Harol Homi Work p.o. ind Mildred Bower lephone: (628) 724 4643 one: Middy - (828) 771 4877 ims, Ashcvni^ North CaroNtia 2U1S, U.SA. Phonr l2i/2M/20f2 Fu: l2S/r71/4$4f \ VV \ \ •• »• CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deliver the following pagc(s) to: Name: Harold Bosscr (828)771-4848 t Mark Brickman (952)474-9583 \ jr.f\ From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Total number of pages including this cover letter: 1 Date: September 22, 2004 IF you 1)0 NOT RKCyiVE Al l. TllK PAGES, Pl.EASE CALL US AS SOON AS rOSSIBl.K. Phone; (952) 249-4600 and ask for: Mike Oui fax number is: (952)249-4616 Additional Message: Harold - As of this morning I have not received the infonnation asked for in my August 18 fax. I talked with Mark Gionbcrg this li.oniing and he had not yet started to work on this, but he indicated he will have it to me by tomorrow (Thursday) morning. If so, I expect to be able to have your application on the Council’s September 27 agenda as long as the City Engineer finds it acceptable and fulfilling the established conditions. Regarding your objection to Condition 10,1 have reviewed this with the Public Services Director and we have concluded that you should not have to pay for the street culvert upgrade, and the on-site ponding does not have to be constnicted; wc would instead require only that a drainage easement be granted between the ditch and the west lot line for possible future City use for ponding, and that this area as well as the area 10’ ea.sl of the ditch bank be maintained as an unmow ed vegetative buffer to enhance the quality of runoff entering the ditch (which eventually outlets to Long Lake) due to the proximity of new lawn areas and hardcover that will be associated w ith a new house. Finally, 1 note that the second 60-day review period was up on September however, if you sign and fax n.c the following extension authorization to October 15, that should provide enough time to get your application through Council approval even if we don’t make the September 27 meeting for some reason. Pleise feel free to contact me at 952^249-4600 if you have any questions. Please sign and return the following extension as soon as possible (Orono fax number is 952-249-4616). I, Harold Bower, do hereby extend the review' period for Application No. 04-3007 to October 15, 2004. ■ 'f: ,V * Signature Date ML Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.cLorono.mn.iis MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JULY 19,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. *3. «04-3035 MARK D. STROBEL, 525 HUNTER PASS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING (6:01-6:04 p.m.) Chair Rahn asked for public comments. There were none, Rahn moved, Frilzlcr seconded, to recommend approval of Application t/04-3035, Mark D. Strobel, 525 Hunter Pass, granting a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building in order to construct a bathroom consisting of a toilet, sink and shower within the existing pool cabana, and stipulating the applicant executes the covenant provided within the Zoning Ordinance stating the use will not be used for a home occupation, dwelling unit or rented/leased. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 4. #04-3007 HAROLD AND MILDRED BOWER, 1925 LAKEVIEW TERRACE, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (6:05-6:18 p.m.) Marc Brickman, Coldwell Bankcr/Bumet Really, 19400 Hvvy. 7, E.xccisior, MN, representing the applicants, was present. Gundlach referred to new information received since the last staff reports were provided to the Planning Commission, as outlined on Page 2 of the July 15, 2004 Staff Report: • MCWD approved the wetland delineation as presented by the applicants. • City Engineer provided comments regarding stonnwater management implications of amending the wetland map and allowing the lot to be buildable. • City Attorney provided an opinion regarding the City ’s obligation to amend the City ’s wetland map. • City wetlands consultant, John Smyth, indicated there is currently no wetland basis to deny buildability of the site. Gundlach advised there is no basis to deny the buildability > ‘ the lot but il the City s wetland map is amended and the applicant is allowed to constnict a home on the lot, staff recommended ten conditions, as listed on Page 3 of the July 15, 2004 Statf Report, that need to be met. Chair Rahn asked for public comments. There were none. Bremer asked Mr. Brickman what his role was in this matter. Mr. Bnckman explained that he is the listing agent for the Bower ’s and had facilitated in providing the required infonnation from the Bower ’s. He stated the Bower ’s had diligently complied with requests from the City, MCWD and Hennepin County. Bremer asked Mr. Brickman if the applicants had any problems with the ten proposed conditions. Mr. Brickman indicated the applicants ’ understand the proposed conditions and that he was authorized to speak on behalf of the applicants. Gundlach illustrated the subject property 'ocation and the implications of the proposed conditions, Page 2 of 13 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JULY 19, 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (4. #04-3007 HAROLD AND MILDRED BOWER, 1925 LAKEVIEW TERRACE, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING- Continued) Chair Rahn coiiunented that in the original 1961 plat this property was not meant to be an outlet but had the same value as the other platted lots and it is sized similarly to others in the plat. He stated that with those observations and staffs recommendation, he supported the applicants ’ requests. Leslie moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-3007, Harold and Mildred Bower, owners of 1925 Lakeview Terrace, requesting revision of the City’s June 1975 Wetlands Inventory and Classification to exclude the portions of this vacant lot that are not wetland under the recent delineation, and granting a lot area variance to allow the lot to be sold as a building site, with the following conditions: 1. The delineated wetland and a 26* buffer around its perimeter shall be subject to a Conservation and Flowagc Easement, which w ill disallow any filling or structures within the wetland and buffer area. 2. An additional drainage easement shall be required along the route of the ditch, to the 1012* elevation contour. No filling, structures or obstructions may be allowed within the drainage easement. 3. Alt structures shall be set back a minimum of lU* from the drainage easement, to allow for protection of the structures and to allow access to the rear of the house. 4. The lot shall also be subject to the standard LK-IA setbacks of 50' front and rear, 30' on the sides. The various setback requirements noted here and above result in a buildable envelope approximately 50' deep by 75' wide. 5. A driveway to access the site shall be located so that it meets the required wetland setbacks and does not encroach the drainage easements. 6. liowest habitable floor elevation shall be no lower than elevation 1014*. 7. Prior to Council action on the variance application, applicant shall provide for City Engineer approval a schematic house design and grading plan show ing how ail of the above conditions can be satisfied. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide sufficient soils/gcotechnical and design information to establish that the proposed improvements will be structurally stable. 9. The City wili concurrently with the resolution of variance approval adopt an ordinance amending the City’s wetland map. 10. Applicant shall grant an easement and construct stormwater rate and quality control ponding in the area west of the existing ditch. Applicant shall participate in the costs of replacement of the culvert under Lakeview Terrace. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 5. #04-3026 David Pomije, 801 Tonkawa Road, Variance, Public Hearing (6:18-6:28 p.m.) Anthony Sequira, Rightway General Contractor, Inc., representing the applicant, was present. Curtis explained the applicant request for afler-thc-fact lake setback and 0-75’ liardcover variances in order to reconstriict (and reconfigure) a deck, consisting of the following: a. Hardcover within 0-75’ of 11% or 3,464.3 s.f. ^ of M L_| Date Application Received; 4-19*04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5-6-04 Initial 60-Day Review Period Expires: 7-5-04 60-day Extension Notice S-19-04; Extended to: 9-3-04 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director^/'. July 15, 2004 / • <#04-3007 Harold & Mildred Bower, owners of “1925" Lakeview Tenace 1) Revision of City Wetland Map 2) Lot Area Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2.0-acre min. Gross: 43,957 s.f. (1.01 acres) Delineated wetland: ± 8,130 s.f (0.19 acre) Area of interior drainage easement: + 6,120 s.f (0.13 acre) Net Diy Buildable: ± 29,700 s.f (0.69 acre) Application Stinnnaiy: This vacant lot was created within the plat of Long Lake Countiy Club addition in 1961. The applicants are the propeily owners of the adjoining developed residential lot at 1080 Brown Road North which they purchased in 1970. The applicants have owned tins vacant parcel since 1974. Applicants request that the City revise its June 1975 Wetlands Inventory and Classification to exclude the portions of this vacant lot that are not wetland under the recent delineation, and to grant a lot area variance to allow the lot to be sold as a building site. Application Status: This was tabled at your May meeting pending Minnehaha Creek Watershed District confinnation of the delineated wetland boundaries. MCWD has confinncd the delineated boundary is conect. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public hearing be he'd to determine whether the sunoundmg property owners h^vc any comments regarding the lot area variance or the nature of the property. As of this writint vc are awaiting furtlicr comment from the MCWD regarding whether that agency would for some reason require restoration of the wetland or oppose buildability of the lot. __ ____ List of Exhibits A - MCWD Wetland Delineation Confirmation 6-24-04 B - City Engineer’s Stormwater Management Comments 7-14-04 C - Revised Staff Sketch; Development Parameters D - Notice of PC Action 5-l‘^-04; Status Notice 6-15-04 E - Memo and Exhibits of May 10,2004 M..\Ii f VI4 t jr-i ■- i.- ^ -A44»x r __ «04-3007 July IS, 2004 Page 2 New Information 1. MCWD has approved the wetland delineation as presented. 2. The City Engineer has provided comments regarding the stormwater management implications of amending the wetland map and allowing the lot to be buildable. His recorrmiendations include expansion of the drainage easement to the 1012' elevation contour, which further reduces the buildable envelope; expansion of ponding to the west of the ditch easement to provide water quality and rate control benefits; and the lowest floor elevation to be no lower than elev. 1014.0'. 3 . Tlic City Attorney has indicated that althougli the Code docs not specifically prohibit wetland map amendments, we should detemtine whetlier the MCWD would oppose or support the buildability, assuming all required setbacks and buffers to the remaining delineated wetland are met. As of tins writing we are awaiting word from the MCWD. 4. Jolm Smyth, the City’s wetlands consultant, has indicated he believes there is cun cntly no wetland basis to deny buildability of the site, since the filling occuned long before the Wetland Conservation Act went into effect in 1992. The fonner wetland would not be reouired to be restored under WCA rules nor under current City ordinances. Tire area not delineated as wetland contains many mature trees. A driveway access could be established to serve the site without encroaching the delineated wetland or the existing/proposed drainage easements Construction of a residence on this site will be severely constrained by environmental factors. A house can likely be designed to fit the revised buildable envelope without encroaching outside that envelope, subject to no filling allowed below the 1012' elevation. After factoring in the City Engineer’s recommendations, the buildable envelope is depicted on Exhibit C. Staff Recommendation Tliis item was tabled without discussion at the May meeting. Staff recommends that the public hearing be held to determine whether the surrounding property owners have any comments regarding the lot area variance or the nature of the property. Further, Planning Commission should discuss the Issues for Consideration in the May 10 memo. If Planning Commission concludes that the City’s official wetland maps should be modified to match the current wetland boundaries, and if PC concludes that the lot area variance is supported by substantial hardship ( “Undue hardship "... means {he property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed bv the ofTicial controls, the plieht of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created bv the landowner, and the variance if erantedwill not alter the essential character of the, locality) then any motion for approval should as a minimum be subject to the following conditions; i #04-3007 July 15,2004 Page 3 1.The delineated wetland and a 26' buffer around its perimeter shall be subject to a Conserv ation and Flowage Easement wliich will disallow any filling or stmctures witliin the wetland and buffer aiea. An additional drainage easement shall be required along the route of the ditch, to the 1012 ’ elevation contour. No filling, structures or obstructions may be allowed within the drainage easement. 3.All structures shall be set back a minimum of 10' from the drainage easement, to allow for protection of the stiuctures and to allow access to the rear of the house. 4.The lot shall also be subject to the standaid LR-1A setbacks of 50 ’ fr ont and rear, 30 ’ on the sides. The various setback requirements noted here and above result in a buildable envelope approximately 50 ’ deep by 75 ’ wide. 0.Adriveway to ac- ess the site shall be located so that it meets the required wetland setbacks and does not encroach the drainage easements. 6. Low'cst habitable floor elevation shall be no lower than elevation 1014'. 7.Prior to Council action on the variance application, applicant shall provide for City Engineer approval a schematic house design and gradingplan showinghow all ofthe above conditions can be satisfied. 8. Prior to issiumcc ofbuildingpcmiits, applicant shall provide sufficient soils'geoteclmical and design infonnation to establish that the proposed improvements will be structurally stable. 9.The City will concuncntly with the resolution of variance approval adopt an ordinance amending the City’s wetland map. 10.Applicant shal 1 grant an easement and construct slonuwater rate ai'.d quality control ponding in the area west ofthe existuig ditch. Applicant shall participate in the costs of replacement ofthe culvert v,nder Lakeview Terrace. If Planning Commission detennines that the lot ai ea variance should not be granted and/or that the wetland map should not be amended, then a recommendation for denial would be in order. 1 I h JUN-24-2004 12516 FROM 9522494616 P.02/32 Mail: 16202 Minnetonka Blvd. oeephaven,MN SS391 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax (952) 471-0662 Email: admlnOminneh8h8Cfe6k.org Web Bite. WWW,mlnnehahBcreek.org Board of Managers Pamela Blixt James CalOns Lance Fisher Susan Qoelz Richard Miller Ethel Smith Scotl Thomas MililiBhalia (Irnfik lift Watershed District DATE; TO: FROM; CC; RE: Improving Qualiry ofWaier, Quality of Life Established in 1967 MEMORANDUM June 24. 2004 Marc Brickman, Coldwell Banker Burnet Jesse Carlson Compliance Officer Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Welland delineation review at Bower 1925 Lakeview Terrace, Orono, MN 1 have completed review of the wetlatid delineation performed at Bower 1925 Lakeview Terrace, Orono, MN. I have verified the boundary as it is staked in the field and deem it acceptable. A project may require a Minr'^haha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approved permit. If you have any questions regardittg our permit requirements please feel free to contact me at 952-471- 0590 1 appreciate you allowing me the chance to review the V. stiand delineation and look forward to working with you in the future. If your intentions are to build a structure or landscape in a way that would involve the grading of 5,000 square feet or more, stockpiling or excavation of mere than 50 cubic yards of material or ;-nore, or impacting the wetlands on this property you will need a permit form the MCWD. If you nave any question, please contact me at 952-471-0590. Jul 14 2004 10:40 i/ jBonestroo &4 b Rosene wm Anderllk & Associates 6n9ln««rs ^ Architect* BONESTROO ROSENE RNDERLIK 651636131X 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paui. MN 5513 Office: 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 WWW Donesiroo.com P • 1 July 14, 2004 Mike Gaffton Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Cr>'sial Bay, MN 35323 Rc: 1925 Lakeview Terrace File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-3007 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the information you provided for the vacant lot at 1925 Lakeview Terrace. The site l es within the Long Lake drainage district as identified in the City s Surface Water M^.ag^cnt Plan (SWMP). The SWMP identifies a potential ponding site (LLQ9.1) north of C.R. 6. in addition the SWMP calls for replacing the existing 15-inch culvert under Lakeview Terrace (along the north side of the subject property) shown on your Exhibit Q with a 24-inch culvert. When the culvert ii replaced the downstream invert will remain the same (1010.1) and the corresponding water elevation of a full pipe will be 1012.1. The storm water discharging from the culvert flows southerly through an existing channel along the westerly side of the subject property. The channel flows to another culvert under Country Club Road south of the site. The street elevation at the culven cressmg on Country Club Road is approximately 1010. Drainage also reaches the channel across the subject property from the east and west sides of the site in addition to the storm water discharging through the existing 15-inch culve: *. under Lakeview Terrace. With that s^d have the following comments in regards to storm water management and the buildability of the site; • The control for the elevation of the channel relative to the subject property appe;us to be the low point (1010) in the road elevation on Country Club Road south of the site. If ♦he chaimcl fills during larger storm events the road wll act as a dam and hold water back upstream until the roadway overtops at the 1010 elevation. This in effect is the emergency overflow \EOF) elevation for the area upstream, from Country Club Road. The city standard is to set the lowest floor elevations of homes adjacent to creeks or ponds at 2-fcct above the EOF. However it is possible that in larger storm events the water elevatioa discharging from the future 24-inch pipe under Lakeview Terrace could rise to an elevation of 1012.1. Based on this wc recommend the lowest floor elevation for any structure at 1925 Lakeview Terrace to be 1014. • Based on the above analysis we recommend tliai the existing easement along the channel be realigned to follow the 1012 contours adjacent to the channel. This represents the likely high water level of the channel. • Your Exhibit Q shows a strip of land along tLc west side of tV.c subject property that is separated from the buildable portion of the site by the channel. It appears this area is unbuildable duo to existing easements and setbacks. The Ci may wish to consider taking a drainage easement over this entire portion of the property to construct a smaller ponding area • St. Paul. St. Cloud, Rocheiter. Wlllmar. MN ■ Milwaukee. W! * Chicago. II____________ /iffirmitlv* Actlor/Equil Opportumty Kwpioytf and Iwpioytt Owfitd Jul 14 2004 10:40 BOMESTROO ROSEME RMOERLIK 6S16361311 p.2 that could provide a -water quality benefit and some rate control for storm v'ater passing through the channel. If the City does construct a pond on this site it could reduce the overall size of any future upstream ponding needs. The City should require a detailed grading plan for any proposed structures on this site . The City should review and approve the grading plans paying particular attention to drainage reaching -flie channel from the east. Care should be taken when locating buildings and dri\ ewaya on the site so as not to impede drainage to the channel. Soils on this site are likely to be structurally unstable. We recommend that soil borings and a geotechnical report be commissioned as an aid to designing any structural improvements to the site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863 Yours very truly, BCNESTROO, ROSENE, /uSDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono IJL II 111 till i 1 ■& -) ■7'- CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600________ ZONING FILE #04-3007 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 19. 2004_______ TO: Harold &. Mildred Bower 6S Copperhead Cove Trail Old Fort, NC 28762 COPIES: Mark Bricknian (Fax) 952-474-95S3 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Revise Wetland Map DATE OF MEETING: May 17, 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Tabled, because neither the applicants nor their representative were in attendance. VOTE: Table: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confimied as; ______City Council - Monday, June 2L 2004; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m._____________ If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plaiming Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. 60-Day Extension Notice. 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 received on April 19, 2004, and was deemed as complete upon the submittal of the topographic survey on May 6, 2004. The 60-day review period w'ould end on July 5, 2004. However, because additional infonnation has been requested and because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the June 21 meeting, the earliest scheduled dale of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to September 3, 2004. T) CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249*4600________ ZONING FILE #04-3007 NOTICE OF APPLICATION STATUS DATE OF NOTICE: June 15, 2004 • - ‘'4: • O'l TO: Harold & Mildred Bower 68 Copperhead Cove Trail Old Fort, NC 28762 COPIES: Mark Brickman (Fax) 952-474 95S3 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Revise Wetland Map MOST RECENT MEETING: May 17, 2004 ________________________ Planning Commission recommended as follows: Tabled, because neither the applicants nor their representative were in attendance. VOTE: Table: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confmncd as; NOT SCHEDULED - DEPENDENT ON FURTHER INFORMATION BEING SUBMITTED: The application cannot proceed without Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) comments and certification of the wetland boundaries, as noted in the staff memo of ^’?.ay 10. It is up to the applicants to anange for MCWTD certification cf the wetland bound^ri'es. The City Attorney will be asked to comment regarding the legal aspects of the City’s wetland designation. Once we know how the MCWT) stands on this issue, the City Engineer will be asked to comment on the stonnwater management implications of declaring this lot to be ‘not wetland’ Tlie application will not be scheduled for further Planning Commission review until the applicant has su bmitted the required infonnation from the MCWD._________________________________ 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 Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600.________________________________ 60-Day Extension Notice. 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 received on April 19,2004, and was deemed as complete upon the submittal of the topographic survey on May 6,2004. The 60-day review period would end on July 5, 2004. However, because additional information has been requested and because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the June 21 meeting, the earliest scheduled date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to September 3, 2004. r’ J' Date Application Received: 4-19-04 Date Application Considered as Cor.iplete: S-6-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 7-S-04 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director^-?,, May 10.2004 lie ^^04-3007 Harold & Mildred Bovver, o’ ners of “1925" Lakeview Terrace 1) Revision of City Wetland Map 2) Lot Area Variance Legal Description: Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot 2, Block 2, Long Lake Country Club Addition LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2.0-acre min. Gross: 43,957 s.f. (1.01 acres) Delineated wetland; + 8,130 s.f. (0.19 acre) Area of interior drainage easement: i 6,120 s.f (0.13 acre) Net D17 Buildable: + 29,700 s.f (0 69 acre) Lot Status: This vacant lot was created within the plat of Long lake Country Club addition in 1961. The applicants are the property owners of the adjoining developed residential lot at 1OSO Brown Road North which they purchased iu 1970. The applicants have owned this vacant parcel since 1974. Application Summary: Applicants request that the City revise its June 1975 Wetlands Inventon and Classification to exclude the portions of this vacant lot that are not wetland under the recent delineation, and to grant a lot area vaiiance to allow the lot to be sold as a building site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public hearing be held to detennine whether the surrounding property owners have any comments regarding the lot area variance or the nature of the property.. The application cannot proceed without MCWD comments and certification of the wetlanc boundaries. The City Attorney also will be asked to provide comments regarding the legal aspects of the City’s wetland designation. Once we know how the MCWD stands on this issue, the City Engineer will be asked to comment on the stormwater management implications of declaring this not wetland. This review will ultimately require tabling to the June meeting. List of Exhibits A - Application &. Hardship Statement B - Letter of Request C - 2004 Survey with Topography and Wetland Delineation D ♦ 1975 City Wetland Inventory Overlay Map (1970 Base Photo) E - 1955 Airphoto; 2004 Airphoto F - 1960 Preliminary Plat inch Topography G - National Wetlands Inventory Map H - Orono Surface Water Management Plan Map I - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Functional Value Assessment of Wetlands Map J - City Wetland Consultant Comments 5-7-04 K - Wetland Delineation Report L - Plat Map M - Property Owners List W04-3007 May 10,2004 Page 2 N • Adjacent Owners Acknowledgment Forms O - Sewer As-BuiU Maps P - Code Sections 78-1109 thru 78-1112 Q - Staff sketch R - Watershed Area Topography Procedure While the request for a lot area variance is not out of the ordinary, the request to ‘un-designate ’ a City- designated wetland is anytliing but routine. No map amendment process is specifically defined in the zoning code relative to the 1975 Wetland Inventory Map. We are treating it fimctionally as a zoning map revision, but not as arezoning, and it will require a simple majority (3/5 vote) at the Council level. Staff advised the applicant to proceed with the wetland re-designation request application concun ently with the vanance application, and we are researching “as we go” to detennine what other agencies may need to be involved and what information is necessary to properly review this map revision. Background Prior to 1959, this property was part of a single tax parcel used as fann fields. Our set of 1955 aerial photos indicates that the area encompassed by the cunent lot in question was a wetland by today ’s standards; however, it likely was not considered as wetland in the 1950's, and Orono did not have a wetland ordinairce until 1963. In 19 59 a subdivision application was filed to divide the property into half-acre lots. The City at that time was in the mids. of discussions about minimum lot size for residential lots, and while the preliminary plat was approved by Council as presented, the Council a year later refused to grant final plat approval, indicating the code had changed in the interim and one-acre lots would now be required. After a series of legal gyrations, the then property owner agreed to plat with one-acre lots, which plat was recorded in September 1961. Lot2, the lot in question, had a 20' wide drainage easement platted through it for adrainageway, a ditch leading from the wetland north of the road and leaving the property midway along its south boundary. The plat created 21 one-acre lots, and roads were constructed. Between 1964 and 1969 building permits were issued for 3/4 of the lots. The remaining lots were built on in the early 1970's or were never built on. In 1970 the Bower’s bought the home at 1080 Brown Road North, and in 1974 acquired the adj acent lot (the lot in question) from General Realty Company as abuffer. The bt was not atax forfeit property, but had delinquent taxes at the time they purchased it. The County Deed Tax paid was S2.20 and it is estimated they paid less than $500 for it according to Counhy records. We assume they also paid 3-4 years of back taxes. r m.3007 May 10,2004 Page 3 In 1974-75 the Hennepin Conservation District staff prepared for Orono a map of wetlands to be protected by the City, based on soil survey maps and overlaid onto a set of half-section B/W airphotos taken in 1970. On the 1970 airphotos, Lakeview Terrace cuts tlirough the center of the old wetland area, and the wetland o vcilay indicates that virtually the entire area of lot 2 is considered as wetland. Soil Type “Fd", which indicates filled land. It is assumed that the fill was added duiing road construction in 1961, but we have not been able to pin it down other than sometime between 1955 and 1970. Jurisdictional Authority The City has relied on the 1974-75 wetland inventory as the definitive mapping of wetlands protected via City ordinance Sections 78-1109 tlmi78-l 112 (fonnerly Chapter 10.55 Subs. 5 tluti 8). The advent of the Minnesota Wetland Conseivation Act (WC A) in the early 1990's resulted in an additional layer of protection of wetlands, established a variety of parameters for defining and delineating wetlands, and established certain timeframes for applicability of those parameters. Tlie City has authorized the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to act as tlie Local Government Unit (LGU) for administration o f the WC A. Wetlands are also Federally regulated by the Aimy Corps of Engineers. Tlie City code functionally ignores wetlands not shown on the 1974-75 Orono Wetland Inventoiy, but many small wetland basins not shown on that inventory are shown on the various maps used by the MCWD for wetland administration. These maps include theNational Wetland Inventoiy maps (19S9 USDI/FWS); the MnDNR’s Protected Waters and Wetlands maps (1983) and MCWD’s “Functional Assessment of Wetlands ” (2003). Additionally, the MCWD requires delineation of wetlands for all development where a wetland maybe involved. Due to the WCA wetland delineation guidelines, many small Type I and II wetlands wltich the City never contemplated protecting, are protected under WCA rules. Current Wetland Status of “1925" Lakeview Terrace Under City Ordinance 78-1112, virtually the entire lot is considered as a City-protected wetland, and has carried that status since the City maps were adopted m the I970's. The northeasterly portion of the property has been delineated by the applicants ’ wetland consultant as WCA protected wetland. It has been delineated as a “Typc2 (PEMIB) wetland dominated by reed canary grass along with some lake sedge and a few red-osier dogwoods.” This delineation does not include the ditch area. On May 10 the applicant was advised, per the recommendation of the City ’s wetland consultant, to have the MCWD certify the wetland boundaries. This certification is still pending. C) The wetland on Lot 2 is H2l mapped on the NWl maps nor the DNRmaps, and is oel mapped on the MCWD’s “Functional Assessment” maps. iiiftjrfiiWItiBhi’i • i #04.3007 May 10,2004 Page 4 D) The area mapped as wetland is relatively flat and open, but sli^tly higher in elevation than the non- delineated wetland to the immediate southwest. Tliis non-delineated areahas mature box elder and cottonwoods growing in the old fill. Issues to be Considered 1. 2. Other jurisdictions: - Assuming the MCWD certifies the wetland boundaries as delineated, will they: - require that a buffer be established and maintained? How much buffer? - allow filling of the wetland to accommodate a house, driveway or other amenities? - include the ditch as wetland as they apparently have done with the Monies Auto property, causing problems with future development of the site? - Or, will MCWD find that the entire site is filled wetland and should be restored? - This is not a DNR protected wetland; what is the Coips of Engineers ’ jurisdictional position in terms of past wetland filling? Functional issues: - The site contains fill soils which have a potential to be unstable for foundation purposes. We don’t have any idea of what’s below the fill...10' of muck? - The diainageway serves a specific public purpose and must be maintained in its current locat in; it has the potential to be an amenity to a home on this site, but at the moment it’s a place for debris to collect and for water to flow... - If the delineated wetland cannot be altered, and if MCWD requires a 16' buffer around it, this leaves an area meeting LR-1A setbacks of approximately 50' x 100' in the lower elevations of the lot, in the filled area, as shown in Exhibit Q. - Further, if the City chooses to treat the remaining wetland as City protected and give up the filled area as no longer wetland, then the City’s 26' wetland setback would apply, and the legal building pad area reduces to 50' x 90'... - Because the site is so low, it is likely that fill will be needed to make it buildable, and no basement would be feasible due to the extremely high water table... Envirorunental issues: - Stormwater from the church parking lot drains thi’ough the ditch on Lot 2. The upstream drainage area fi’om the culvert under Lakenew Terrace is approximately 10-12 acres. The Orono Surface Water Management Plan indicates a stormwater pond is needed at the outlet of the church parking lot... - Lot 2 is the low point in the immediate neighborhood to which runoff naturally drains. Any home built on the site will have to re-direct drainage to ensure flooaing does not occur. - The lot appears to have been used as a neighborhood dumping ground... old abandoned appliances are scattered on the site, junk and debris line the drainageway, and an old brush pile is stacked at the northwest comer of the'site. All these would likely be eliminated if a home is constructed on the site... «f04-3007 May 10, 2004 Page S 4.General issues; - Wliat value to the City or the public is gained or retained by not allowing the lot tc be developed for a single family residence? What value is gained by allowing it to be built on? - Was the City’s designation of the site as wetland in 1974 intended to preserve its remaining functions as a nmoff collection point for the neighborhood? Or was it intended to preserve the site for fliture wetland restoration? - Docs it matter whether the property owner was unaware of the wetland designation for this property for the last 30 years? - The property was purposely not assessed for sewer in the recent sewer project that served the neigliborhood, because the City believed this lot is unbuildable wetland. However, a sewer stub was installed to avoid digging up the road if the lot became buildable in the hiture, • Applicant states in his letter of request that theparccl was purchased as abuffer in 1974. Based on information we have gleaned from the County records, applicant purchased it for a minimal sum. The 1974 and 1975 tax records show a value on i» of S2.700. -How docs the history of tax valuation affect the Planning Commission’s view of this site? WTiile the assessor’s land valuation for this vacant parcel increased steadily from $5,400 to $18,000 during the period 1980 to 2002, for 2003 it jumped to $90,000. During the same 22-year period, the homestead parcel land value went from $ 17,500 to $78,000, with a substantial (but not five-fold) increase in 2003 to SI 09,000. It appears the assessor has concluded tlic vacant lot is buildable, since it has been assessed at approximately the same value as the land portion of the applicants’ homestead parcel next door. Merits of Lot Area Variance Request The following table illustrates how this lot conforms to the LR-1A standards: LR-1 A Lot Area Defined Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. dry buildable (2.0 acres)2CD' Actual 29,700 s.f. dry buildable (0.69 acre)290’ Setbacks: LR-1 A Required Front (North)50’ Rear (South)50' Side (East and West)30' Welland 26'(Orono); 16''’(MCWD) Drainageway easement O' (but not in casement) Resulting buildable envelope 50' deep x 90-100’ wide #04-3007 May 10,2004 Page 6 Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 43,957 s.f. (1.01 ac.)Allowed: 15% - 6,600 s.f. Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone 500'-1000’ Total Area in Zone 43,957 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 15,400 s.f. (35%) Hardship Statement Applicanthas provided ahardship statement, and should also be asked for his 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, 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 only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following conimcnts 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 area variance is necessary to allow use of the site for residential dwelling purposes. The zoning code would not allow use of this property for accessory uses without a principal structure. It can gain a principal structure by being combined with an adjacent parcel and being used as buffer area as it has been for the past three decades. The key issue is whether the official controls (City wetland designation and ordinances prohibiting wetland encroachment) are reasonable for this property. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.’’ The lot size and wetland status are factors unique to this lot and not under the applicant's control. 1 #04.3007 May 10,2004 Page 7 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 9. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Granting of lot area variance to allow a house to be constructed on the site will have only a minor impact on the character of the neighborhood, as long as the house meets the setback standards for the 2-acre zone (which will center the house on the lot more than for other lots in the neighborhood which were developed under a lesser standard) “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the tenns of the Zoning Chapter.” Applicant has not suggested that economics are a factor. However, staff cannot ignore that the assessor ’s recent valuation increase on the property may be influencing the applicant's perceived value of the property... “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The lot size is typical of the immediate area, and all homes in the immediate area are subject to the 2-acre standards even though they are 1-acre lots. The wetland condition is a unique factor to this property and the vacant lot across the street from it. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or stiuctures in the district in which said land is located." The lot size is unusually small for the LR-JA District. "The granting ofthe application is nccessaiy for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting of area variance is necessaiy to allow use for residential purposes. Whether the applicant has a right to use the property for that purpose is a function of wetland ordinances, laws and rules, how they have been applied in the past and how they wtll apply now. “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." Granting of the area variance to allow a house on the site will not be contrary to the intent of the Code if it can be demonstrated that the area designated as w etland is no longer serving wetland functions and cannot legally be required to be restored to Us condition prior to the filling. “The granting of such variance will not merely ser\'C as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Granting of the lot area variance may supported by hardship due merely to the later- imposed 2-acre requirement. However, the wetland status of the lot needs to be resolved in order to allow the lot to be built on. #04-3007 May 10,2004 Page 8 Staff Recommeodation Staff recommends that the public hearing be held to determine whether the surrounding property owners have any comments regarding the lot area variance or the nature of the property. The application cannot proceed without MCWD comments and certification of the wetland boundaries. The City Attorney also will be asked to provide comments regarding the legal aspects of the City’s wetland designation. Onceweknow how thcMCWD stands on this issue, the City Engineer will be asked to comment on the stomiwater management implications of declaring tliis lot to be ‘not wetland’. This review will ultimately require tabling to the June meeting. ' '' -i .! £i MM . \*XI V.-J**3l#«* , r . - i'-'_^ ^--• - -___ r City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Main; 952-249-4600 fax; 952-249-4515 Meiling Address: . P.O. Box 66 Cr/slal Bay, WN 55323-0066 J*. 0^- 'hOo'lApplication_______ Date Received; 1<^I O ‘-t’ Amount Paid: ^ Staff; '/{AJArVl'^^ ~ Fee; 5600 ___ Renewal; 5300 After-ther-faci; Si .200 Dcud.e Fee This application form must be completed in full. App leant wilt oe notified within 15 days as to the status of tn application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. property INFORMATION: Site Address; /^D-S' — Property Identification Number (PIN); ~ '^.3 y X. C' o / if (Attach legal description to application it not included on the sun/ey.) Dale Property Acquired (month/year); >v>AV/□ Yes, I ov/n thethe adjacent parcels. Present use of property; ja.Residential 0* Other Zoning District; L^- /A___________ ^ n. ^ ^ xioccL.t pnc ’yict4- 'yys APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na.-es and marital status required for each interested party) ^ame: //Agev.o (5 A ..------- .=hone (horr^); Vz.a V-v.i» __________Phone (work); (.<rA.<h3 -7?/ Address; CzPP£jSfi6./\o 71?a/(~_____(yr.o A'c--------j- S'/'C .y ----------------- Email; ~~~_____________________ ------------------------------------------------ OWNER INFORMATION; (Complete legal names ard marital status required for eacn interested party) ^ Name; ZZ/IPC/.O Z3 Phone (homo); V - C Phone (wo^k^ C^xr) ? ^------------ Address; Cj-Cci,r& 7r<?,-oAi c.-o A Af c. Email; _____________________Fax; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: * EsTmatod Project Cost; - Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): sclg\J£.s^ 4 VAg)A.»uC4i 77/p. ACA'»<£. Lcr S'U/.Ctl ai£.'a.~:?~ y//f\~r C^AJ SE.ee. PlHS /Vf,ggg4 TO ~THlS 5gr yciL uf'e.'e ft y /3 e.£f7- A A ££S/t2E^—/AiorJE A >C re E Zg- ^l\2.c.y P c^T-T EO (.£ T Cf^s CA-cs><e^- A t-i- ay/zeups f-o,-JC~ L/y^£r cl.-. a-Ay 3 A oc>fT/ 's- / T fS S/y/J- l/ST'&o Aij .. A. Ja e: /-g7-~grg /4a/P /2glfXZa£X'T//U- Lc'T' C.£ o/<^T/ V A; I required SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - ov/ners within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Sun/ey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5 " x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project * APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, liie staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant's Signature; Applicant's Signature: Dale; ^ jr' Date; OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonabl entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members fc purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature; Owner's Signature; /3c. •rvh ^ <n .< ' Date; Date 9 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commlssic Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each mont Applicants must bo present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ar Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Plann assigned to your project. 0 r \ iL.. Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM 1 This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application Will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form, is complete and submitted to the City. _______________________ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires rhai a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship havi.ng merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? l. j u This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as dearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it wll not be considered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply); “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under cond lions allowed by the official controls." 7///S 'S A r .Ac/3<a. i.cT /I s A r. L.J C AS A/Z.(r- AU. C, r 77VfS A rp-zLn pLn-7~r/^^A__ OL>/2 C'A" y/ZG 2. “The plight of the la.ndowner is due to circumstances unique »<* .us property noi created by the landowner." 7-/A/S re rAt.z\___________________________________________ 3.“The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential cb^acier of the locality." 7~ZnZ C^PA!ur/^C C.‘I~ T/ffi__i//l/eM>v<'.cr^ CoA'SrjAuC-ry'c^ AS .A 0£S>.C7-') co/V^r,, Z-'ac-t r/JA.-nncT-e/i of' rzzri £Lc<m./~y^_______________________________ 7 “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." <jir r TTZ/Zi {/Ar?l A/UC^ Cajujl ; l'-t USZziP A<, ZT tO’S'i /X>7EA..b£b> OPtG/M’AlM.y . ____________________ i • J Jw I .f A ?X Page 2 of 3 5.“Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for eanh sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.G6, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." ■V/4-_______________________________________________________ 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. A//4 7."The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 8."The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.’ At-L fit Ci J r.: /.C^ c'asT. 9.“The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." AOTftCg:/VT 3 C t. /> ^C'p-£ri 7-^ ■7-//£ O. /■> r 7~.__________________________________ 10.“Tho granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." ,__________________________________________________ 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." Tc r/» r.(.y /i yn ?i-A3 'T'H/S S^CAjd/Q. oo/i-t, /v=r /3y 'Pu£.e./fA5£fZ^ Cf\£A f)£Ajh;tvc- A<L^cC£^Krr) uj /</ SuBS£-<^vC^'7~ 0£M£i.a‘^ . 1 L Page 3 of 3 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.” _________________________ ___________________________________ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: 3/17/2004 Mark Brickman 952.474.9583 1925 Lakeview Terrace, Harold Bower; Melanie Curtis, City Planner YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 1 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL 952.249-4627. Ti4arl< - 1 spoke with Harold Bower today and he asked me to fax you the following information to you to follow-up that conversation. 1925 Lakeview Terrace is a 1 acre property (less than 1 acre counting only the dry, buildable la.nd) within a 2-acre zone. A Lot Area variance is required. The property meets the requirement for lot width at 200'+. In order for anyone to build on this property the fol!ov;ing must be completed: 1. Wetland delineation. 2. Certified Survey of the property including an accurate depiction of the wetland areas determined on the wetland delineation. 3. The City of Orono's official wetland map must be amended to reflect the accurate location of the wetland(s) if any -- [this map is officially referred to in City Code 78- 1109(2) as: wetlands inventory and classification aerial plat map overlays, and were prepared by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District (these maps were adopted in June, 1975'] 4. Completion of both the Variance Application & General Land Use Application forms and payment of the General Land Use application fee of $600, 5. Sewer assessment of $22.3'^0 - to be paid at the time of building permit application (or by the Harold at the time of application approval if he wishes to pay the assessment rather than the subsequent owner). Harold also asked me when the City's map was adopted... (as stated above) June, 1975, he also asked how the wetland areas were determined. The maps were the result of aerial photo interpretations, and no on-site evaluations were completed at that time. In order for the Harold's application to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda for the above topics; a meeting with staff is required. I would be available to meet with either Harold or yourself - if he will not be in town prior to the submittal date of April 21 (in order to be placed on the May agenda). Please give me a call at 952.249.4267 if you or your client have additional questions Melanie 1 't ■ ■< CITY OF ORONO ■ GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Site Address ^ Application# 0^ — Date Received i^l UlQL^ Amount Paid (lPUQ.C V Type of Application to be Filed A.-,-y£,\io/yif^/<r^ o/^ C/’r-/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 4 ">■ tr^cvy APPLICANT Name /-/ly/ic/- ft •» a/ o /h > t. c >.y g c^‘/5__________________________ Phone (homeV>t3.<^ -7:^v- v^»^7 _______Phone(work) ( S‘ ■> .sQ 7 ?/ - 7 7 >■. /.>,r>/> Address/^Y/C.-/’.^^y/>/£^j:) r.-City ot - /Vgip ;i. P .:2. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________________________________________________ Phone (home). Address Phone (work) _ City______2'P, (month/year)Da^e^Property Acquired________________________________________' ....^—.'m I (do)y(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. -rj -V FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _______$600.00 Residential Accessory Use _______$600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _______$000.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _______$600.00 Duplex CredibBldg _______$600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _______$600.00 Land Alteration + Permit _____ G.ading 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 _______$250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _______After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _______$600.00 Vacation _______$600.00 Easement Vacation _______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _______$600.00 Reroning (P’JD - refer to fee schedule) ______^ $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appealsluu.uu . /-Nvr y other - see Fee Schedule’ i^iDUO - (X^ ^ Cif^ WdHMci MCLp #^.0 07•• • «i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. y 4. 5. 6. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. , Certified Property Owners List of owners wimin 350' w the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map m^yb^^tained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. "Topographic sun/ey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations "involve changes in elevation (grades). 7. 8. 9. .List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in ’the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ’ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other ” persons you wish notified of this application. YCU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be suomitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: ___________________________Date_________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is,t(>^ and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. DateApplicant’s signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ' Owner's signature . Date -ic e y Applicant must have all submitiais into the Csty offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of Uiis change prior to the meeting. • April 19. 2004 TO; CityofOrcno (the city) FROM; Harold and Mildred (Middy) Bower 68 Copperhead Cove Trail Old Fort, NC 28762 (828) 724-4643 SUBJECT; 1925 Lake view Terrace (the parcel, the lot) BACKGROUND; We purchased this parcel of land in 1974 as a “buffer” between our property at 1080 North Brown Road and the neighbors to the east of us It was a residential one acre lot as are all of the lots in the Long Lake Country Club Addition. Apparently in 1975, an aerial photo was taken and this lot was labeled a “wetland” without any scientific surface studies being conducted to show the limited area of the wetland. Please note that in the accompanying Plat of this addition, approved by the Orono Planning Commission and Village Council of Orono in August 1961, it states that there are no wet lands in the plat except as designated (none are designated within the boundaries of this parcel. Lot 2 Block 2), (granted that the definitions of wetlands may have been changed since this date in 1961 .) Also the Protective Covenants for this area (Torrens Title Exhibit “A" Doc. No. 669783), enclosed, states in paragraph A that “All lots ... shall be known and described as residential lots ’’ Please note that we were never notified of the “wetland" label for this property. In late 2002, it became apparent that we would be moving from Orono due to Middy’s employment relocation. When we contacted the city for clarification of the status of this lot, wc were then informed of the “wetland” label attached to it and told that a wetland delineation procedure must be obtained to show the extent of the wetland area if it did not encompass the entire lot. We had this study conducted by a licensed organization. Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. in November 2002, (results enclosed). In February, 2004 we had the lot resurveyed to show the boundaries of the wetland delineation (survey enclosed). As of this date we have entered into a purchase agreement to sell the property to a developer who is familiar with the necessary follow-up procedures that need to be completed in order to construct a residence on this lot. A part of this agreement is that the developer will, at their cost, pay for sanitary sewer assessments and any improvements that are necessary to ensure that a suitable foundation for a residence be constructed. Please note that a rough measurement of the “non-wetland" area of the lot reveals that a residence of suitable size to conform to the limits imposed by the aforementioned Protective Covenants and to conform to the general aesthetics of the surrounding homes can be constructed in confoimance to existing wetland and lot-lme setback limitations WITHOUT any variances. THE SITUATION AND REQUEST; We are now in possession of a purchase agreement for the lot that is labeled a “w'etland" and that is the same size as others in this addition but is now nonconforming to the standards of the city (2 acre minimum). We therefore request that the city EXPEDITIOUSLY honor our request for a variance to the lot size o n f“:.) J requirement and our request for an amendment to the city wetland map to correctly label the lot as a residential lot instead of a wetland. Based on the following facts: 1. The lot was originally platted as a residential lot with no wetlands depicted (aforementioned plat record, approved 1961). 2. The lot was described as a residential lot (aforementioned Document # 669783). 3. Current survey shows that the wetland encompasses a minority area of the lot. 4. Current Valuation Information form obtained from Hermepin County Taxpayer Services on March 29,2004 (enclosed) shows that the lot is classified as a residential lot. 5. Other lots in this addition were “grandfathered in" as one acre residential lots. We hereby respectfully request that the S600 processing fee be waived in this unique case and that the $600 deposited this date with the city in order to expedite the accompanying applications be refunded to us. NOTE: Mr. Mark Brickman from Coldwell Banker-Bumet will act as our representative at the appropriate city meetings. His telephone number. (952) 470-2544. Sincerely yours. / Harold Bower Mildred Bower O \J U • " \ 33/16/2004 11:30 FAX 9S24749563 03/16/2004 8287714848 CB BURNET UUTKA BILLV GRAHAM TR CTR Order Ho, 679133 IS|003/OOU PAGE 02 BEGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTBACTT 335850 rtiteil October 2 , 19ol ________(otisla«llrTJU* •bttrtcl tavor* CertlOcUO of Title No----------9^2^.-------------aaie*--------------------J November 20. 1955 ), reclstered In Vol. page 121310 ----la the oUWt of Ih. Refflalr.rtagletor.ed — ol TlUoo of neoneplB County, W!ua«*ol« tb« WTLE INSURANCE COMPANV Off MINNESOTA Uoos hereby certify i •»Ua4 tho propewy daoeritjoJ In iho Cortmeate of TUlo appeort therela at foUowa, ftt 2 block 2 ia Lone Lake Country Club Addition, according to tho plat ind o? r«ord la Vae office cf Che Resletror of Tlel.o in and for aoid Hennepin County Tbcloccor^llng to said CerttfiMla, tto property la regUtcinKl In the foUowlng aastaet Genoral Realty Co. (Hiooenota corporation) Thai tedUls tppev IhfreJn ®» foQowa; subject to utility and drainage easeoenti a» ehown on plat. 03/16/2004 11:30 FAX 9524749583 03/16/2004 09:12 0287714340 Ca BURNET BUTKA BILLV GRAHAM TR CTR ©004/009 PAGE 03 ^at tbt unraleuetA aoeuinlM'OBeeo« tSona and lataraal aoiad by tha memorials underwritten or endorsed tbcraen opjmr astDllowsi Geaerai Realty Co. (Mla&esota corporation) to Toe Fuolic Protective Covenants Dated September 22, 19^1 Filed September 25t 1961 Doc . No . resting certain coveuaote [> restrictions on all lots in Long Lake Country Club Addition (Sea Exhibit *'A” . hereto attached^ That no aetke of probote or.lBeompctcnry proceedings appears from the laflexei to EsUtes of 1>eceased persons and Wwdi la the Dtnce of (he Clerh of Pvobato Court, RenHepln County, Mbnesota, as to the Registered owner or any paietet iQlalng with the regtatered owner la the mokt*mge or mortgegea shown ebove. r j 03/16/200« 11:30 FAI 9524749583 03/16/2004 09:12 8207714848 CB BURNET IBITKA BILLY GR/^M TR CTR UlOOS/009 PAGE 04 EXHiBlT ”A» TnoRPN*^ TITLE protective covenants for long lake cuntry club addition WHEREAS, General Ri=aUy Co,, e Minnesota corporation, is the- owner of the following described property, be • ng the p I at known as LONG lake country club addition, now of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in end for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, which lots may be sold from time to time to individual purchasura, end WHEREAS tha said General Realty Co, is desirous of creating buiIdin^ restrictions for el I the lots in said LONG LAKE-COUNTRY CLUB NOW, THEREFORE, the said General Realty Co. docs hereby covenant and agree with the future owners of the promises embraced In said p at t ei. as such premises may be conveyed from time to time, the same shall be conveyed subject to the following restrictions, to-wit: ^ The above described property is subject to the following covenants which shall run with the land and shall be binding on all persons claiming under them until January I, 1981, ot which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for succcooivo periods of lO years, unless by vote of a majority of the then owners of the lots it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part. If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns, shol I Violate any of the covenants herein, it sKalI be lawful for any other persons owning any I’eol property situoted in sold davelopmcnt or subdivision to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or ottempt i ng to vjo'loto any such covenants and either to prevent Him or them from so doing or to recover ; damages or other duos for auch violation. Invalidation of ony one of these covenants by judgment or court order oholI In no wloe effect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force end effect, A. All lots in the tract sho I 1. be, known and describe^ aS-Tes > ie I Lot ft-^y'one res ideVtTri Elding shall be erected, altered, picced oTptrmittcd to remain on any res ident i al bui I d i ng pi ot such resident,a building shall be one detached single family dwelling not to exceed two stories In height and a private garage for not more than 3 cars, B. No building shall be located on any residential building plot nearer thon 35 feet to the front lot line nor nearer than 35 feet to any side street line; no building except o detached garage or outbuilding located 35 feet or more from the front lot line shall be located nearer than 5 feet to any aide lot line. Any dwelling erected on Lots 2, 3, 4 • ond 5, Block I, shall face or front on Lakevlcw Terrace. Any dwelling erected on Lot I, Block I, and Lot I, Block 2, shell face or front on ^ Lakevlcw Terraco or Brown Road. Any dwelling erected on Lot I, ElocK shall focc or front on Country Club Lone or Brown Road. C. The ground floor aree of e one story detached ®*n9io family dwellii exclusive of one story open porches and garages, shell be 1,000 squore feet. The ground floor area of a two story single femlly I I I see* ee w ae I • • t A O P» rt FI OOnchoS BTyO 60 011 Oft HO 03/16/2004 11:30 PAX 03/16/2004 09:12 9S2474S583 B2B7714B48 CB BURNB-r miTKA BILLY GRAHAM TR CTR I2|0bi)/00» PAGE 05 Dt Dirt and material excavated from any lot during conotructfon of dwelling and garage shall not be removed from said Addition without written consent of platter of Addition, Its successors or assigns, and any dirt or material so excavated shall be placed by the vendee or vendees on a location In said Addition to be designated by the platter. Its successora or assigns, and all such dirt and (natarlal shall be and remain in the property of the platter of this Addition, Its successors or assigns* No trailer, besement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding ferected In the troct nhalI «t any time be used as a residence temporarily or permanently, nor shalI any structure a temporary character be used as a residence. All structures shall be completely finished on the exterior within six months after commencement of the excavation or construction thereof. F, No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any lot nor shall anything bo done thereon constituting n nulaancst ft Th.'for.soing restrictions establish'a onlforc plan for the benefit of «n lol owner, in LONS LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION and shall continue as covenants running with the land In favor of all gr*anteee of said premisoa in said subdivision# I Oa/16/2004 11;30 FAX 952A749583 03/16/2004 09:12 0287714049 CB BURNET UMTKA (21007/009 BILLY (aRAHAM TR CTR 06 . ... ••• *• ••• ••• w LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION *0* OOlO\n AJOCIM. • • * DCilQTXS mott HCmjMtMT. MAY, 1361 5CAUEJ EGAN. FIELD a NOWAK SOAVEYORS •if' M. P. JOHNSON $Al£S CO. 7M4 MINKCTONKA BOULfVARD EXCLUSIVE AGE hTS A REALTORS TELBPHO»«e-We.*-65t5 miKNEAFOU# at, W.KNSSOTA «3/l8/2004 11:31 FAX 9524749583 e9/ie/2eB4 B9:12 8287714B48 CB BURNET 8QITKA BILLY GRAHAM TR CTR (21009/009 PAGE 88 _____^*7 i 6r,H7rto BOOK 46 PAGE r M •>« M«4 lOii M w tu0Ua avjstSET umiM«ui». MiiMMan. H»m *1 L. ->mg. Kf4#« tU p»B liv priM^lt fMf Ip9, « CQ#*0or«f I sne ilrii^rt In sr§tf o> alnntMfi §ao Cown?ifprtsrifitr of IHo fol IowIm dooerlooo proDo^fy oiruprt In »»*• ___ _ . . > of Htnnopint fO»l»l Troof t, Boplitvrei l^nd Ivrviv Nt. poo, nil«« of cC'Ji^y*** County of Honn»ptn« hot eoaMO tht om to Pt CkUS AQolTiOP ono do hort%y ^noro t^d didleott rooM# ttrroct » tono ono ooooMnto for utmry oftf^nto plot, in wIfnoBt tOtoroof otto Aorn|n^fark ond 110 cOTfioraft vorvoyod IM olottod •* tho fwillc for pAjOife Uff fortrtrI 0 Ofd <n? drilfiaQi purgotti •• ono^^i on tnr olpAod Py Ifo proptr oUYopra In proaancf oft IQO iitc« nfo coutao frxoar ortitnfi.io Pool to P« n«fo<iMo ifflAid IM 0 - ^ 6o Aoniiinp-fort^ ine. lU*/------^L/kI^ Ml 1 orf0 PI no a^ff •! 0«-*r «f onr lacretory ITaTI on AlnOlSOTAl . COUHTt on MiHl£PIPlP*9-Oit^plo .day mi C^dio Idrtd Pint on# Adcipti nPba, to mm portonolly iinown oho by ir«t it nubile* poraonolly oppitrod ooch duly avorn did aoy ffiat tnay oro raoAoefIvaly proal^nl and AornYa#-n«rB* (»€•* mo earporofUa n*i«d I.9 |K« lara«aff>f Inatr oaot ifflofd to said Inatrxaaont It tHa corporat# ottl of M^d co .0. IPOX. Oato^i mm, • Votiry Inairvaiant wat alanao ant aaalad aaolafoat aacrafory of 4»ant« tn«t th« cora«r«ia corpoTOlfon art fnat Bila Oirrc*ora act and aM paid Al Iorto >4 of mold corporaf • lad In bahalf af oald corparoflah by auina^lly of l»o «f * P]na and Aaoiph nina tcafita|adp«d otld Inafriff^ont fa ba tna frta if I on. . ^ •/ 4 . Pofary Nubile. Mamopln Cognfy. Alnno\oia * xV •Y eownlooloa *-"‘^** p*^y-Jry j. I hartby ctrflfy that 1 h«>*a auTrayad Ond platfad tna aroptrfy daocrlbad on Into plot aa LAAf COUaTAT CLias AOCiTtOMi <Aof ^Mt Pitt It a co^radt rapraaonf0* Ion of ooii owrv«f that alt diatonoaa aro etr^tetly ano<at en tht plat In fotf ond oaclaalo of 0 footi that tv nd 00 ahoam oa tht • *f»d tnaf fhara ar# m wv w ^ w vto • • T W^t «ati pi*Vf tr* iWVf 9T%m mw^ I a • 9 ■ofWBaota for puldonea of fwluro aurvpyo iro corrtQllf piaeod In tho prau alaf| mo* ina OutalOa too^adary llnoa aro norracMy daOlywatod an fh# pfa- Tr»«f rnara no «at landa or (nibilo Mf^ya ta la daolonaratf an yid p»ot a«n#r than oa ahoan ihirton. k^ota lMl/m;5>^an No. 3J0a BTATC on Aiaiif^Ciaf C0«fimr on HtaHtPim*-** Aoov« cavtlrlcata BaOacrlbad and fSiPIIC, fMa^ C*a^«y a.P. (^di, ^ mrn to Oofora oa, a horary . *u, S7% * AOTHji e. oonuao hafary nwOlIc, Hanna#In County. #1 nnoao'fa,f*^ao f vr p o^aowaoa*^ ont* r«f 9 t ro wa^aaa ^ r I ay aooalaafon axplrao OetoOnr 23, 1907 .7i.-y • 1. ^hla plot «oa oporenad by tho^lannlno CoianIaotan of ina villafia cf Orane at 0 reouttr Anrattni haraof hold IMAlILji±SLday a.b. ipdl, N y • * * * CKlI r»<Kan Th« rortyothi plat of lono iahc wmrwe CI.U0 AOOITIOH vaa aoproatd Council of Orona. af«naaata at a rofUtor aittf>nt Ihartof aaio min / V^-day m /. 1 ■ ^ ;a#No ltd 1 ^ VI l toga Jf X:?/!. ! •}.'V H— *rr - *-» 4 «•*%. • %0 V J fa lelpeA^^.. I . irv 7h# boundarltt of fhlo plol a#a th« hoynOarla# #| tna llocho tharain ha«a haon fkothtoat | cal f y chaobad and approvod, bd datarBlaitloa Hao btaa aada ta oacortalh Ihat tho (toil daacrlotlof aiTfto with §0)0 Plot* b«4td thin ^ any ITT rtmmiW^ ^ ^ ^ ^Tdl* •t Ffrkli4Moaoro . , Mohnapla Ca^nty ttenvayap I lift Odti Tid paid btrtdiu G6R7.*tO HAM TR CTR CSI009/009 PAS£ 08 - 9 ^ i 900K 4S PAoe r •Parkf ii>s. « Cor0oPlfl»^, 0«^t^ tna »fy tihtiff In »M Sfttt af «Un«Mti spo Coufify rt4 iMPvty lit. 9aif ^llt« of 4«fl8tr«r Of TUiit^ rarviytl tni titticd •• loBa Lahc cc*jmrar eofo I9 ff\9 fu9ll« for pmoiIc utt fororor m? Mfy ard Orifncot p^Aractti ii on tnr Me, Mt cauiaa fnate prtitA>i to t« rata aatl to ba nafa^nta ilHaid tM § _ y jAy •ornlna-Par^ Ine. QnlLl\Jl t Ul > a| I orti P I»*a f«e^et*ry -day afZZiid&aiaZL^.O, laox, batora aa, g Hotiry at Adoipb Wjko^ ta «a paraenmtlY bnawo abo gy aa actlvaW pTaaldaM and aaalataat aacrtlary el l.t fhm rerafelfvf Inatrwaant* tHak fhm cere«r«le porata aaal al aald corp«r*afloa ard ftial ••la , • f aald cara araMan Or awin«^lly of !*• g-«^a «f * ^ Pfna aeMiiewiedgod a«ld Inatrw^oant fa da <na trae ■ i /•% - Pafary Pwdlle, Hanntpin Ca^nfy. «irnnatat« • Py cawiilaalaa *-r*'*“* r* j; atatfad tna preptffy daacridad on th|a plat aa • pit* la a corraat rapraaantat Ion of aaii avrw«*| fWa plat Ip foot and aacipala of a feoti tn«t tv» •ra carraot If Ptacad la IM fra|i-^ - ^orraplty d9ai9<«at»d oH tKa ^fa ilBnaratf aaaajd »••• a«nar taaa nd •• aPoam oa tnt * Af^a tfMf thara art •a ahovn tn«roon. Wota IMlfy^5KTan ao. SJaa ita aaCii I9dl« ■n to baforo aa, a dotary Asrnim c. oanuan X v'; dafary Public, Hannapln County. ‘Pt anaaol a f* /* ay a«Mal«a!oti aapiraa Oetebar 25, I0a7,< ' tIaalM af ina villaea ef Orono at a reputor -.mSlLa.O, ipdi. \ / • * ’ * few >.r **»cAalriMP * .0*rr - *. * A J la Uaaa^^ *AsVv.;” w«dar|ta af rtia dtaebp fnarala dana baaa aathtaat I cal t y aa^a by P 11^*1 T?ll* ****' ^^dd'lpMoi jl : --------- , Pfrdr., Manaapla Ca^iMy tupvayaf 068TM ______,*“•! tWflkiMi M «Atac — HMJi MaiUM A9mt CLU9 A^ITlOb moo aaoratad Md„jo;apt«a lyf iKa VII logo p paatlag tWtef atfd ttila x ^-aay ai » r> o.oTtc yiiuoc CQUfciv CP opoiio, pidac5cr/r ~7 »T„. _______Iti.'nTuX^v^ 0. Qf'cJ material excavated from any lot during constr uct i o.i of dwo I I i ng and garage shall not be removed ^rom sold Addition wi t hout written consent of platter of Addition, its successors or assigns, and any dirt or material so excavated shall be placed by the vendee or vendi on s location in said Addition to be designated by the platter, its successors or assigns, and all such dirt and material shall be and remain in tlic pf'operty of the platter of this Addition, its successors or assigns. E.. No trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, ba^n or other outbuilding erected in the tract shall at any time be used as a residence temporarily or permanently, nor shall any structure or a temporary character be used as a residence- All structures shall be completely finished on the exterior within six montlis after commencement of the excavation or construction thereof. F« No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon constituting a nuisance• G. The foregoing restrictions estabiish a uniform plan for the benefit of all lot owners in LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION and shal I continue as covenants running with the land \\y favor of at 1 grantees of said premises in said subdivision. ?CERTIFiCATE Of:" SURVEY FOR' HAROLD BOWI OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2. LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L=250.3o ja NX£ f« ’S»30'OO" \ t WETLAI^S stake ic EDGE OF WETLANO<r"^ AS oeuneateo by SP TESTWC • S ntf HOkC II y y y 5o, I 9 /!'.y - V •». f :V. K nSI it ™ ^''^"^ORAWACE AfO ‘^1' **** utility easements "r' N 87"34' 50" W 124.OO LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of PREMISES : Lot- 2. Block 2. LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADOITION o ; denotei Ironmorker found Bcorings shown ore bosed upon on ossimcd datum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the above described property, ond the locotion of wetlonds stokes, os delineoted by SP Testing, thercron. It does not purport to show ony other inprovements or encroachments. OISKMCS KVS6N OATC OCfCRPTOI • WUIWM •ECO • uei* > • • '00" GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES, INC. COHSUUTTNO exoneers , land surveyors , site planners • 445 NORTH \MLL0W DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MM. 55356 952-473-4141 •4-050 ^25.00 I ICRESY CtSTTY T>«AT TW5 FLAN. SPCCTCATW. OS SCPORT WAS PSfPAAES BY ue OR UNDER MY ONECT SIPCRVSaN A>€ THAT I AM A DULY UCOlSCO PROFESSORAL CNGMEER AND LAND Mcroi ueoi sc uvi op i>€ rATtor umcsoia OATS m ucooc nuw «cr^^^ KAU OATC 2-6-04 jom 10. 04-030 t Block denotes iron marker found (900.3): denotes existing e Ievot ion. mean level dotym denotes existing contour tine, mean sea level datum. Beorings shown based upon do turn. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described properly, and the locotion of wetlonds stokes, os delineoted by SP Testing, thercron. It does not purport to show any other Irnprovements or encroochrrents. GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSU.TBSJO CNOINCER5, LAND SURVEYORS. SHTE PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE. LONG LAKE. VW- 55356 952-473- 4U1 that I AM A 0U.Y uco^seo PfIOfCSSONAL ZSOKm AND land suivcYos uioai T)c u«s or nc statc or letcsoTA. scale 1--20' OATC 5-5-04 DATE 04-030A uw UCCMSC NUMBCe 7 ST jcm Ma 04-030A ___ •• V 1 'sT? i ^ • ^ v: *.vv*> v*-v‘) \‘1^ * • . • V •. •• .1 *. ..•‘*» J •■ • .' i ‘. AWt u;? ^:.A^puNTe.V)5:M^r;gri;:r^!^ — - • V »,.*i«**»** • * .-—'5 ' •* •" * *^*^ ■ * » .*% ,*• *• f • • ** • •. .^m • - ^. V-**, \ , .••-••• .*•/. - *.^r=r-* * . - . S" • ' . ...,•• .^ -^* -------- . .. ----------------- ... y___.. .• •.-- y •. ' * . ; i / /' -JIl- .•* * *'■ ^•*" -V-r> , ...? -"T^ - . • ,. •»* *. -il-:** X ; •• ‘ ■• • •' •'■'•J'. ' . . ■' __^-•••■• . i •i'V'-• •• ‘x;v -L'-'. •-<*^V•=■-.-• • U'--'- -c'--'-'"'.' II, - ^ •.• —••' -•• ■ •tJl- -vT> - P \ • .* j.v?- ' ^ ^ • ?»% r-'T ^ * I y - ^; • .• • y » V - k -• !-;■!..* •' •r% I 4 .-• ; * : • • “:■ • ' . V - • ■•■ ••• • • .*• V .- ./CvA • ... . ‘ i* • • •*—• • •:-I h i- ••■ 1: ^ t I • \r 1 • f USL:.-.yi ■.'«•. * '■.5.-• • » • •.•*.•• •• •...• • » f ' • ••i I •*‘C- **' '•/ t •. K I• • • ' * -I •* *' •*.* »*• - .:\-•• • !•»«• . •*• '. • ,■«• •*;• .: •• y • ^• 1 >''.i V • ' «• . #1 1 • • / •* I • Nri ••»... I . \ V ■ . - •• / . ^ n* i - {i > r'A.-.....-: • •: •• • ..* • . ■■ •.■■■ .‘.V ‘- >>.v% *• •'.’v?;\ ' na4 4 > *• 'i*Ui * *3'■■ :'*: “, '-&w| BM>gsS53 «.'~.«:'•' -y:-ismm M-rm vitr^!?v55L:^j& r^ 45P«r^,-r/i^ lA W .’■*■ . • • * * ■ ' * * ‘ # '.y!r ^ * * ^ • * /V * • ••••• ^/ETLANDI UN3TED STATES DEPAHTMSPJT < rr'? c c A< .’^o <!? D I 02 5 oc ^ ^^:;: P£MD :PG.MC^ ................ n {t< ' ^iipssic PUBGx ■1/0?/ * j V . A Ll 1 HrOlC >V^ l4w |Few£^'^ \ PE*M C ^. cm CD '• * , - - ■*> Jjf■"■■'-■nif, f 3?^ ?eMCe \ ix;ti«?;/ijai-;e .., ------*»*»% '*• * I. • 4k ii,. 'to* WK,i>*>il r ^ ^ ✓? ?,i V J./ C-’ \ . t ^It€ ? r •. ■■Vi- Ll", ^ .-H #> ^ • > * . % « < W •• w * O••• , -.- ,'*i* . ■tt ’<•*^ ^ •• -t X '•• %'• 4 >.• • •S <1 «9 rt % 'C •*» *> %• %* V* **^ — •» . V . ^ ^ ft « 4 v.> > t- •';> *. V . -* O % ■« 4 -. *N • •• •%•» «.• 4>tf> ^ m - .*. N •> ^ C» •*■ •»• •♦• **^ c* .-. •• •.• ••• •»• > > O ***** ’ • ♦- • ■>-•• ' *« > » c • • > •»o V *.» 9 .. .. o < W > *o * #• • ••• ’ ^ 0^41# H •-• < ■ • <»• ■• > ^ . •• • # » •. ^ . - ♦ ••...• .». A • . * .. • ,'S iT ■■•>.• *• • ‘ • ‘ >‘ * V . *» ’*• • •» • ..*• *f o. . «r • # * o *> ry S'*#» •^O «.o .• .• > O •« . « 9o * * *• •-. *-1. .' •% . •• -• .% *• *r *• */> . » • <9 ;• •^ - ^■ > •> E007 *. ^ -* V D008 b02$ * N )004 “C>ri M M •• / *M' ... •• ; <♦;.■ ■• •.' .'4.. <*'• • • V. •* ■ !?■ .* ♦ •% t \DO D052 <0 -yE0(^* ’ » ^^i^unxaam •V W\T 'V . X •H*.'''f'‘-ii':> **••• s V* 'f I ^ * •»> • *♦ ^‘ a'•• . ( %-''rv ''-.-'*ij'->.V - i. J.. :< ■;•: . r.‘-:..• >*? .Viifvv> h- m I ■ ifTi .;,A^ C! ,•••%.' •• ■: ^ V i t -X/V-X-i-! *<•:•;/. *. Is .-y •*V;-M<..^ .* L » vie mo Bof.estrooiflgjg noicnc Antfcrlik & I AssccMtcs Project Name: Bower Property - 1925 Lakeview Terrace Client: City of Orono File No: 139-04-000 To: Michael Gaffron. Planning Director From: John Smyth. Water Resource Specialist Re: Request for Amendment of City Wetland Map Date: May 7. 2004 Remarks: Summary: I have reviewed the packet of informai;on submilled with the application provided by the Bower*s. In addition I have verified with the W'ctland Delineation Consultant for the applicant that the wetland boundaries shown on the map reflect what was slaked m the field. The major change between the City 1974 wetland inventory map (with the 1970 aerial photograph) and existing conditions is a ditch that was constructed along the west and south side of the property. This ditching may have reduced the size of tho wetland basm. Recommended next steps: 1. The applicant should work witli their wetland consultant and provide the City documentation (aenal photographs, etc.) that would prove tliat the ditch was not constructed after 1991. If ditching occurred after 1991 it would be considered a wetland violation and the wetland would need to be restored. 2. If the ditching did not occur after 1991 the applicant should have the wetland boundary reviewed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. An approval letter from the Watershed District should be provided before the requested amendment to the City Wetland Map is approved. Bonestroo, Rosbob, Anderlik and Associates, Inc.WWW bonestroo.CO! *J St. Paul Omca: Fjoi r.iwssm 6S1-63S-1311 J Mllwaukat Offic*: 1516 iVtr. Mequon Read VM Ph30# 262*2^i***5C Fa« r5j-24ia60i J Rochtsttr ORict: 112 7* SuwiKE Rccrttaior f.V4 55500 Ptv>n# 5;7.:52-2'C0 Fa» 5c-T.2e2.51Cv *J WUimar Offict; 2C5 5d» Sut€i 5 .V ua. 56 2C • P?>dnt 3X.2"4.955: Fi« 320.2*4.545« U St. Cloud Offict: 5721 25 ’SuteiS S*. OovC f.W 565:i P>ont S2C.25-.J55i Fa« 52C.25-.-6252 U Grayalakt Offict: tti Eom 6e v<t«^t Ro (Srtysitt'e 'I 60C3C ®wc 647-542.6774 Fa% 1 o o \ >« o^ CITY ©f OEON' Municipal Ofl'ices Street Address; 2/50 Ksi'e/ ParVy<ay Orono. I/N 553:5 Mailing Address; P.O. Sc# 66 Crystal Bay. VN 55223 0':;5 1 CON KR I.KM KR IMcasc deliver the following pa<;c(s) to: Nanu ’: .Mark Riickimin (P.52) 474-'35S.t Trom: Mike t'lalTron, IM.nmiiie l)ircciv>r miinlu'i* ol‘ pajies iiK'liidiii^ this cover letter: Dale: Slav 7. 211114 IK VOt MO NO I Itl ( I INK V t I ’HIK I’ \C.KS, IM f Vsf <• \| I fS \s SOON VS l»()ss|| sir. I’luMK-; t'i52l 24 ‘)-4fiMti and ask for: Mike Ovir r.is number i>»: t‘;52) 24V-4(iK) Additional Mess:»''c: Mark .Ailaelteil are the eontineitls received today iVom Joint Smyth, die City'>» \v etiaiul considlant. 1 le recommeiulh two next steps to Ik Ibllowed by the apiilicaiu in order lor our review to proceed. Mr. Bviwer slioulvl proeeeil with these two steps. At this point, depeiidiny on liow cpiieklv tins intbmialion can Ik* provided hy the applicant, his consultants or the Watershed District, it m.i\ be neecss.iry ti> delay the application to the June IMannine Commission meeting. /Mthoueh we reeentlv sent the Bowers’ a note stating our preliminary conclusion is that the application is complete, this is a unkiuc reiiuesi and 1 cannot yuaranteo you that w e w ill not he reipiesiineLadditional inrormation as our review proeeeils. I w ould note for the record that iVom the City ’s perspective, the approv al letter from the Watershed District that Smyth rel’ers to in Kccommcndation 2 vv ill not in itseirresuli in automatic City approval lor the wetland rev ision and lot area v ariance. We have additional research underw ay to determine whether anv C’ity actions speeirieally allowed the vvetland I'lll. amone other items vv e are I'ollow ine up on thi.s .ipplieaiion. Please Cvmt.tel me at ‘J.52-24 ‘J-4(it)0 if you have any ipiesliuns. and I will contact you ifvvc need additional iid'orination. / Telephone tV52) 249-4600 • Fax t952) 249-4616 wvvv.cl.erom>.ir.n.u.s I f ( f r. r Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecological Solutions to Environmental Challenges Lakes • Strtan^s • Ripxnan • Wetlands • W'aicrshcds 2116 Marquis Road Golden Valley. MN 55427 TclcphoncTax: (*^63) 545-0912 o^ver Lakeview Terrace Site Orono, Minnesitin i.tf Mr. Ilaroltl Hoover Wetland Delineation Report November 18, 2002 Number: 02120UB P\ r . •• ^ f ■ Bower Lakeview Terrace Site Orono. Minnesota Mr. Harold Bower prepared by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Number: 02120HB The Bower Lakeview Terrace Site is in the NW/4 of the SEli ol'Scclion 27. Township T. I IS N.. R.inge R. 23 W.. Orono. Hennepin County. Minnesota. The parcel is located adj;iceni to .and south of Lakeview Tcrr.iee. just ea.st ofNoilh Ikown Road ju.si south of County Road 6. •Adjacent land usaj:e is residential homesites. woodl.nnd aitd wetl.ind. I hia parcel was primarily wooded with pioneer trees such .ns box elder .niul coiiumviu'd.s alonu with tite dclineatCil wetlai'.d. The purpose oflhis project was to e.vamine the site for wetlaml eondilion.s and del.neaie them Ihe Results section deserilies the wetland coiuliiioiis ohseincd on t!ie site ■fho wetl.ind delineation was performed on November 2. 2<J02 under frost-lVee aiul snow -less conditions by Robeit J.T. .Merila, I'njJcssioiHtl U'etUuht Sciemist. MclIioUolouvo • In Minnesota, wetlands arc under tw o jurisdictions: State and Tederal. The Slate jurisdiction Sjuidclincs were set by the Minnesota Welland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA). 1 bis Slate jurrsdicliou is administered by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) with technical uuid.inee provided by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The Federal jurisdiction is administered by the U S. Anny Coqis of Engineers (COC or Corps). Siartinij in 1990, both jurisdictions agreed to use the Corps of Cr.^inens Wcilund Ddnuanon Manual (Environmental Laboratory. 19S7) along with supplemental guidance by the Corps. This manual is commonly referred to as the 1987 Manual. The wetland delineation method used on this site was the Plant Community Assessment Procedure of the Roulme Onsite Dclcnninalion Method. The Routine Onsite Detemtination Cop>Tlght G 2002, Aquatic EcoSolutions. Inc. (•CotogiCiitSotuiioHS to r.nt ironmcntcICiiattcn^cs Page I of 4 . I r Bo'vcr Lakevicw Terraco Site Number 02120IIU Fonns (located in the back of the report) detail the tlirce technical criteria (hydroplutic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) as described in the 19S7 Manu.al. The wetland edae(s) were delineated where one. two. or all three of these technical criteria drop out. In order to expedite regulatory review, some wetlasul edges were delineated such that the hvdroloiiv criterion was not met below ilte delineated edee. A\. some time in the future, th.e landowner may choose to have the hydrology criterion below the delineated edges examined more closely in order to “tighten tip" a wetland edge that was staked high. This detailed hydrologic study w.i.s not part of this wetland delineation. .•\t least one sample point transect peivendicularly cro.<scs each delineated edge. These transects consist ofune sample point above the edge, oite sample point below the edge, and there may be one alonu th.e edee. .•\ Umitinc Onsite Determination I’orm tdat.t ronn) was completed for each of the s,.::i;;)'.e p.ii:*.. loeations. I he data t'omis de.senbe the plant commttniiy. soils inronnation. and itydroi«v.:ic indicators at each sample point. Sample points are labeled a.s follows: SPZ-TM.OW 2 basin or eilve mmilier 1 the lirst transect for iliis edge (the second wijiild he “2") I.O\N’ -th.e sample point below the cvlge CT.'I’" i.s aliovc the edge) (additional points on a transect would lie "l.OWZ." "l.;l’2," and so ott) I'laiu species on the data fonns were listed hy common names, seieiuil'ie names, stratum, pereetr. cover for that stratum, and the species hvdrohytie iiulieator status. I he delineated wetland edges were stakevl with sei|uentially numlicred four-foot wooden lath and orange or pink “Wetland Boundary" llagging. '1 he numliered side tvpically faces toward the upland sivle of the edge. Striped llagging may he tied to vegetation if the lath is tough to see. Blue and white striped Hugging was tied on tlte lath wh.ieh marl; the transect sample point.;. IT.e inimbers on lath placed at the cilge or below typically face toward upland, while sample poini.'t oil the upland side of tito edge generally f.iee toward the delineated edge. Copvright © 2002. Aquatic CcoSoluiior.s. Ir.c. Eju/ox'iCi.'/ Saluiians tu EnnrnnniCKul ChcIU ’n^cs Page 2 of 4 ti Bower Lakeview Terrace Site Number 02120HB Results One basin edge was delineated on the parcel. The specific location of this edge can be obtained from the surveyor who located it. According to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) I’rotcctcd \\'atcr Inventory (PWl) of Hennepin County (Sheet 1 of 4). no “Protected Waters" were mapped on or adjacent to the parcel. The National Wetland.': Inventor) (N'WI) (Excelsior, MN) does not show any wetl.ind polygons identified on the parcel. The Soil .Survey of Hennepin County (page 43) identifies the soils on the parcel. The data fonns describe the soil information along the edges. Soils mapped on the Soil Survey 'nehide: Ed Fill Kind Since the road and housed in this area were vi.sible on the h.iekground .leri.il photograph hehnat the .Soils infomiaiion (lialeil l‘ki‘)), thi.s ’’Fill land ” designation oeeurred well hel'ore l‘)‘Jl. It appears that Basin I may have been creaieil by the vivcrland llowage of impervious run'OlV lVo:u the road.sides. driveways, aitd rovti'tops. Slonm'. liter man.igemcnt plans were not nearly a> elVective then as they are now in retaining siorittwater to pre\eni uninieniion.tl wetland.: iVom developing on nearby land. In the western portion of the parcel and aUmg a ptuiion of the soulltern edge of the parcel, a diiehed drainii'gcway was oh.served. I his draina'geway was not delineated hec.iuse it appeared he within a drainage easement. Hasi n Description Basin I was a T\pc 2 (PU.M IB) wetland dominated by reed canary grass along with smite lake sed'ae and u few red-osier douwood shrubs. The adjacent upland wa.s dominated by great burdock. Pennsylvania sedge, wild geranium, Can.ula goldenrod. and ground ivy ground eo\er; black raspberr)'. lanarian hoi eysuekle, conniKm buckthorn, anil prickly ash shrubs; and cottonw ood, box elder and slippery elm trees. Slippery elm and alder buckthorn were obscix ed along live edge. CopjTight © 2002, Aquatic UcoSolutions. Ine t.CiituniCmlbvlutioni W tn\ ironn:i;r,icl ChaUciscs Page 3 of 4 atfOiJjhaii A Bower Lakeview Terrace Site Number 02120HB Conclusion This wciland examination, delineation, and report of the Bower Lakeview Terrace Site was performed in accordance with the generally accepted methodology of the 19S7 Manual at the time of the scrs iccs rendered. No warranty, express or implied, is made. If unavoidable impacts arc planned for this project, pennits or exemptions from State (WC.\. DNR. Watershed District). Federal (Corps), and or other applicable entities need to be granted before the impacts occur. The wetland delineation report was prepared by Robert J.F. Merila. Pro/c.vsiuiutl U'altnul Scicnlisi '4 1030. U / /b Robert J.F. Merila. PWS ?JI030 l^rojl's^iDthit Scu'iinsi Associiirc rtslit.'rii’s Sciauisi Aquatic KcoSolulions, Inc. Date Cop>Tight © 2002, Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. EcQlojfiCiit SoUiiioiii to Environn-.eiujt Chatlungcs Pace 4 of 4 f ♦ Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecolosical Solutions to Eovaronmcntal Cballenges Lakjs • Streams • Ripanan • Wcilands • Waicrshcds DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE W3tlands Delineation Manual) -I I6 Marujls Kijaj Golden Vallay. MN 5542* TcIcphor.c.Tax: (6;2i 5«i5-Ov • ?rc]»ct/Sile: «->^y .*tw S;. JS Date:\i /'^ /o u- J ApcJ'caniyOwner: o ()County:h 1• .'•vesligatcr:State:.^/VJ • Cc Normal Circumstances exist cr. tre site? Yes No ^Communiry !D 1 ••• ‘ ts the Site signTicantly -disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transec;t ID;1 •• I *.s the area a pcicnttal Problem Area (explain cn back)? Yes No v»Plot :0:o ^• 1 « VEGETATION ^ ------f c-L TJ> i /• 2cmiranl Plant Scecies (Sc.ertir-c Name) Corr.mon Nsrr.e Slraium % Ceve.-'rd*C3*rr : • J J 'i. C-N ^•>/. 'T ^ •S' \ J ^ • • ” *'W ^ *s 3 ^ .0 'j5ZIZ^* * • 4 ■yi **1 'Z • •♦ , * % ^ t_y •* ^ ^ «p (».. ^ ^ ^ r ~ "*\ ^•2-r T • *1 iAi , #. y ✓ '-•k / ,*o f* i' \52ilZ. : * * ' •.?• 1 j Percent of Ccm.inori Soecea ihat are CEL. FACWcr FAC (excluding PAC-)- 1 a i 1• 1 P.trrarks: 1 1 1• t HYDROLOGY i w j___Recorded Cala (Cescribe in Rerr.arks): J Wellard nydrolo^y Indicators: Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Prmary Irdicaicrs:Secondary lndicators^2 or mere redv^-reci: ) Aerial Pholcgraphs Inundated Oxidized Root Channels (Uocer *»2 ‘ ether 1 ^ No Recorded Data Ava.’able 1 Saturated in Upper ^2*V*aief.Siaineo Leaves 1 Water Marks Local Survey Data Orifl Lines FAC-Neutral Test 'ieltf Observatioas:Sediment Deposits Other (Expiam in Rem.arks) Depth to Surface Water.(in) Drainage Patterns m Wetlands • Depth to Free Water in Pit:(in.) Depth to Saturated Soil:fin) —. HemarVs: • m J • ' r Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecological Solutioos to Eo%'ironmcotal Challeoges Lakts • Streams • Ripansn • Wetlands • Vi'aiersheds DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ('1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) 2110 Marc'jis Goldin Vjlijy. MS <54;? TeUphonc.Tax; |6l2i 54j.0 ‘>i; Ffc:ec‘./Si'.e: —SiT^Date:i^ ^ / O 7.^•iI -C3:.c3r70wr.er o.*.-.-"Ccunh/;M i irvcsiigsicr;Slate: Yes No Ccmnr.unity ID:\1 •s tre s.t-a signir.canUy disturbed (Atypical Situaticn)?Yes No X Trarsect ID:1 1 s tre area a potential Probiem Area (explain cn back)?Yes No V PIci iO:L I • VCGETATION C c__/4p>, r*rast STJBKarm* *: :r'iran; .=*<ar.: Sccc.es (Scientific Narr.e) Common Marr.o Stratum I s Cover Vd cn*:* t % 9 <H <:> . • m 9 • m 0 f V j • cS^ 1 , • •1 1 •t11• • • « m- L of Corr.irani Gpeciers ihal are OGL. nACWcr FAC (excluding FAC-). . -^ernarvs tfmnssjTT HYDROLOGY __Pecorded Data (Describe in Remarks): ___ Siream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ___ Aerial Phonographs Olhc*' » No ?.ecorded Da‘a Ava 'atlc 1 Field Observations: i Depih to Surface Water, '^epih to Free Water in Pit: ^epth to Saturated Soil: (in.) On.) (in.) V/ei!and Hydrolcgy indicoters: Primary Indicators: ___ Inundated ___ Saturated in L'pper 12* ___ Water Ma^’ka ___ Drift Lines ___ Sediment Deposits ___ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary lndicators(2 or mere rec jired)* * ____ Ox.dized Root Channels ('Jccer 12'; ___ Water-Stained Leave: ____ Lccal Sup/ey Data ____ FAC-Neutral Test . Other (Explain in Rerrarks; Remarks: r*,-:v*r class as apercenti^se: 5 • r5-1COVs; £»75-S5r;; 4 « £0-75Vs; 3 » 2£*=:V,; 2 • c-ZSV,: 1 • v-SV: ' * •-» •. *. •' ■' rg f II* * ,*l ‘ *‘ ••k- ■ mocKro^o t re? 30a » Nationnl Wctlaiul Invcntorv» I s l iNh and NN ildlit ’c Scr\ ico U ScaUl T.N Boucr Lakes iinv Terrace Site Aquatic LcoSolutions. Inc. f m mi-,i <yV >:^\ mm #«,«;m “M —^ ;• <. / Approximate Kd”e Location I S Gcoluj^icnl Survey tN *r * S.unpiL* I’uint I r-.msccl Bon er LaUeview Terrace Site \quatic KcoSolutions. Inc. ?^4r nnepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department 4«f T? • P^VSO.39 'ERGREEN fVDGE U7 (25) s Mtaurii^w art r$ §nu tm • -• ■ 'jif ^ * *^yt ^"i‘ • f 'i-i^M'<ld0aia^ftpm Citf\Coanty^^nfi Stalt'roa^.6'uih60iasjandoth9rBM^^ "' ifli RUNOA PROPADDR OWNER NAME taxpayer name /addr 38 27II82)1»00IS 2020 SAI^ CT IZADELU.SIIPAKOV IZABELLA STIPAKOV 2020 SALEM CT LONGUKEMN 55J56 31 27II823<2000I PROPADDR 18*0 SIXTHAVEN PROP ADDR OWNER NAME taxpayer name /addr 38 2;1I821'I20007 1940 UKEVIbWTCR EVELW E ROSS EVELYN E VOLOY 1960 LAKEVIEW TER long lake MN iSJ50 38 2711B254200IJ PROPADDR 1080 DROW19 RUN OWNER NAME HAROLD E ROWER CTAL “XIycr HAROLD rUOWLR NAMI/ADDR 1080 N drown RD NAMI/ADDR j^o^olakcmn 38 7711823420016 =r =5|=« name /addr 1845 UKLVIEWterNAML/ADDK j5,j6 31 2711873420019 pkoi a GDR 1020 brown RDNr,“r' H8NNEWCW VmPOKMAT,ONSVS«M CAGE: I . property 38 2711823310016 taxpayer robot IlIRSCHBERG NAMWADDR 20805ALfMCT long LAKE MN 55156 38 271iS;3120005 PROPAODR 1060 drown IU3N OWNER NAME J&LLUCAS taxpayer iOSf'’'* ^ 38 2711823420008 PHOP ADDR 1900 LAKEVII.W lER owni ;r name ;t i kosciollka d or ek taxpayer rvJKOSCIOLEK&DKUSnOLCK NAME/AOm long lake MN 55156 38 2711821420014 PROPADDR >925 LAKEVIEV/ILR OWNER NAME HAROI 0 E HOWLR & WIFE taxpayer HAROLDE BOWER NAME/ADDR 'O*® N long LAKE K.N 55)56 38 2/11121420017 PROPADDR 1920 l-OUNTRY CLUB RD LTIH?rDE.!i^KAHMCAmT£N name /addr 1920COUNTRVCI^UBRD long LAKE MN 55J5u 38 7711121420020 PHOP ADDR 1965 COUNTRY CLUB RD OWNER NAME PATRICIA A MONDALE taxpayer PATRICIA A (MOHOAU)CONNER NAML/AODK 1965 country club RD LONG lake MN 55356 3B 27n82)3»W)2!> PROP ADDR 2085 SIXTH AVF. N OWNER name JOHNR&f’'ANCJMARE5H taxpayer johnradianlimaresh name /addr 2085 sixth AVEN ORONOMN 55156 38 271182)470006 PROP ADDR I960 UKLVIEW TER OWNER name EVELYN cross EVELYN E VOLUY I960 UKEVILW TER LONGUKEMN 55356 \ TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR C.^ 38 2711823470009 PROPADDR I860 UKEVILW TER OWNER NAME C D LEWIS* J LEWIS TAXPAYER CHRISTOPHER i iODI LEWIS I860 UKEVILW TLR long LAKE MN 55)56 ( } name /aodr 38 2711873420015 PR0PADE>R 1865 LAKLVIEWTER OWNER name SMERII.VN DEANE ASKE ItEMICK TAXPAYLR SHERILYN DEANE ASKE RLMICK name /addr l865UK£Vli.V/lET LONG LAKE MN 55)56 38 27IIB2I4200I8 PROPADDR 1940 COUNIRV CLUB W) OWNER NAME MJWSMnUAMFSMITH taxpayer MARVIN I WSMMH name /addr 1940country club RO LONGUKEMN 55)56 38 271182)420022 PROPADDR 1870 SIXTH AVEN OWNEF NAME P (• * M H HERNA’ DE A 1AXP A YE!' P*"*-"* O A MARY H HERNANDEZ name /addr I8/0CORDNO6 ORONOMN 55356 c !tJ RUN DATE :3/JW<W 38 27MB234300W PROPAOOR I925 COUNTRYCLUBRD ^a S^Id DR IMSCOUNTRVCLUBW) NAME/ADDR 55JJ6 PAGE: 2 I CERTIFY THATTHE FAm ON THE RECORDSrTSSS*SYTSsS.t^ceS ^FARTAFENT. TO^E REST OFMV KNOWLEOGEANDDEUEF.^^^^ OV by EFrr.TOTHEBEST ^ f . -k/ iV: r.w« « ^ o ■"¥^1 j.-F... fl l' •• h .p„aNIPROPE»noW»»^cK.0«ltl»™.»'-»» I (-1 Ci .*,-«) s;5:rKt"pS;j^ —•' Council 0ppiov«L j^oporty CMnef it.fjr^Ji/. Data Property 0»»i«r fifV/t /u. >.»ey Oalt #«»«•••*••••♦♦••• »•«•••••••<•«••••••••• l(W«)[pfinl 8(Wfes^)Jpflot n8fnt(»)l m.A imfvnwMnffnt of ufOpo»«d ii%« ol lh« locatod a! hav* iovto»«d the P*^“ lo «* Und Uso Applicalion No---------------_• I (wc) •?'tauaatyC»>nci that I (wc) Council appfO¥#l. Piupeity Ownti Dil« f’rnptf^ Owntf Data 7"So;;’s;uXi«C JkJ, to Iho ochorMwl drt*. j^^nnn> ADJACENT PKOPtRTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEOCEMENT EORM Ol /e(e\i^)_^L±L—k±j!±(poni addressi(prml namei^)] have .pviev.ta U» plan* <« i"* n«nPO«^ iovov®"*”!" “*"'' ** / J refened lo as Load Use /^pfccalion No.--------------• I undcjsland lhal in eiecuting INs seknowtodgemenL I (we) am (me) ifxt if «.*r«vowAt of ihe DroDCfiy Of use but niefdy lo confuni kif the City Coonol Ibal I (wa) r'(".toi sr.h;Cv^n* -«i «•»' »•« -‘a'''**** o' ““ Counul ap(iiavi)l. l(>«>) IpivtI namc(s)|Ipnni aUdffSsl bjvt lewiewed Ibe plans hr the proposed arpeovemeni or proposed use of Oie pfoperty locaied at rafoned lo as land Us. ApplK:ai.an No---------------. I (wft und«sUod (hat In cnenHinQ iNs aclnoWedgemenl, I (w.) am (aro) noi asked lo awKOval Of (ksaurfoval of lf*e pfopeny or use t?ul merdy lo cnnfinn lof Uve City Cwrioi dial I (wf ) jriaie! "^“3 Ih. inipfovemart plans ar^ lha. the proposed nekjhbor's pri^eU or uso lequlies Council #pp<oval. PfOp«tyOsoer Date H you ha.* any inkwnrton lha! may assist ^ “ AhScaljoo. ptea»e *i4wi« your comrwss lo »i* Buttna 4 Zoning EJ«ice al fcaU 10 day* |KwiuU«Kh*<hilcdii«*lkigd*ia _________ 5-'/J Vdf-< / D d< - I IN") ^ I'iCV ^ fiV* Lwcxitt,- ■Mtn*| I (M) I«IWI«> M' •■ *!?,2ibut ^»• owcwadl ----- y prtof to lf» AOJACeNT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEOGEMEHT fORM Cv^appnK"* 4.. /^ieJ^___fiLril--------- M-V'C'.'l mmiL. adjacent property OWNERS' ACKNOWtEOCEMEMT »OHM a rc.-*!T^f Ctv3 ^ I (wt) i»i.j:«iL.i ")£!-- ^2^ Iprinl n»me(s))(pnni addfoss) Coundl approval. . ;I< . Pi^eityOwnof loooitvOvier ■ ua Dale Pfoparty ZONING REGULATIONS § 7S-U10 T defined and established to be the low areas and floodplain adjoining and including any water course or drainage way or body of water subject to periodic flooding or overflow. These areas are divided into the following three protected area\// distnets: (1) Floodway district (FW). The floodway dis trict shall include those areas designated as floodway in the flood insurance study, including without limitation the surface and shoreline of Lake Minnetonka below elevation 929.4 MSL, the surface and she re line of other lakes, ponds and wetlands below the ordinary high water elevation, and the designated floodway of all streams and flowage areas. (2) Flood fringe district (FFD), The flood fringe district shall include those areas desig nated as floodway fringe in the flood in surance study, including without limita tion the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevations 929.4 MSL and 9ol 5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands contain ing soil types classified as wetlands soils, whether or not there is water standing on these soils at any given time. (3) General floodplain district CGFPJ. The gen eral floodplain district shall in lude those areas studied by approximate methods and designated as unnumbered A zones by the flood insurance rate map. GFP areas may include both floodway and flood fringe areas. Development of lands con taining designated GFP areas shall be contingent upon submittal by the devel oper of topographic data (at contour inter vals oi uc greater than two feet) and/or other engineering analysis sufficient for the city to determine the actual extent of the floodway and/or the flood fringe. Upon such determination, the restrictions of the FW and FFD districts shall apply. (Code 1984, § 10.55(4)) Cross reference—Definitions generally, 5 1-2, Sec. 7S-1109. Official flood protection maps. (a) The boundaries of the floodplain and wetlands conservation areas shall be and are designated as shown on one or more of the follow- ing official maps: (1) Those areas designated and shown as stream, lake, marsh, wooded marsh, sub merged marsh, inundation area, intermit tent lake or intermittent streams by the United States Department of the Interior, through the Geological Survey on maps and supporting data designated as Mound Quadrangle. Minnesota [NW/4 Lake Min netonka (1958)1 and Excelsior Quadran gle, Minnesota (NW/4 Lake Minnetonka (1953)]. (?> Those areas designated and shown as wetlands soil types on the wetlands inven tory and classification aerial plat map overlays prepared by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District (June, 1975). (3) Those areas designated and shown as general floodplain, floodway or flood fringe by the Federal Insurance Administration on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps, Orono, Minnesota, and Flood Ir.sur ance Rate Maps, Orono, Minnesota, datec October 17. 1978. Specifically included ii the explanatory material and tabular in formation contained in the Federal Insur ance Administration Flood Insurance Stud; for Orono, Minnesota, dated April 1973. (b) The maps and studies designated in sal section (a) of this section are adopted by referenc as the official maps for the establishment of tt floodplain and wetlands conservation areas an are made a part of this article as if fully set out: this lecticn. At least one copy of each official ms shall be kept on file in the office of the cler administrator and shall be available for pub! review during ail normal office hours. (Coda 19S4, § 10.55(5)) Sec. 78-1110. Zoning use districts. The zoning use districts as designated on \ official zoning map shall remain unchanged w CD7S:171 i 78-1110 ORONO CITY CODE >N1 i.the adoption of this article. The provisions of this aiticle, including the designation of floodplain and wetlands conservation areas, shall be in addition to all other provisions of this chapter. Whenever conflicts occur between other provi sions of this chapter and provisions of this article, the most restrictive provision shall prevail. (Code 19S4, § 10.55(6)) Sec. 78-1111. Regulatory flood protection el evation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be dn elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encioachinents on the floodplain. (1) The regulatory flood protection elevation within the floodway and flood fringe dis tricts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the base flood water surf-’ce eleva tions within floodway listed in the flcodway data table contained in the flood insur ance study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross sections shall be interpolated. (2) The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. (3) The regulatory flood protection elevation within the general floodplain district shall be calculated by a qualified registered professional engineer in accordance with procedures set forth in this article. (Code 1934, § 10.55(7)) Sec. 78-1112. Development restricted; prohi bition. Except as specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hard cover, tempo rary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be al lowed within the floodplain and wetlands conser vation area; nor on any lands within 26 feet of such area; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shore line, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting the area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in. this article and the preservation of those consei-vation areas in their natural state. (Code 1984, § 10.55(8)) Sec. 7S-1113. Floodway district (FW). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the floodway dis trict to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other provision this Code and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other provisions of this Code or reg ulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation, the Min nesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addi tion, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system; and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground- water runoff or the quality of the natural environ ment. Permitted uses, when in conformance with this chapter, are: a.Agricultural uses, such as pasture, grazing and wild crop harvesting. b. Fish and wildlife sanctuaries. c. d. e. f. g Recreational uses, such as fishing accesses, unpaved hiking, biking, horseback or nature trails, and pic nic areas. Residential uses, such as lawns and gardens, provided no filling, gradmg or hard cover is involved. Seasonally installed residential boat docks for single-family dwellings. Natural stone riprap shoreline pro tection. Sand beach blankets meeting the requirements of the department of natural resources regulation 6MCAR15021B. CD78:172 ‘•-...I. - 4 ^ — I '1QT3 I ................ 6 OL.M\^r\ I ur,.*** / ROADWAY ivirxiMi iwuu RIM=( 1014.46' lNV=h 004.44 ‘■Wu WV‘-Cl0U3.y y ^<^^slrJz^50.30 ' f I ' 11 ' I. 11 I 1 I I /: 15 ‘3o 00 (a----- N r ’925 22 I * I r 22 ^ { *' I I* I I' I I' I : I’ I ' I' ' I'f' I o WETLANDS STAKE.-' •i^ QT^TLANO. DELINLTH W TESTING'' ')c> -r* • / ^0-H- '2:£-'?0.n■Qo y ^ y ‘V , ^ V. 5o'»«9o •* ‘I ■I 6 ^ •V .< ADDRESS^ .-C/ ,A /v? / .'x^test #2! ^ V‘> 'll'' 1.... I.....fv\ \y'yjiLiTY ease^ts ' 'i''V.‘ ------—I""”'. V •-----L :'0 y->- W TEST M^OLE |3 *•. / 5*^00 *'/ ^ m f ^ < i ;f / / w' ✓ / I / m — —/ / * #/ _ t m fV /\*• r m / / CO . - ^ ••'25 ”".:;'i •% - 3-V.7.‘ " T -^oo& -'•• I I - - -i :lub addition N 87“34' 50" W 124.00 ipos- -O/>&nrr?o^- V - \ ~1'. '■— ---------- *'- -llUj '\TT\~\ .1 / Ja.. V 176. C m ^76. 600^ /2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION n/ircTiMrj ocr 2 5 2004 CITY OF OHUnO Date: October 21,2004 Item No.: Department Approval; Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^04-3024B Proposed Zoiung Code Amendment: Section 78-1577(C)2a - Large Vehicle Storage - Ordinance List of Exhibits A - Draft ordinance amendment A • PC Memo and Exhibits of October 15,2004 Application Summary: This ordinance amendment would allow for continued large-vehicle storage by those property owners on 2-acre to 5-acre lots who have previously stored such vehicles, subject to a one-time permit, and subject to generally the same conditions as established for lots of 5 acres or larger. ______________ Planning Commission Recommenaation: Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 18. No members of the public wished to comment. Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend adoption of the amendment with minor revisiens which have been incorporated into the attached draft dated 10-21-04 (Exhibit A). Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Conunissioi i recommendation, fmding that ♦he Pennit Option does not establish the permanency of use for a property that would accompany a fonnal Conditional Use Permit, v hile accomplishing the CounciEs intended goal ofproviding some relief for pre-existing users.______________________________________ Please revit-A’ the memo and exhibits of October 15. At tlic request of Council, Planning Commission and staffhavc further explored the options for allowing pre-existing users to continue to store large vehicles on properties that are between 2 acre*’ and 5 acres in area. Staff and Plamting Commission have concluded that while a Conditional Use Permit might be an appropriate method to control such use, the two negative aspects of CUP’s arc that they should be used only for uses that arc generally acceptable in r district under certain conditions, and that they go with the land, not the property owner. These two aspects seem to be in conflict with the City’s end goal of not having large vclticle storage on small to medium sized lots continue forever. However, establishing a one time, non-transferable ‘storage permit’ that only pre-existing users would be eligible for, solves this problem. i'm •I «04-3024B Large Vehicle Storage October 21,2004 Page 2 Planning Commission has reviewed the variety of options considered over the past 10 months, and has concluded that the currently proposed ‘Tennit Option” is relatively workable, provides the opportunity for most existing users to continue their existing large vehicle storage as long as they meet minimum standards that protect the integrity of neighborhoods, and does not establish the permanency that would accompany a CUP. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review the proposed Zoning Code Amendment, and if it is acceptable, direct staff to place it in adoption format for formal adoption at your November 8 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED E)etermine whether the proposed amendment is ^propriate and whether it meets Council’s goals and intent for large vehicle storage. If so, a motion to direct staff to bring tiiis back for formal approval on November 8 would be in order. fiiiiiifiiimitiai I ■i PERMIT OPTION: 78-1577 Page 2 2) Riir.h nerniit shall be granted o nlv to the current property pwper .and »niv for tt« snerific vehicle appH«H for. The current owneiup; rpnlace the vehicle in kind, hut shall not add other such vehicle?. AlD! replaceSt vehicle must he registered with the City within 30 daysto transfer its permitted status. 2} This nermit shall not aoDlv to subsequent property owners, Subsequent property owners shall not be conride red as having a gandfathered permit hv virtue of their predecessor ’s permit, ^ This permit shall automatically and permanently expire if the vehicle storage is voluntarily discontinue d for a period of one yeai;. MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Mike Gaffron, Planning Director October 15, 2004 #04-30248 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Section 78-1577(c) - Consider CUP for Vehicle Storage (>14,000 Ibi GV\V) on Residential Property Attachments A - Revised PERMIT OPTION Amendment of 78-1577(c) B - Memo and Exhibits of October 1,2004 At your October work session, Planjiing Commission reviewed the ‘‘permit option” for addressing large vehicle storage and concluded tliis was superior to the CUP option. Your comments included a request to revise the proposed language sliglitly to require registration of any replacement vehicle that is acquired under a storage pennit. Such language has been added to the draft amendment, Exhibit A. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Planning Commission make a recommendation to Council for adoption of Uie proposed amendment to Section 78-1577(c) regarding c.\terior storage in R Disti icts, to establish a one time pemiit for pre-existing users to continue the storage of large vehicles under prescribed conditions. PERMIT OPTION: 78-1577 would be revised as follows:REVISED 10-15-04 Section 78-1577. Exterior Storage in R Districts. (c) Vehicle Storage. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the City shall be operable and currently licensed. The parking of vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in “R’ districts is regulated as follows: (1.) Parking of vehicles other than recreational vehicles, with a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 14,000 pounds or less is allowed in all “R” districts. (2.)Parking of vehicles in "R” districts in excess of 14,000 pounds GVW has the potential to create potential negative impacts on the suiTOunding neighborhood. These impacts may include noise (from operation as well as maintenance of vehicle): vibration: glare: odors: soil/water contamination (from dripping, washing. etc.I: hazards to pedestrians by wav of proximity, especially on private roads: wear & tear on local or private roads: propensity to offload remaining cargo on site at end of dav: and visual incompatibility with the character of a neighborhood. Such use may be acceptable under certain conditions in zoning districts where lot areas are generally 2 acres or larger. Therefore, parking of such vehicles requires each of the following conditions be met: (Re-ordered a-g) a. b. c. d. e. f. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. Vehicle Mmust not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is prefened. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time; and In a shared driveway situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed by all cunent driveway users. Minimum lot size of 5 acres. For anv property at least 2 acres but less than 5 acres in area, where it can be shown that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and after .lanuarv 1. 2004. a Vehicle Storage oennit may be granted if the above conditions a. through f are met, subject also to the following limitations: A Vehicle Storage Permit may only be issued for properties within the RR-IB. RR-1 A. and LR-1A zoning districts. 2)Such pennit shall be granted only to the current property owner and only for the specific vehicle applied for. The current owner mav replace the vehicle in kind, but shall not add other such vehicles. Anv replacement vehicle must be registered with the City within 30 davs to transfer its permitted status. This permit shall not apply to subsequent property owners. Subsequent property owners shall not be considered as having a grandfathered perm t bv virtue of their predecessor’s permit. n:) MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Mike Gaffron, Planning Director October 1, 2004 #04-30246 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Section 78-lS77(c) - Consider CUP for Vehicle Storage (>14,000 lbs GVVV) on Residential Property Attachments A - Revised Draft (10*1-04) Revisions to 78-1577 B - Memo and Exhibits of September 17,2004 At your September 20 meeting. Planning Commission reviewed and then tabled the draft ordinance amendment for allowing large vehicle storage as a conditional use. Your comments included: -the CUP should be tailored to the specific cuiTent ow ncr and vehicle, and should not be a right that goes with the propeily when its sold; and the owner should be able to replace the vehicle in kind, but not add vehicles. I have drafted language that adds these provision, and it’s being forwarded io the City Attorney for comment. Hopefully I will have his thoughts on it for the work session. ‘Pemtit” Option for Consideration . Despite tlie City Attorney ’s conclusion that a CUP is tne appropriate tool for dealing with the existing i«ers, staffis still reluctant to define large vcliiclc parking by pre-existing users as a ‘conditional use’, because tlie CUP is usually reserved for activities that are generally acceptable in a district and applicable to any property. Further, because a CUP generally goes with the property, not the applicant, offering it only to current users for their current vehicles would seem to be a misuse of the CUP. So, what haven’t we tried yet? 1 low about simply a one-time ‘large vehicle parkingpennit’ that can be revoked if at some future time the required conditions are not met. We would use the same set of conditions as we would have established for the CUP, including the limitation to only pre-existing users, but sunply require a permit rather than a CUP. The review process would be administrati\ e, not invoU ing PC or Council, nor requiring a public hearing, although an option would be to require tliat these be reviewed by Council before issuance. A possible downside is the lackofnotification to neiglilxirs if there is no hearing process. If an applicant was denied by staff because one or more conditions could not be met, this could trigger a public hearing. Submitted for vour consideration... A- (10-1 revisioDS are io &o/rf italic iinderliiie) 9-17-04 Draft revisions to 78-1577 re; vehicle storage • I Section 78-1577. Exterior Storage in R Districts. (c) Vehicle Storage. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the City shall be operable and cutTcntly licensed. The parking of vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in “R” districts is regulated as follows: (1.) Parking of vehicles other than recreational vehicles, with a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 14,000 pounds or less is allowed in all “R” districts. (2.)Parking of vehicles in “R” districts in excess of 14,000 pounds GVW has the potential to create potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. These impacts may include noise (from operation as well as maintenance of vehicle): vibration: glare: odors: soil.^water contamination (from dripping, washing, etc.): hazards to pedestrians bv wav of proximity, especially on private roads: wear & tear on local or private roads: propensity to offload remaining cargo on site at end ofdav: and visual incompatibility with the character of a neighborhood. Such use may be acceptable under certain conditions in zoning districts where lot areas are generally 2 acres or larger. Therefore- parking of such vehicles requires each of the following conditions be met: a. Minimum lot size of 5 acres. For anv property at least 2 acres but less than 5 acres in area, where it can be shown that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and after January 1.2004, a Vehicle Storage conditional use permit mavbe granted subject to the conditions established for such conditional use pennit if allowed in the respective zoning district in which the property is located. b. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. c. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. d.Vehicle Mrnust not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is preferred. c. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building, f. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time; and g'In a shared drix eway situation, the City must have on file an a^eement signed by all current driveway users. /I-I4 HtvlMd 10-1-04 Draft language for CUP entry to be added to appropriate residential districts (RR-IB, RR- lA, LR'IA, i.e. the 2-acre and 5-acre zones): (10-1 revisions are in bold italic underline) • / • f -y 1/ 78-XXXX. Conditional Uses. m Vehicle Storage. The storage or parking of one or more vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVWl in excess of 14.000 pounds on a property at least 2 acres but less than 5 acres in area, where it can be shown that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and afier January 1. 2004. Approval shall be conditioned on the following: & No such use shall be allowed on a lot less than 2.0 acres in area. ^ Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. Vehicle must be set back 50(7)_____feet from property lines. d.Vehicle Mmust not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets: vegetative screening is preferred. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. f The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at anv time: and In a shared driveway situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed bv all current driveway users. This conditional use permit if eranted shall be sranted only to the current owner and only for the specific vehicle applied for. The current owner mav replace the vehicle in kind, but shall not add other such vehicles. This conditional use permit shall not apply to subsequent property owners. Subsequent property owners shall not be considered as having a erandfathered use bv virtue of their predecessor ’s use. PERMIT OPTION: 78-1577 would be revised as follows: Sectiuii 78-1577. Exterior Storage io R Districts. / - 2. ! 0 - / • (c) Vehicle Storage. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the City shall be operable and currently licensed. The parking of vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in “R” districts is regulated as follows: (1.) Parking of vehicles other than recreational vehicles, with a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 14,000 pounds or less is allowed in all “R" districts. (2.) Parking of vehicles in “R” districts in excess of 14,000 pounds GVW has the potential to create potential negative impacts on the surrounding nciehborhood. These impacts may include noise (from operation as well as maintenance of vehicle): vibration: glare; odors: soil/water contamination (from dripping, washing, etc.h hazards to pedestrians bv wav of proximity, especially on private roads: wear & tear on loca> or private ro ads: propensity to offload remaining cargo on site at end of dav: and visual incompatibility with the character of a neighborhood. Such use mav be acceptable under certain conditions in zonine districts where lot areas are generally 2 acres or larger. Therefore, parking of such vehicles requires each of the following conditions be met: (Rc-oidcr a-g): Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator.a. b. e. e. f. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lim*« Vehicle Mmust not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is preferred. d. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time; and In a shared driveway situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed by all cuiTcnt driveway users. Minimum lot size of 5 acres. For any property at lea.st 2 acres hut less than 5 acres in area, where it can be shown that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and after January 1. 2004. a Vehicle Storage permit mav be granted if the above conditions a. through f are met, subject also to the following limitations: 1} A Vehicle Storage Permit mav only be issued fo r prop erties within the RR-1B, RR-1 .A. and L R-1A zoning di.stricts. 2J Such permit shall be granted only to the current property owner and only for the specific vehicle applied for. The current owner mav replace the vehicle in kind, but shall not add other such vehicles. 2} This pemiit shall not apply to subsequent property owners. Subsequent property owners shall not be considered as having a grandfathered permit bv virtue of their predecessor ’s permit. MEM0R.4JSDUM I'-' ( To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Ralm and Planning Commissioners 0^ Mike Gaffron, Planning Director f r /'k o'!*' September 17,2004 #04-3024B Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Section 78-1577(c) - Consider CUP for Vehicle Storage (>14,000 lbs CVWO on Residential Property Attachments A - Draft Ordinance Amendment for CUP B - Memo and Exhibits of August 26,2004 At your August 31 work session, Planning Commission reviewed the pro’s and con’s of allowing large velticle storage as a conditional use, to be limited to just those properties that have had large velricle storage in the past. Plamiing Commission agreed with staff that there may be anumber of pitfalls to the CUP, but also asked that we have the City Attorney confirm whether it is legal and advisable to limit the CUP to just those existing users, and/or what otlicr options we have for grandfathering existing users. Tire City Attorney has indicated he believes the CUP can be established for just the existing users, who would have to apply for the CUP and prove they have stored large vehicles for some prior period of time. He believes this is an excellent method to allow the use to contiirue under controlled conditions, without allowing new such uses to occur. One of staffs concerns was that establishing a CUP for only existing users would send a wrong message that the use is generally allowed in a zoning district. The Attorney tlriirks that it can be written in a maimer that makes it clear that the use is not generally acceptable, and the CUP places pcrfomrance standards on the existing users to make their continued use acceptable until it goes away of its own volition. The issue of a CUP for large vehicle storage has been published for a public hearing for September 20, and we are advised that at least one member of the public maybe in attendance to comment. Exhibit A is a draft ordinance amendment that revises the language of the cunent ordinance and adds a CUP entry to the Conditional use section of the 2-acre and 5-acre zoning districts. A preamble is added describing the reasons why this use is a CUP for existing situations on lots less than 5 acres and only for pre-existing users Staff Recommendatioa Hold the public hearing and consider whether the CUP option is viable and whether the current ordinance conditions are appropriate or stringent enough for properties under 5 acres with pre-existing users. Consider more restrictive standards in terms of screening, setbacks, etc for smaller lot situations. Finally, consider whether we should approach this from the standpoint of an Interim Use (we would hav e to add an Interim Use ordinance to the zoning code) rather than a more permanent Conditional Use... J y A O'j Draft revisions to 78-1577 re: veh icle storage Section 78-1577. Exterior Storage in R Districts, (c) Vehicle Storage. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the City shall be operable and cuiTcntly licensed. The parking of vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in “R’ districts is regulated as follows: Ah \_y (i)Parking of vehicles other than recreational vehicles, with a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 14,000 pounds or less is allowed in all “R" districts. (2.) . V '«« \ *. .* Parking of vehicles in “R” districts in excess of 14,000 pounds GVW has the,potential. to create potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. These impacts. may include noise (from operation as well as maintenance of vehicle!, vibration. Rlaie,., orims: soil/water contamination ffiom dnooing. washing, etc h hazards to pedestnans. bv wav of proximity, especially on private roads: wear & tear on lp_cal or private roads,; pionensitv to offload remaining cargo on site at end of dav: and visual rncompatibilitY. with the character of a neighborhood. Such use may be acceptable under certain_ conditions in zoning districts where lot areas are generally 2 acres_gL-larger. Thet_efgi_e^ ^ parking of such vehicles requires each of the following conditions be met; r ,' ■■ t ' a.Minimum lot size of 5 acres. For anv properly at least 2 acres but less than 5. acres in area, where it can be shown that prior to the effective_date_Q£_tliii_ ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and after Januai-y 1.2004. a Vehicle Storage conditional use pemtit maybe, granted subject to the conditions established for such conditional use.p.enriitif. aUnwed in the respective zoning district in which the property is located. . •. V •> ,v b. I i ^ y' Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. d.Vehicle Mmust not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is preferred. e.Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. f. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time; and In a shared driveway situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed by all current driveway users.1 H'U\!P MEMOR.\NDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Mike Craffron, Plamring Director August 26, 2004 7-c <#04-3024B Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Section 78-1577(c) - Consider CUP for Large Vehicle Storage on Residential Property Attachments ' A - July 9, 2004 Moorse Memo to Council B - July 7, 2004 MPG Memo to Mooisc C - Zoning Code Section 78-1577 (as amended 11-24-03 via Ordinance Ir4, Third Series) D - Excerpt on Conditional Uses from “Advanced Zoning" by Joint Shardlow of DSU. Inc, Discussiou The City Council in July reviewed thePlanningCommissioiVsrecommendation to not revise the 5-acrc minimum lot size requiremcitt for storage of large velticles, under the recently revised Exleitor otorage in R Districts" ordinance. Council took no fonnal action on a zoning amendment, but directed staff and Plamting Commission to consider the pros and cons of, and potential performance standards for, allowingLarge Vehicle Sloiagc as a Conditional Use in rcsidcittial zones, and whether this could be limited to just existing users. Basis for Current Ordinance The cuiTcnt ordinance establishes a miitimum lot size of 5 acres for storage of a vcluclc in excess of 14,000 lbs. GVW. The 5-acre standard was put in place to ensure the ability to provide adequate separation, buffering and screening of large velric ’'-., uom«. dj acent properties. The code as wntten requires that such vcliiclcs stored outside must meet a 50' setback &om lot lines, mustbc fully screened ("not visible") from adjacent properties and streets, and any maintenance of the vehicle must occur within a building. Thebasis for the cun ent ordinance is to protect our neighborhoods from tlie noise, vibration, odor and General visual intrusion and disruption caused by the comrngs, goings and storage of vei^ large vehicles. Conditional Use Applicability A conditional use is, by definition, ause that is pemritted in a zoning district if certain established conditions or 'perfonnance standards’ arc met. A conditional use miglit not be appropriate generally within a zoning district,but may be allowed with appropriate rcstrictrons established by the zoning code if it is found that 1) the conditions detailed in the code arc met; 2) the use ccnfomis to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and 3) the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. r Large Vehicle Storage CUP August 26,2004 Page 2 If the perfomiance standards established by code are met, the Council generally must grant the v^UP. Therefore, to ensure that the possible negative impacts of a given conditional use are addressed and accomrted for, theperfomiance standards must be carefully crafted. Also note that CUP’s are issuedfov a particular use, not for a particular person. If a property owner is granted a CUP, the CUP goes with the pi opeilv and a new owner can continue the use if all the original condition: sre met. Wehave not to date considered ‘ large vehicle storage ’ as a ‘use’, but merely as an ancillary aC ivity that occiu's along with the principal use of aproperty. Establishing ‘large veliicle storage ’ as a condi.ional use may open up a Pandora’s Box of unanticipated consequences and resident expectations. Ai. amendment of the code to pemiit large vehicle storage as an allowed conditional use in the 2-t.cre and 5-acrc zones will send the message (and likely be legally constnied) that such storage is generally acceptable in those zones, subject to meeting the performance standards. But if the perfonnance standards then provide limitations so strict that few properties can qualify for the CUP, perhaps we shouldn’t be allowing the use via CUP. The risk is that we will be pressured to giant variances from one or more of the perfonnance standards. For example, we probably should not allow storage of large vehicles in the 2-acre zone via CUP if one of the performance standards is to have a 5-a:re lot, since a majority of 2-acre zone properties won’t meet the 5-acre standard. Can such a CUP legally be made available only to existing users? We will be requesting a legal opinion on tliis question. If a conditional use (read “permitted use with conditions”) is established with a limitation that prohibits any new users, that suggests the use really is act appropriate in the district, and should not be a conditional use because it is not available to any property that meets the established conditions. The bottom line maybe that a use you believe is generally unacceptable within a zoning district should not be listed as a conditional use. “...the question about the right to the use isbasically off the table. It is a matter of how the use may be modified, or its adverse characteristics may be mitigated ” (Shardlow). Conditions or Performance Standards If“Parkingor storage ofa vehicle in excess of 14.Q00 IbsGVW” is listed as a conditional use in the 2-acre and 5 -acre zones, any property which meets the listed conditions for such use would have to be granted a CUP. In order to attach appropriate conditions or performance standards to this use, we should fust identify the potential negative impacts oftiie use on the neighborhood. These might include the following: - Noise (from operation as well as maintenance of vehicle) - Vibration - Glare • Odors ____________j Large Vehicle Storage CUP August 26, 2004 P*ge3 - Soil/water contamination (from dripping, washing, etc.) - Hazard to pedestrians by way of proximity, especially on private roads • Wear & tear on local or private roads - Propensity to offload remaining cargo on site at end of day - Visual incompatibility with ru’ al character The conditions underwl'ichstafffeelstliisusemightbe acceptable are generally those conditions listed in the existing ordinance. Staff believes that opening up the possibility of large trucks being stored on 2-aci e lots will become more problematic for oiur neighborhoods as time goes by. Tire 5-acre lot size minimum provides some assurance that a neighborhood of 2-acre lots won’t be invaded by dump trucks. It also increases the likelihood that separation and screening horn adjoining properties will be feasible. The conditions cunently in the Code for storage of a vehicle over 14,000 lbs. GVW are as follows; a. Minimum lot size of 5 acres. b. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. c. Vehicle must be set back 50 feel ri Must not be visible Horn rreighbormg propeities and public str eets; vegetative screciring isprefen ed. e. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. f. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time. (Note; “Public Nuisarxe ’’ is defmed in the Municipal Code, Section 70-4, as follows: 1. Maintaining or permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public. Interfering with, obstructing or rendering dangerous for passage any street, public right-of-way or waters used by the public, or Any other act or omission declared by law- to be a public nuisance ) 2. 3. g. In a shared drivew-ay situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed by all current driveway users. i Large Vehicle Storage CUP August 26,2004 Page 4 Staff Recommendation Staff is satisfied with the current code as*is. H on v'cver, in response to the Council's direction, Planning Commission should review the infomiation provided and consider whether it is appropriate to make Marge vehicle storage ’ a conditional use in the 2-acre and/or 5-acre zones. If so. Planning Commission should make a recommendation as to what specific conditions or perfonnance standards should be required for such use to make it acceptable at the allowable locations. The potential for a large vehicle storage conditional use applicable only to existing users is still under investigation, and staff will provide you more infomiatiop rs it becomes available. i r Date Application Received: 8-1304 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-18-04 60-Da> Review Period Expires: 10-17-04 extended to 12-16-04 ocr 5 20*J4 CITY UP OHui'iO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Janice GundlachV^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval: Date: October 21, 2004 —7 Item No.: ' Agenda Section: /.onitip Item Description: 04-3048, Steven & Kathleen Persian. 1005 Hunt Farm Road, Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR - 1 A. One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre minimum) 2.905 acres (126,681 s.f.) Iluntingtoti Farm Plat - PRD allowed smaller lot areas 472 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per City Council & Planning Commission Recommendation B Council Action Notice of 10-11 -04 C Council Memo and Exhibits of 10-7-04 Appffaitioii Summary: Applicant originally requested the following variances in order to construct a 36' x 00’ (2,160 s.f.) storage shed: 1. A variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. 2. A north side yard setback variance to permit the structure to be located 15’ from the lot line when 30' is normally required. 3. Oversized accessory stru ture area variance to permit a maximum individual accessory structure fi>otprint area ot 2,160 s.f. when 1,200 s.l. is normally _____allowed.__________________________________________________________ Revised Reipiest: Applicant has revised his proposal to limit the building to the allowed 1,200 s.f. area but still requests the variance to locate the building closer to the street or front lot line than the principa l residence Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution which documents the original and revised proposals, and approves the variance noted above. _ Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution grantmg a variance to allow an accessory building to be located closer to the street i>r front lot line than the principal structure for 1005 Hunt Farm Road. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1435 FILE NO. 04-3048 WHEREAS, Steven P. Persian and Kathleen B. Persian, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants*’) are the owners of the property located at 1005 Hunt Farm Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 5, Huntington Faim, Hctinepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow a 1,200 square foot accessory building to be located in the northeastern corner of the lot, in a location where the building will be located closer to the street or front lot line than the principal building. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3048. 2. I hc property is located in the RR - lA zoning district, which requires a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. The applicant ’s property is 2.905 acres in size and was permitted a reduced area under the PRD, Planned Recreational District Ordinance. 3. The applicant originally applied for a variance to construct a 2,160 s f. building when only a 1,200 s.f. building is allowed, a north side yard setback variance to permit a side setback of 15’ when 30 ’ is normally required, and lastly a variance to permit the accessory building to K* located closer to the street or front lot line than the principal residence. Page 1 of6 F I 4. 5. 6. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on September 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the variance to permit the accessory building to be located closer to the street or front lot line than the principal residence, and denial of the side yard setback and oversized building request, based on the following findings: a. The constraints of the required wetland and septic setbacks. b. The street or front lot line of the property does not function as the front of the lot. c. The platted street right-of-way is currently undeveloped and isn’t foreseeable to develop in the future. d. The lot is secluded by wetlands to the west and railroad property to the north. c. The lot is heavily wooded. f. A tree line exists to the east providing screening to the most alTected neighbor. g. If a building 1,200 s.f. in size were constructed, the need for a north side yard setback variance could be eliminated. h. Construction of a 2,160 s.f. building could create the appearance of a second principal residence and have the potential for unacceptable uses is a residential zone, such as rental space and a home occupation. The applicant revised his application prior to the October 11, 2004 City Council meeting to comply with the September 20, 2004 Planning Conunission recommendation. The City Council finds that the revised proposal, consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation is acceptable based on the finding noted above. Page 2 of 6 7. 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. 8. 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 substantia! 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 a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow a 1,200 square foot accessory building to be located in the northeastern comer of the lot, in a location where the building will be located closer to the street or front lot line than the principal building, 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 which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. The applicant must submit an opinion letter from his attorney on whether the property owner has the legal right to construct the proposed accessory building. An acceptance letter from the home owner's association would be acceptable in place of an attorney’s opinion. 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 (October 25,2005). Page 3 of 6 Page 4 of 6 'I i f 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 Jr: Page 5 of 6 ■ ■ -I -■ , ' >■ *r ’ '; ; '..V- ■V- i- 1 State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Steven P. Persian, husband of Kathleen B. Persian. day of 2004 ■- Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Kathleen B. Persian, wife of Steven P. Persian. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A *1 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #04-3048 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 12,2004 TO: Steven & Kathleen Persian 1005 Hunt Faim Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: Accessory Structure Area & Setback Variances DATE OF MEETING: October 11 .2004 VOTE; 3 FOR 1 AGAINST Motion: Approval of a var iance to permit the proposed building to be located neaiei the front or street lot line than the principal building and denial of the north side yard setback request of 15’ when 30’ is normally required aird denial of the accessory building area variance to permit a building 2.160 s.f. when 1.200 s.f. is normally allowed. The motion also stipulated that prior to obtaining a building permit the applicant must submit an opinion of his attorney that construction of the building is lawful or submittal of consent of the homeowners association. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, October 25, 2004 for adoption of an approval resolution; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. 60-Day Extension Notice. 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 received on August 18, 2004, and was deemed as complete upon submittal. The 60-day review period would end on October 17,2004. However, the earliest scheduled date of final resolution approval by the Council falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to December 16, 2004. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by tlic City Council. i 11 i J r Date Application Received: 8-13*04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-18-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-17-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dale: October 7, 2004 Item No.: Department Approval: Name: Janice GundlachN-\ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: «04-3048, Steven & Kathleen Persian, 1005 Hunt Farm Road. Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: l.ot Width: RR - 1 A, One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre minimum) 2.905 acres (126.68fs.f.) Huntington Farm Plat - PRD allowed smaller lot areas 472 feet List of Exhibits A - PC Action Notice 9-21-04 B - PC Minutes from 9-20-04 Meeting C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 9-15-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a 36’ X 60’ (2,160 s.f.) storage .shed: 1. A variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. 2. A north side yard setback variance to permit the structure to be located 15’ from the lot line when 30’ is normally required. 3. Oversized accessory structure area variance to permit a maximum individual accessory structure footprint area of 2,160 s.f. when 1,200 s.f. is normally allowed. _____________________ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request as submitted. No valid hardships have been presented to allow the location or area variances for an accessory structure that could otherwise meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if it were reduced in size and relocated.____________________________ Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of a variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building, and denial of the north side yard setback variance and accessory structure area variance. The two dissenting Commissioners, Leslie and Fritzler. felt that the proposed building should meet all requirements. I Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request in its entirety. The alternate septic site and proposed building location could be swapped to meet the required setbacks and no hardship inherent to the land exists to grant a variance to permit an accessory building of a size in excess of what Code permits. Staff feels that if the Council wishes to approve the proposed 2,160 s.f. building stipulating a number of conditions, the variance request should still be denied and the Planning Commission and Council work towards amending the code so that precedent is not set. The accessory structure ordinance was aimed at reducing the negative impacts that come with one single large building These negative impacts include potential of future owners running a home occupation, appearance of a second principal building, and changes in the landscape and screening over time that are currently un foreseen. The ordinance is also aimed at building multiple smaller buildings that can be hidden witliin the landscape and do not present opportunities for activities which are not appropriate in a residential zone. If the Planning Commission and Council believe that specified conditions can mitigate these negative impacts than the code should be amended. Approval of a variance requires hardship inherent to the land; a negotiation where conditions are specified mitigates the negative impacts, but does not demonstrate a hardship. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council has several options for action on this application: 1.Approve the request consist with the Planning Commission recommendation and direct staff to draft a resolution approving a 1,200 s.f building to be located 30 feet from the side lot line with a variance to permit the building to be nearer the street or front lot line than the principal structure. Deny the request, and if appropriate, direct staff to draft an amendment to the accessory structure ordinance allowing an accessory building to exceed the specified maximum subject to a set on conditions. Approve one, or more, or all of the variances and outline the hardships inherent to the land so that staff can draft a resolution for approval at the next City Council meeting. CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 04-3048 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: September 21, 2004 TO: Steven & Kathleen Persian COPIES: 1005 Hunt Farm Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICAT10N:_ _ .Accessory Stnicmre ^ea_&_Sjetba_ck_Va_riances_............ DATE OF MEETING: September 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: 1. Approval of a variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. 2. Denial of a north side yard setback variance to permit the structure to be located 15' from the lot line when 30' is normally required 3. Denial of an oversized accessory structure area variance to permit a maximum individual accessory structure footprint area of 2,160 s.f. when 1,200 s.f. is normally required. VOTE: 4 FOR 2 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled for: City Council - Monday, October 11, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. pending submittal of a revised plan incorporating a building no larger than 1,200 s.f. meeting the 30* required north side yard setback. 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 .lanice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. V MBSTJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. :iner stated she would prefer there not be a requirement of 50 feet. lentcd in his opinion the language is imposing certaii [^s but that the Planning Commission ibility to impose additional condi^ Gaffron stated tlie la^•uld be revised a distance that will eliminate m vehicle must be set back from the property lines son neighbors and review it on an individual basis. Leslie moved, Jurgens sec(iication ^04-3024, City of Orono Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle,- Code Aniendniem Aves 6, Navs 0.m ^ • Gaffron ini !c would draft new language reflecting to!liscussion and bring the amendment !c the Planning Commission at their October work session. NEW BUSLNESS 5. #04-3048 STENTN PERSIAN, 1005 HUNT FARM ROAD, VARIANCES, 6:46 p.m. - 7:20 p.m. Steven and Kathy Persian, Applicants, were present. Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 36’ by 60’ storage shed and is requesting the following variances: 1. A variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. 2. A north side yard setback variance to permit the structure to be located 15 ’ from the lot line when 30’ is nonnally required. 3. Oversized accessory structure area variance to permit a maximum individual accessory structure footprint area of 2,160 square feet when 1,200 square feet is normally allowed Gundlach indicated the applicant is proposing to construct the storage shed in the upper northeast comer of the lot, w'hirh is located in front of the front lot line of t’nc house. Staff finds that the follow ing are a nuiT.ber of setback and location restrictions limiting the location of the building given its size: PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. 1. Preservation of an alternate septic site location and 20' setback from it; 2. Ability of the proposed structure to meet 20’ septic setbacks from existing septic site; 3. Ability of alternate septic site to meet 75’ setback requirements from wetlands; 4. Ability to meet 35’ wetland setback on the south side of the property; 5. Access to building, which could potentially be over existing and alternate mound locations. Gundlach indicated one of the major issues influencing the location of the structure and whether or not a hardship exists is the alternate septic site. Gundlach stated the alternate septic site testing was received after the City’s septic inspector had left for the day on Friday and also was not in the office on Monday. The applicant has had a septic inspector locate an alternate septic site. Staff believes there is a good potential that the alternate septic site location could instead be the location of the proposed buildm with all the setbacks for the septic being met in that location. Gundlach requested that the City’s septic inspector confimi that. Gundlach stated the Planning Conunission should consider the following: 1, If the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped so that the required setbacks could be met, should the location variances be granted. 2. Does tltc power line easement, wetlands and septic locations on the property provide a hardship in order to approve the location or area variances and to what extent. 3. Docs the intent of the maximum individual square footage limitation make sense; i.c., should the City be concerned about the visual appearance of a 2,160 square foot building on a lot which is somewhat secluded. Does the remoteness of the lot factor into a variance approval for a building in excess of 1,200 square feet. Gundlach stated it should be ruled out whether the alternate septic site location and proposed PAGE 12 li MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. buildmg location can be swapped. If they can be swapped, the setback variances should be denied. If the bvo cannot be swapped, a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in front of the house should be granted based on the power casement, wetland, and septic constraints. Gundlach stated if a setback variance is granted, Staff would recommend denial of the building area variance and recommend that the applicant be held to the 1,200 square foot limitation. If the Planning Commission wishes to gi ant a building area variance based on the remote nature of the lot. Staff recommends that the building meet all setback requirements. Persian indicated one of the reasons for the proposed site of the shiicturc is to limit having multiple buildings on the property. Persian stated they would prel tr to have just one single structure on the property to serv'e their needs rather than multiple building;; and would be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. In addition, the lot is so secluded that the structure would not be seen but also the home cannot be seen for about a third of a nula, Persian stated as far as the shucture being proposed in front of the house, technically that is true but what is in between his residence and the house that is to the southeast of them i.s about a 75 ’ swath of trees, which makes it impossible to see their house or the neighbor’s house. Rahn inquired what the primary use would be for a building that size. Persian slated they would like to store personal items in there, noting at the present time he has two trailers sitting outside, personal ATV’s in the garage, and other items sitting in the yard. Persian indicated he would like to have all those items stored inside. Rahn commented a number of residents within the City have the same type of items, and noted that the proposed structure is the size of four, four-car garages. Rahn inquired what the sidewall height is for this building. Persian slated the sidewalls arc 12 feet. Rahn inquired whether tire slope of the roof would be 4-12, which would make the peak of the roof IS feet and the median height 15 feet. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ^ffiETLNG Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Persian indicated that is correct. Gundlach stated the height of the structure is restricted by the height of the principal structure and cannot exceed the principal structure. Jurgens inquired whether Xcel’s easement states that no buildings can be constructed within the easement or whether there is a height restriction Persian indicated he was infonned that 'le could not construct any building within 75 feet of the center line. Persian noted their mound system is constructed within a portion of the easement. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of that size building on a lot that is 2.9 acres in size. Persian inquired what the thought process is behind allowing three or four smaller bu.Icings rather than one larger bu. idmg. Persian stated he is aware of a property on Old Orchard Park Road that exceeds the schedule for building size that is visible from County Road 6. Gaffron stated to his recollection that building was based on housing a vehicle and the minimum size and length for that vehicle was part of what drove the approval for that specific vehicle. Persian stated to his knowledge the vehicle does not fit within the building. Gaffron indicated that is also his understanding at the present time, but that the size of the building was approved so that the vehicle could fit within the structure. Kempf commented one of the reasons for limiting the size of the structure is the visual impact. Kempf stated in his view' the visual impact does rot apply here given the amount of trees on the property. Kempf stated it is difficult to functionally find anything wTong with the applicant’s proposal and that it comes down to the issue of protecting the code. Persian stated he understands this type of structure would not be appropriate if he w'as living in a neighborhood where there w'erc neighbors in close proximity, but that he believes it is more aesthetically pleasing to have one building rather than three. Persian stated in his opinion only the roof of the proposed structure may be visible from his dnveway, noting that the grade of the lot does slope PAGE 14 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. down somewhat. Persian indicated the surrounding vegetation would remain. Persian stated their goal would be to construct one building for storage. Rahn inquired whether the applicant \vas willing to pursue whether the alternate septic site could be swapped with the building location. Persian stated he has submitted one perk test already ano that another perk test may be necessary if the sites arc swapped. Persian indicated the concern he has with swapping the sites is the location of a pressure line that he would prefer not to drive any motorized vehicles over. Ralm stated in his view the structure could be located in a confonning location without the need for a setback variance. Frilzler commented no Itardship has been demonstrated for the variance. Persian stated he interprets the ordinance as trying to protect the integrity of the neighbors and that, despite the size, is not a nuisance to the neighbors. Fritzler stated the hardship has to validate the variance, and that he is not in favor of a variance for the setbacks or for the size. Jurgens noted the north line is the property line that abuts the railroad right-of-way. Jurgens inquired whether the setback is necessary due to the size of the building as w'ell as the need to access the building and avoid the mound. Persian stated that is correct, and that the building was also pushed back because of the Xcel easement on the property. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of llic setback variance since there arc other locations where the structure could be constructed on this lot, noting the house could possibly fit north of the driveway turnaround, which would eliminate the need for one of the setbacks. Jurgens stated simply because one location is not as desirable as another does not corutitute a ha.dship. Jurgens indicated he also has a concern with the size. Jurgens inquired whether the setback requirements change with the size of a Structure. PAGE 15 ■ MINTJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Gundlach indicated if the building is 750 square feet, the setback is 10 feet from the side or rear; if it i? between 750 and 1000, it has to be IS feet; and if it is in excess of 1000 square feet, it has to meet principal structure setbacks. Jurgens stated tivo structures could be constructed rather than one large one, which would meet the setbacks and would not encroach upon the mound system. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the north side yard setback and the oversized accessory structure area variance. Gaffron noted there is a 50-foot separation between the lot line and the railroad easement. Kempf inquired whether there is any plan to construct a trail in that area. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any plans to construct a trail in this area by either the City or the homeo"/ncrs association. Leslie stated in bis opinion it is a dangerous precedent to judge properties based on how something looks when the code is very specific on what is allowed and what is not allowed. Leslie commented several options have been discussed that would allow the applicant to have the storage he is requesting, Bremer stated she is not opposed to the location of the structure, but that the size of the building is excessive. Bremer stated what the code is trying to prevent in part is to have a property that appears to have two houses on it. Bremer indicated the intent of the code is to maintain the rural integrity of the property, and that there may be other residents that would like to construct a similar size structure on lots that do not have the significant number of trees on it as this lot does. Bremer commented the proposed location makes the most sense for this lot but that the size should be reduced. Leslie stated hvo buildings w ould accommodate what the applicant is proposing to store in the shed and that a hardship has not been demonstrated. Leslie stated in his view the building can be reduced, which would reduce the setbacks and comply with the code. Bremer stated it might be better if the tests on the alternate septic site were available before a final decision is made on this application. r . • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Jeff Gori, Morton Buildings, noted that there is a vegetation buffer on three sides of the building and that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to have one building rather than multiple buildings. Rahn inquired what the purpose is for having 12-foot sidewalls. Gori stated with 12-foot sidewalls, the overhead door would be 10 feet, noting that on a residential home the overhead door is seven or eight feet. Gori indicated the taller sidewalls would accommodate a larger item. Rahn stated he still has a concern regarding the size of the stmeture, and that if t\vo buildings were constructed, the need for the variances 'vould be clui.-n^' id. Leslie staled in his view two smaller buildings would be more attractive rather than one large industrial looking structure. Leslie noted that the appearance of something also tends to be in the eye of the beholder and can vary from person to person. Rahn stated the Planning Commission has to grant variances based on a hardship, which has not been demonstiatcd. Leslie stated even if the alternate septic site cannot be swapped with the structure, a number of the Planning Commission members have a concern regarding the size of the building. Leslie stated the viability of the alternate septic site should be detennined before a final decision is made. Rahn indicated the applicant has the option of tabling his application until the results come back on his alternate septic site or have the Plaruiing Commission vote on each of the variances. Rahn inquired what the setbacks would be if the building were reduced to 1200 square feet. Gundlach indicated any accessory structure over 1000 feet has to meet principal structure setbacks. Leslie noted the setback would be 15 feet if the stiucturc were reduced to 1000 square feet Jurgens indicated he would be willing to make a motion approving the variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front but denying the variance for the north side yard setback and the oversized accessory structure area ^•ariancc. PAGE 17 iteuiilikaiBdi • li MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Bremer indicated she would also be in favor of the variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front since that is in her view a more private location. Persian stated his concern with the smaller size structure is that the building would be full and that he would prefer to have all of his stuff stored inside. Jurgens commented the applicant would have the option to construct another building if he is still in need of additional storage. Jurgens moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of a variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building, and to recommend denial of a north side yard setback variance and oversized accessory structure area variance for the property located at 1005 Hunt Farm Road. Gundlach stated the applicant would be able to construct a 1200 square foot building but would have to meet the 30-foot setback on the north side. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Leslie and Fritzler Opposed. Leslie stated he would prefer to sec the structure built in a location that meets the City’s setback requirements. Fritzler indicated he would prefer to vote on the application as a whole rather than on the individual variances. the constructio: PAGE 18 i «04004S September 20,2004 Pase 1 of 6 Date Application Received: 8-13-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-18-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-17-04 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Janice Gundlach, City Plamier^N Date:September 15,2004 Subject:#04-3048, Steven and Kathleen Persian, 1005 Hunt Farm Road - Location & Accessory Structure Area Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Aren: Lot Width: RR - 1 A, One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre minimum) 2.9C5 acres (126,681 s.f.) 472 feet Applicafion Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a 36’ X 60’ (2,160 s.f.) storage shed: 1. A variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. 2. A north side yard setback variance to permit the structure to be located 15 ’ from the lot line when 30’ is normally requir ed. 3. Oversized accessory structure area variance to permit a maximum individual accessory structure footprint area of 2,160 s.f. when 1,200 s.f. is normally allowed. Staff Recommemlation: Staff recommends denial of the request as submitted. No valid hardships have been presented to allow the location or area variances for an accessory structure that could otherwise meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if it were reduced in size and relocated. _____________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1435. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b); except that detached garages may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turnaround is provided on the site. This section shall not apply to ladceshore lots divided by roadways or comer lots. 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: #04-3048 September 20,2004 Page 2 of 6 (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: Lot Area (acres) 0-1.99 2.00-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00 4.01-4.50 4.51-5.00 5.01-6.00 Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area (square feet) Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Property (square feet) ___ 1,000 2,000 1,200 12,400 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 6.01-7.00 7.01-8.00 8.01-9.00 9.01 or more 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000 4,400 4,800 5.200 5,600 6,000 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas 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. c.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 no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory stmeture and principal structure will be located together 2. 1^04-3048 September 20, 2004 Page 3 of 6 within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Survey Exhibit D - Survey Showing Setback Constraints Exhibit E - Proposed Elevations Exhibit F - Example Photo of Proposed Building Exhibit G - Aerial Photo (wetlands and topography) Exhibit H - Topography w/Creck Setbacks & Hardcover Zones Exhibit I - Plat Map Exhibit J - Property Owner's List Background The applicant and builder have met with staff on several occasions to discuss the construction of an oversized accessory building. The applicants have submitted their plan based on the total amount of accessory buildings allowed on a property 2.00 - 3.00 acres, being 2,400 square feet recognizing that the code only permits an individual accessory building maximum of 1,200 square feet. The applicant ’s property is located within the Huntington Farm Plat which was approved in 1986 as a PRD, Planned Residential District. The purpose of this was to preserve the wetlands on the property, as shown on the plat drawing in Exhibit I. Also included with this PRD are reduced setbacks as opposed to the RR — lA setbacks of 100 ’ front and rear and 50 ’ sides. This was in an effort to accommodate the smaller than 5 acre lots. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET RR -1 A (PRD)Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f (5 acres)300’ Actual 126,681 s.f. (2.905 acres)472 ’ #040048 September 20» 2004 Page 4 of C Setbacks RR-1A(PRD) Front Rear Required 50’ Left Side 30 ’ Right Side Painters Creek 100’ Existing (house) 81.5’ 111.4 ’ 165.4’ -220 ’ 300 ’ Proposed (shed) 40 ’ (variance req.) 179 ’ -400 ’ 15’ (variance req.) 250’ Structural Coverage This property is in excess of 1.99 acres and is therefore not subject to stntctural coverage requirements of Section 78-1403. Hardcover Calculations This property is located within 300’ of Painters Creek and therefore located within the Shoreland District and subject to hardcover restrictions. Hardcover restrictions cover land within 300’ of the creek. It appears that the proposed accessory building and any other hardcover located west/northwest of the home is subject to hardcover standards. This is an area of approximately 2 acres which would yield an allow'able hardcover level of 21,780 s.f (assuming all 2 acres is dry-upland). This property does not come close to reaching the maximum allowed hardcover level and therefore did not require hardcover calculations with this project. For fiiturc projects, the applicant should be aware that the property is subject to the 100’ creek setback and subsequent hardcover restrictions 300’ from the bank of the creek. Front Yard Setback Variance Section 78-1435 limits locations of all accessory buildings on residential properties. Non-lakeshorc lots are not pemritted to have accessory buildings located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal structure. The front lot line of the applicant ’s property is the eastern boundary because platted right-of-way, cunently undeveloped, exists all the way north to the railroad tracks. The applicant ’s house is located approximately 82 feet from the front lot line and the proposed accessory building is proposed at a setback of 40 feet. This requires variance approval. Side Yard Setback Variance Oversized accessory buildings are buildings in excess of 1,000 s.f The applicant has proposed a building 2,160 s.f. in size. Section 78-1434 (3)(a) requires that oversized buildings meet principal structure setbacks. This PRD was approved with 30’ side yard principal structure setbacks where the applicant has proposed a building 15’ from the north side lot line. This requires variance approval. W-304S September 20,2004 Page S of 6 Accessory Structure Area Variance Section 78-1434 (2) limits the amount of accessory buildings on lots dependant on the total area of the property. The applicant ’s property is 2.905 acres and therefore limited to a maximum individual accessory building size of 1,200 s.f. where a 2,160 s.f. building is proposed, requiring a variance. The chart also limits the total amount of accessory buildings on a property to 2,400 s.f., which the applicant complies with. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship documentation form in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis !n comidertng applications for variance, the Planning Connnission 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 the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the titeral 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 finds that there are number of issues limiting the location of an accessory building, regardless of its size. For example; • Preservation of an alternate septic site location and 20’ setback from it • Ability of proposed structure to meet 20’ septic .setbacks from existing septic site • Ability of alternate septic site to meet 75 ’ setback requirements from wetlands • Ability to meet 35 ’ wetland setback on the south side of the property • Access to building - potentially over existing and alternate mound locations Staff finds that these issues leave the alternate septic site and the applicant ’s proposed building location the only viable locations for a building the size the applicant has proposed. Staff questions whether the alternate septic site and the applicants proposed accessory building location couldn’t be swapped. This would eliminate the need for setback variances. Staff also finds that there is some logic behind Section 78-1434 (2) which limits the size of individual buildings and also total buildings. As proposed, a building 2,160 s.f. may appear as large as some principal buildings which the Ordinance is attempting to prevent. Staff acknowledges that this is a visual issue only and the site is somewhat secluded, however a hardship inherent to the land is still required in order to receive a variance to this standard. There appears to be ample room on the property for additional, smaller accessory buildings. Staff believes that a variance for building size should not be granted merely based on whether the setbacks cannot be met. If a site meeting setbacks lends itself to support a 2,160 s.f. building, then the Planning Commission should determine whether to grant a variance. If the Planning Commission wishes to grant this variance, staff believes the only basis for approval may be the secluded nature of the lot. «^040048 September 20,2004 Page 6 of 6 In conclusion, staff finds that the property should be held to the requirements laid out in Sections 78-1434 and 78-1435. Alternative locations meeting setbacks exist on the property and the property could support more than one large building, although there may be some justification for a single, large building as noted above. Issues for Consideration 1. If the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped so that the required setbacks could be met, should the location variances be granted? 2. Does the power line easement, wetlands and septic locations on the property provide a hardship in order to approve the location or area variances? To what extent? 3. Does the intent of the maximum individual square footage limitation make sense? i.e. Should we be concerned about the visual appearance of a 2,160 s.f. building on a lot which is somewhat secluded? 4. Does the remoteness of the lot factor into a variance approval for a building in excess of 1,200 s.f? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff would recommend the following: 1.The applicant should rule out whether the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped. If so, the setback variances should be denied. If not, a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in front of the house should be granted based on the power easement, wetland, and septic constraints. If a setback variance is granted staff would recommend denial of the building area variance and the applicant should also be held to the 1,200 s.f. limitation. If the Planning Commission wishes to grant a building area variance based on the remote nature of the lot, staff recommends that the building meet all setback requirements. 1: EXHIBIT A City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) For Office Use Only: City Planner. . JA'h! 11 JrStreet Address: Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55356 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Meeting Date/T^me , PC Dale: XfPT. Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 f) j What is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the app’icant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 10 OS _______ ________ Property Identification Number (PIN): i2.~000h Zoning District. IA Size of Property: d-O f'h _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: , ^ e .. . □ Average Setback ^Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback ]3-Front Yard Setback (yM-t'tu □ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area Lot Width TafOther: Aftri yO i- dr~c.f -fh- r/i/r.n//v L/r’J _______ <rhn)H\lr-(. -f-myfgi’t ,-h — ptbpdSwn ZHeO ------ ■/ j*'71 /Vs i.zno. Applicant ’s Initials: HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands t as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completeo and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. I OTHER INFORMATION: •Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. Applicant Signature:Date: ft EXHIBIT A f ng Form jr pre-application meeting.*) Oniv: rime:h I CpPT. ^0-^"' iplete proposal, inform them of the jlicies or regulations that create ’-/z-donh tback jS^’Front Yard Setback /unJ-clf"- □ Lot Width ’/n-'j.n 1 iil/. f u! V _______ ')dSL/in ZlleO Ijhfic the Hardship Documentation Form, 5d to them, and is aware that it must notion with their formal variance pted without a pre-applicat'on aff. Dale: y-/^-oy City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kei'ey Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-450Q fax. 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application U O^- .^Qc/ p Date P.ece.ved y Amount Pad C oOO- OO Staff: Fee: rcc^ S60Q Renewal: S300 ______________ After-the-fact: Si,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: /ocS" Property Identification Number (PIN); 7 0 - // r - 7 r a - c c’’ dt (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): /’ /os □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: B Residentia □ Other Zoning District; /g/g- / /}__________ APPLICANT INFORMATION; (Complete legal names and mantal status required for each interested party) Name; s'rfvcv Pesisi/frO, /-rfr~/Vccgv Phone (home); 9TL- ^?r’-___________ Phone (work); 6,/z - 5~9'2- 7/'co Address; /doc //>vr~A /C ^ V S~S~3 S~(:^ Email; /'ex. 5/,4.v e. co'-<-Fax; OWNER INFORMATION; (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name; STci/ftv Phone (home): f5^^- tiriC'OoCP ___________ Phone (work): g/v- T97- 7/'O cj__________ Address: /OOS~ r^>cyt^ , C>‘Cc>aJ^ S~T3S~6______________________ Email; c —/>< ggrr _________________ Pax: 9S'2- /y3S~__________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ V2). Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary):__________________________ _____/aJ^' aLe a -rij -rTr-e vta-TC/g StT7?Ac./i QoOC u)e /hi^ /}c-<ra /j UArtz^aA/as. ____ _____A A^AY/MUM /fccessorzy" srntuc-rurCS C Ar.e /fUL POS/^yfCy 5>/Ct iL-U/.Ud- C-c £A rTS / /*7~). ^ A<~30 a/EEA^ Hcjt^fuey. 77/rJ Cyjii A<r (F. /^c»vT~ •/'/KJ? qe-77-7,^^ L^Arir^*J CjE, UA/^eT7D'‘~rUr/^en~) /} r~ marZ t-cc-ajpc^ S- ^ A A Q- f ^ ■J REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. S ta A'/f^ □ /v/, □ El□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center. A-603 300 South 6*'' Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/shc is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant's Signature; Applicant's Signature: Date: /c> -^ Date; OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and furtner authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature; Owner’s Signature;l<L Date; ^-Vo-c^ Date;fC - g7</ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. ' v; /' t I • at ,/■ y‘iji J... r EXHIB'T B Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27. Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine n’ a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." 2."The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” Coc.a77c.J / .3 /VlTgyeQ) KC.ee. -Tdre P/Vti Tb />/u /yeX.7Y T?tF. 3. CCrrrCvd The A/^D crj______________ “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." otV/VgV-- C'^ r7>r t/crL^/Cg- ✓cXrv.r ^i.'ijr7pr.i S77l-'rn^c<, 7%r cai=- tH£ "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship ;f reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 5. 6. 7. 8. Page 2 of3 "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." “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.” UJEV ■fT'i/2 jOiDXSt.y/AL.________ A/ci A'Tu** f‘7~ /ie~6.»^gY'r«a> "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in quest on are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." ■TWs xcgt- g—rn_f-v /~t r?., ryg /"flt>/>CTLTV'.____________ "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." -7Aer ac>p 7?ifS jtf&'t/cjT" ’TH£' ffizf The cA 7^ >7" “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." rr>gu/c77//?£~ ci.iiMA>uc.s •■j/tv -7»fS <7T»/ir>i>»cvt=7T C'.. c{Lz, (4 ^’1 liU ♦:;t li / s Page 3 of 3 12.*The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to tne applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” t^i7l,y €>yrgi»tg/^7" c,L<t:^/r:ki^r, A*v*7ef3L^i^>/r^ A^a/O $^T?C. i/(rS.^ Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary); THS" c>i^>CX*g^T" CL y rv o^Ot,\/McC A TtiTPc CT Jgr ACcBSS^c.^ f774 L/yj^ f7^ ^fTLUcrunr SV•^.g* /> t^i/L JLcra^J^^r' '71j Ctf OA//r /TU/^ F7^ Cnrf<?<rc^'jtr -r?^7^^y/ ^T)Lx/CL7iJ/i^ ^ 7?r't!Z ST7LUcn^cr_SS?j1^1£' /,3 /^OALTZ^i } Ji u/i^.£y>\/C-^ . Z^/fC rzy^si '/^•S__ A/S^ T“< ZVSS^^4c^ CjyJA^t nr>' C 'Zh r iT5 ^ /)ss/CyJ Z9^/) ^>//c f^zrrers. . Tff^gy j ¥-jhtc ^ ^ V ^ C-^. yi<r? /?^S//0-^SS z rjd _______________________________ ^SfB^ ^JH/C ACSC' </,.<£e^ruy .7^ XCe<_ ^y^trxLGr^ 7^ co^-^^fcv-c^ ^''7^ 7~-H€- <f% "To ^>*'A^ryh:‘J y}toTj C)f^C %7V C frt'C- S ■7^ JZTt” /"j y //t^^c/iL Tyhv f -77^ (AJT€Sre-rr'r’ cf= 7?fC .^e70rr-a(U:rfscj/p, OC31SOS i.-7//fc.i£ S7>.L^c^‘,tas / 'Ci. &/V (Pe> Ties^ •yyfS /f£-%o Ai-(.c<-^r *■ r "7C> A^srvrr' 79<'6’ ^772^ fiA.p o^'A A/e&r o-t.eA^A/c<sv c^iTX TT^O r^^t/sc S-7T>'2/? C'C". (/•JC ,/>c5o ^eUitr^e 'TlfiT' ^£C c.o7~ ^r^^CiZ.'ry C^CfS'hcrJ /yipp Coa/rr?tC/C77^ £•- <r/.f C> (,'Ct5-C^5 f3xn(t/./ve-S ^^C-ii.JLi "it) /Pf^.v7»i.yj 7VC A'>mSlBnC./ry A-£-sr?i^77CS a-f C(^ , /fcC>0 Afc> av^ ytu>^e^-^s. 4-Tr^c.4/cv pAeri ?s /A7eA,(?^ ~rz> <r,Vf/^ 7<^£: G.wAc/rV o/^ <• y-cyvsc l^. Tkc ■nc Sre.vf-Tt.'ic N.^ r. Ar^C EXHIBIT C ' ri,^^ %u»* -« ' ^ V<-: y-« M V' * -*1' ^— ^ - /vIOP-TH HAtf Of PP^PE P-TY CERTIFICATE. OF SURVEY FOR STEVEN PERSIAN OF LOT 1. BLOCK 5. HUNTINGTON FARM HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA I 5 '' f'-'' 1 IMtt weriAMD I Ml. n MH O kh<tfa£.rv&:fl^ r k. liV^» ri N'-' SOUTH HALT Cfp piioP6P-tY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PF OREMISES: Lot 1. BLock 5. HUNTINGTON FARM This survey shoves Ihe boundaries of Ihe above described property, Ihc localion of ar^ existing house thereon, and the proposed localion of a proposed pool and storage shed. It does not purport to show any other improvemenis or erKroachmenls, IW . \ Iron morker Ceorinqs shown ore bosrd upon on ossumed dolurn GRONBERG eTXSSQCIATES. INC. CONSUITIMQ EMC4NC FRS. SU^^f vOTS I K**CBr ?mai r»r; eir»» Vff.r:rAinjti. rm rtP*Mt r*x^ pp€f*p^o er un l■^:l» u* c-r.cct a#o ftifti I »«i k > * vi fu:i?:rr k.o ST Ait 1-»30* r.Ar»' r I % Cv\ U'.:Jkb' *, -i ••v.Vi!'-' \ ;•< hs V /J ^•i f.y. ’■•y.^--1-■'S'y- ■: A. ■ »'■ ^ ■ A ifl *t^s iMinii . !»*»» V* I > «■• •• » » ■•». • •> :••«• ■- *• ^.*r . «• •■•*1 ■ • * |. .*«|«* 'J4* 1, •. »• • ► »• ••• 4»t ».* »t t:>r •• rw • *r t« »•• i|*« |» I MV' . •• •• •! *1 'f i» *11 - - • ■ . « ;-i. • •♦ . I" r • ••• • 4 » I- *■ ft' igiiiai I. • ' ••♦ i»:r M«« •• f< lit • I. I •»• X • • • . •• •• i ■ » H M ,1 y ■ri * \ <* • I' ^ ■* v.*t^ *..> ■ -• '■•♦ /ur Riftiliirln 11 1 in-M^•i i 1 i -fkK-- ■■’%' "V--- iiT --<7v . '. . »V .1 ^ .; . ' I I VJ ' I t* /'.Vi VjettAMO. r* •*• t • M •«• • • >«i«»4 •»** tMM C-T3 ■ MM* •«• • •••••« *«»l*<»* «<«•» «■*.»«•• • •■• cr> ••— ____ nwi IHD •rT3 ••^—*1 Q »*• > •»*«• •«i«|IN tN»* •«l •••••• •»•»• WMiX •»• ^ w*«« W’aVk •*•»• Zfk- • M< » K^ rLfcr • ' - •* *-oc. ''0*w «•• •. '• v^-v •s- ' >*v.* -• v^- o 0 w — ’•mt ----- •M______!••♦ »««••••• I sc 1/4 SEC 30 II1IN. f<2Jt< IIENNLPIN COuHTf •*•••. it»<m X K CO H X F ..»♦ KM ^vVVV ' .."■i^iC-> RUNDATE;V ]g 3011823410012 'ROP ADDR 994 HUNT FARM RD 3WNERNAME PMACFSCHOON TAXPAYER PETERMACARtAFSCrJOON 9AME/ADDR 994 HUNT FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 3011823430005 ■•ROPADDR 885 HUNT FARM RD 3WNER name MUNTINOTON FARM HOME OWNERS JEFFERY F 4 CAROLINE LEE NAME/ADDR 885 HUNT FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 ■■>?. I 03 I ,<f /*; •. .. I ji 'i- " J v « L’ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEI NFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWi JLIST I'ACE:*! 38 3011823420004 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY TAXPAYER B N A SANTA FE RR CO NAME/ADDR PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 38 3011823420006 PROP ADDR 1005 HUNT FARM RD OWNER NAME STEVEN P/KATHLEEN 0 PERSIAN TAXPAYER STEVEN P PERSIAN NAME/ADDR 1005 HUNT FARM RD LONCUKEMN 55356 33 3011823440006 PROP ADDR 885 HUNT FARM RD OWNER NAME HUNTINGTON FARM HOME OWNERS TAXPAYER PETERSCHOON NAME/ADDR 994 HUNT FARM RD LONCUKEMN 55356 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS RF,PRESEN1 ED ARF, AN ACCURATE AND TRUEREPROSEFFTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ONTHE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTM^JJ lTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. f/^ DATE W Xs CO H iifa ti ,,r~^TtKtr; Date Application Received: 08>184M Dale Application Complete: 09*l3-04 60-Day Review Period Expiration: 11-13-04 OCf 5 2m Cl I Y OF OhOivO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 20, 2004 Item No. Department Approval: • Name: Melanie Curtis Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Title: City Planner Item Description: #04-3052 - Eric Vogstrom - 2618 Casco Point Road - Variances Zoning District: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 'A acre/100’ width Lot Area: 20,561 s.f. (0.47 acres) Lot Width: 100’ measured at a line parallel to the shore & 80’ at the 75 ’ setback List of Exhibits: A. Revised Plans & Revised Hardcover dated 10-21-04 B. PC Action Notices dated 09-23-04 & 10-20-04 C. PC Memo & Exhibits of 09-13-04 & 10-14-04 D. Minutes from PC Meeting 09-20-04 & 10-18-04 (Draft) E. Letter to the PC from Neighbor at 2648 Casco Point Road Application Summary: In conjunction with a proposal for construction of a new 3002 s.f. home, the applicant requested variances within the 75 ’- 250’ setback zone for 57.9% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed, an average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 10’ nearer the lake than the neighboring home and a side street setback in order to encroach 5' into the 15’ setback from the unimproved right-of-way. At their September meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and voted to table the application stating that they would like to see the applicant revise the plan to reduce hardcover. For review at the October 18"* PC meeting, the applicant redesigned the plan to a request for 38.9% hardcover within the 75 ’ - 250’ setback, a variance for a 5’ encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, and a side street setback variance for a 10’ setback from the right-of-way where a 15’ setback is required. As of October 21, the applicant has revised the request for a 75 ’-250’ setback zone hardcover variance of 36.8% for construction of a 1.884 s.f. house and an average lakeshore setback variance in order to encroach 10’ closer to the lake than the neighboring home. This revision shows the proposed house meeting rear, side, and side street setbacks. m-SJ Planning Commission Recommendation This application was first heard by the Planning Commission on September 20*^ and was tabled at the applicants request in order to reduce the level of hardcover variance requested. On October 18, 2004, Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Bremer and Rahn cast dissenting votes) to recommend denial of the hardcover and setback variances based on lack of sufficient hardship. The two dissenting voters would have offered the applicant a tabling to allow him time to provide a further revised plan. Planning Staff Recommendation The applicant has proposed to Council a plan with further hardcover reductions but still requiring variances, Council should refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Refer the application back to the Planning Commission in order to review the revised plan, or direct staff to draft a denial resolution for adoption at your November 8*'' meeting. m F I E-a PJOCO*'-j*. C a LCL;-ATTC'P* '•■' CrPC5.=j-..:. i ;s£eAdACK : (C3C12 C.NZ)0-T ■' .•' rs-tfo' tso-fCu* V --- r^^rTTN'r: X • Leer-*-. X X — X a O* _ m T ------------------- • X * w « E. PadoDedc X X m F. Landscape Underiain By Plasdc G. Other r i-'riC ■Vc P X m X X m PlcL/Ate.r:X m total harccover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ 7 B 1 h f * ICO ycnpnssn hardcq vp^^ in ZONE A. House ---------- Utaett WIcUl X X X B. Cange C Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Padc/Desk X X W m XS f «• •»«—— T- Urderiai 3y Plasdc X X G. ether tct .ai KARDCC^'E?. in PROPERTY ARR^. IN' ^X ICO - •• ^ » • • •• 5 ‘. V \ ' Sr -A ^ m c ? t - C T ^ - ?£n S3. SJ. SJ. S.r. SJ. S.r. iA S.F. 7 OZ^ S.F. A n ~i •b~“ SJ^. B ?_ j> % > c JVv § SJ. SJ. S.F. \SJf. GuliH-Si^-' c C \ O SE. SJ. \AA- S.F. S.F. SJ. 0m wm O.T. SJ. SJ. S£I£u£-'- i ], W.* . ^ bL-.y y> LIVING AREA 1089 sq ft r eiK- & CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING nLE 04-3052 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 19,2004 1i TO: Eric Vogstrom 20840 Channel Dr Greenwood, MN 55331 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: October 18,2004 Planning Commission voted on a motion to deny the variance request in its entirety; the vote was as follows: VOTE:5 FOR 2 AGAINST (Bremer, Rahn) Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - October 25,2004 - Meeting starts at 7:09 pm If you desire certified copIe;> of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Plamier, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. P<.6 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-3052 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; September 23,2004 TO; Eric Vogstrom 20840 Channel Dr Greenwood, MN 55331 COPIES; TYPE OF REQUEST; Variances DATE OF MEETING; September 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows; The application was tabled in order for the applicant redesign the proposal to reduce overall hardcover level proposed and to meet the 5’ side street setback. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, October 18,2004; Meeting starts at 6:00 pro 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. FILE #04-3052 October 14.2004 Page 1 of 4 Dale Application Received: 08>18>04 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 09-13-04 60>Day Review Period Expires: 11-13-04 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Curtis, City Planner October 14, 2004 fit* Subject:04-3052, Eric Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Width: LR-IC, One Family l.akeshore Residential, Vi acre/100' 0.47 acre (20,561 s.f.) 100’ purullel to the shore 80’ (ffl 75 ’ setback Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to build a new single family residence on the property. The application consists of the following' 1 . A hardcover variance for 38.9% hardcover within the 75 ’ - 250 ’ setback zone where 25% is nomially allowed and 27.1% currently exists; and 2. A variance for side street setback of 10’ where a 15 ’ setback from the adjacent right-of-way is nonnally required; and 3. All average lakcshore setback variance to encroach 5 ’ nearer to the lake than the ______property to the south._________ ________ ________ Staff Recommemlation: Planning Department Staff recommends the following: 1 . Approval of the average lakcshore setback variance; and 2. Denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcov er variance as proposed as there are no hardships to support the variances as requested. lUmlship: Staff Joes not find that there is a valid hardship to justify granting a hardcover variance or a variance to encroach on the side street setback. List of Exhibits A. PC Report of 09-13-04 B. Revised Survey dated 10-13-04 C. Rcvi.scd Hardcover dated 10-13-04 D. Revised House Plan & Elevation FILE #0^1-3052 October 14. 2004 Page 2 of 4 Background This application was before the Planning Commission at the September 20"* meeting and was tabled in order for the applicant to redesign and reduce hardcover. Since that time the applicant has met with staff and redesigned the proposal in an attempt to further reduce hardcover. Additionally, the applicant has proceeded with tree removal in preparation for redevelopment of the property. The applicant performed this work without City approval or permits. The City is now in the process of analyzing the number of trees lost and an appropriate restoration plan. Staff recommends any variance approval include implementation of a Council approved restoration plan. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/'H'idth: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f C/jacrc)100’ Actual 20,561 s.f (0.47 acre)100’ @ shoreline 80’ @ 75’ setback Setbacks: LR-IC Required Existing Proposed (Revised) Lakcshorc 75’80’ (home) 78’(deck) Rear 30’30’ North Street Side 15’10’ South Side 10’13.2 ’ Average Lakcshorc The home on property to the south is set back 86’± from the OHWL; the applicant ’s proposal shows a 75’ setback. Technically, the applicant needs an average lakeshore setback variance however; lake views from the property to the south will not <e impacted by the applicant ’s proposal. Structural Coveraee: Total Lot Area 1 Total Structural Coverage 20.561 s.f. (0.47 acre) Approximately 16,400 s f. not including the portions of the property to the East of Carman Bay Allowed: Proposed: 3,084 s.f (15%) 3,002 s.f (14.6%) Adjusted Allowed: 2.460 s.f. = 15% of 16,400 s.f. r 1 FILE #04-3052 October 14. 2004 Page 3 of 4 Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover REVISED Existing Hardcover REVISED Proposed Hardcover 0-75 12,888 s.f. (including non- contiguous property east o f Carman Bay} 0 s.f (0%) 0 s.f* (0 %) 0 s.f (0 %) 75 - 250 7,673 s.f.1,918 s.f (25®/o) Revised 2,080 s.f* (27.1 ®/o) Revised 2,981 s.f (38.9 ®/o) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Street Setback Variance The applicant has not redesigned the proposal to meet the 1 5’ setback to the public riglit of-way, however the drive access remains off of Casco Point Road. Hardcover Variance The applicant has revised the plan and reduced the level of proposed within the 75 ’ - 250’ zone. The previously proposed hardcover percentage was 57.9% or 4,442 s.f the applicant has now proposed a hardcover percentage of 38.9% or 2,981 s.f.. This is a net reduction of 19% or 1,461 s.f.. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Fomi attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the 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 the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where theii strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of cireumsiances unique to the individual property under con <ideration, 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. Staffs position remains that thcic is no hardship inherent to the land which would justify the side street setback variance or the hardcover variance as p'^oposed. There are no current or future plans to develop or vacate the Casco Point Road right-of-way along the property ’s northern boundary, and the future public use of the right-of-way is unknown. Staff has contacted the Public Works Department who request that the right-of-way be clear of any encroachments. Staff believes that the allowed 55 ’ wide building envelope is v ery reasonable and a setback variance to the side street is not justified. Staff also does not find a hardship for this property to exceed the required 25® o hardcover limit. The applicant has proposed to redevelop the property, where the Planning Commission has consistently required full compliance with all regulations. Staff finds . ! 1 FILE #04^3052 October 14.2004 Page 4 of 4 that an increase of almost 12% hardcover on a redeveloping lot already having excess hardcover would be completely inconsistent with past practice. Staff finds that no hardship inherent to the land exists to allow a hardcover level above 25% or 1,918 s.f. as this level allows for a 1,500 s.f. house and 418 s.f. for driveway, sidewalks and patios or decks. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. Planning staff also recommends denial of tlie side street setback variance, and denial of the hardcover variance. Additionally, staff recommends that any variance approval for this site should be conditioned upon the submittal and Council approval of a restoration plan to remedy the vegetation removals conducted on the property during the week of October 11^ FILE #04-3052 September 13. 2004 Page 1 of 5 Date Application Received: 08-18-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09-13-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-13-04 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis. City Planner j|^ September 13, 2004 04-3052. Eric Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Width: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, '/i acrc/100’ 0.47 acre (20,561 s.f.) 100’ parallel to the shore 80 ’ 75 ’ setback_____________________ Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a number of variances itt order to build a new single family residence on the property. T he application consists of the following; 1. A hardcover variance for 57.9% hardcover within the 75 ’ - 250 ’ setback zone where 25% is normally allowed and 26.4% currently exists; and 2. A variance for side street setback of 10’ where a 15 ’ setback from the adjacent right-of-way is normally required; and 3. An average lakeshor. setback variance to encroach 10’ nearer to the lake than the property to the south. Stajf Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the av^'-age lakeshore setback variance; and 2. Denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcover variance as proposed as there are no hardships to support the variances as requested. Hardship: Stojy does not find that there is a valid hardship to justifi granting a hardcover variance or encroach on the side street setback. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. ^8-350. Area, height, lot w idth and yard requirements. Lot Area (acre) l.ol Width (feet) I ronl Yaril Side Yard (fccO Rear Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (tect) 05 100 30 10 30 15 Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impcr\ ious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of an\ lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elscwhc.c in this Code. 1 J FILE #04-3052 September 13. 2004 Page 2 of 5 (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. (Ord.No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(L)), 2-24-1992) 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 let area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square iect of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. Sec. 78-1. Definitions. Lot area means the area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river or area frequently under water which serves as a watercourse draining higher land on which sustains emergent aquatic growth or area which has been dedicated as public right-of- way. Sec. 82-2. Definitions. Dry buildable land means land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot, excluding drainageway s, flowage areas, floodplains, wetlands, marshland or slopes of 18 percent or greater. Lot area, minimum, means minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in chapter 78. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusiv e of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of ;my surface water or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with chapter 58, article 11. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in chapter 78 or half-acre, whichever is less (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way. vehicular or pedestrian ea.scments. surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property), and have legal access to the building site witliout encroachment of a wetland or floodplain area. List of Exhibits A. Application B Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Building Footprint Illustration G. Old Survey dated 03-17-54 H. Wetland Delineation Report I. City Engineer Comments J. Pre-Application Meeting Form K. Letter from Neighbor (2648 Casco Pt Rd) L. Survey for 2648 Casco Point Rd M. Property Owners' List N. Plat Map I f k FILE #04.3052 Seplenber 13, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Background Eric Vogstrom is the applicant and owner of 2618 Casco Point Road. The applicant has requested lot area, lot width, hardcover, and side-street setback variances in order to build a new single family residence on his property. The property contains 20,561 s.f. of non contiguous land, divided by Carman Bay and wetland. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. ('/j acre)100' Actual 20,561 s.f. (0.47 acre)100' @ shoreline 80’ (a! 75’ setback Setbacks; LR-IC Required Existins ProptKsed Lakeshore 75'75’ Rear 30'30 ’ North Street Side 1 15’10' South Side 10’10’ Average Lakeshore The home on property to the south is set back 86’± from the OHVVL; tl.e applicant’s proposal shows a 75’ setback. Technically, the applicant needs an average lakeshurc sct'oack variance however; lake views from the property to the south will not be impacted by the applicant's proposal. Structural Coveraee: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 20,561 s.f (0.47 acre) Approximately 16,400 s.f. not including the portions of the property to the East of Carman Bay Allowed; 3.084 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3.002 s.f. (14.6 %) Adjusted Allowed: 2.460 s.f. = 15% of 16.400 .f Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proponed Hardcover 12.888 s.f. 0 - 75 (including non Os.f 0 s.f Os.f. contiguous property east of Carman Pay) (0%)(0 %)(0 %) 75-250 7.673 s.f.1,918 s.f.2.028 s.f.*4,442 s.f. (25%)(26.4 %)(57.9%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lincd landscape beds 3 ' ( FILE #04-3052 September 13,2004 Page 4 of 5 Side Street Setback Variance Bordering the applicant’s property to the north is an undeveloped public right-of-way. The applicant’s property is approximately 80' in width. Allowing for a 10* setback on the south and a 15’ side street setback on the north leaves a 55’ wide buildablc area. A reasonable home can be constructed within this width. The City Engineer ’s comments add ess the issue of house size relating to drainage. It is the Engineer's thought that the size of the home as proposed will need to be scaled back to allow for appropriate grading between the lots in order to avoid directing drainage onto neighboring properties. The applicant’s proposal brings about some challenging drainage issues for this property. Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing 57.9% hardcover. The existing residence and hardcover arc just above the allowed limit for the 75’ - 250’ setback zone at 26.4%. The existing home has an approximate footprint of 1.184 s.f.. ’he applicant is proposing a 3,002 s.f. footprint to essentially “max out’’ the 15% structuial coverage amount based on the total dry land area. The total properly area is 20,561 s.f.; however this includes an approximate 4,000 s.f. portion separated from the building site by an inlet of Carman Bay. The contiguous land area is appro.ximately 16,400 s.f.. The applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total non-contiguous narcel above the 929.4 ’ elevation. Neither the lot coverage ordinance nor the Zoning Code definition of “lot area'* clarify whether the lot coverage percentage should be based on contiguous area. The Subdivision Code definition of “minimum lot area’’ (Cite 82-2) would disallow non contiguous land as creditable toward lot area. The property to the south (2648 Cfsco Point Road) is similar in that it also contains a noncomiguous “island" of land. In 1985, an approximately 3000 s.f. home was constructed at 2648 Casco Point Road which, based on the contiguous area of this lot. is 1< % lot coverage and 21% hardcover. This lot is considerably larger than the applicant's property. However, the applicant's property is only slightly substandard in area and width. The 15% lot coverage amount is a limit, not an allowance. On lakeshore properties the limiting factor very often is the hardcover percentage, not the structural coverage amount. A similar sized lot, I.offler, 1690 Shadywood Road. Application #04-3009, was 80'-83’ in width and 0.39 acre and was limited to 33% 75' - 250' hardcover (the hardships included being on a busy County Road and needing a backup apron; the non-optimal lot shape; and the inability to move the house nearer the road due to negati * e impacts on lake views due to the location of adj^'cent homes near the shore). That house was reduced to 14.7% lot coverage in order to make the hardcover work at 33%. For the applicant's proposal, a 3,002 s.f footprint, 1.225 s.f of driveway, and 2i5 s.f of sidewalk make up the 57.9% proposed hardcover. There are no patios proposed and only one 18' X 11' deck on the lakeside of the home. The driveway and sidewalks as proposed seem excessive at 31’ and 8' widths re.spectively. The curb cut of the driveway is not permitted at greater than 20* at the street. I he driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at the curb, and would need to be substantially reduced overall to bring the FILE #04-3052 September 13.2004 Page 5 of 5 hardcover down to a reasonable level Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /It considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the conmuntty, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light 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 finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land which would justify the side street setback variance or the hardcover variance as proposed. There are no current or future plans to develop or vacate the Casco Point Road right-of-way along the property’s northern boundary, and the future public use of the right-of-way is unknown. Staff believes that the allowed SS’ wide building envelope is very reasonable and a setback variance to the side street is not justified. If the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant should get credit toward the structural coverage for the dry land on the non contiguous portion of the property, there may be some appropriate level of hardcover variance to support some reasonable level of development of the site. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Side street setback; 2. Lot coverage determination; 3. Combination of reduction of lot coverage and hardcover to a reasonable lc\ el; and 4. Level of hardcover variance that is justifiable. 5. Please review the comments from the adjacent property owner regarding drainage, parking and tree protection. 6. Please review^ the City Engineer ’s comments. 7. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the a\erage lakeshore setback variance. Planning staff also recommends denial of the side street setback variance, and denial of tlie hardcover variance. The application could be tabled for revisions if the applicant requests tabling. 5 City of Orono &^e>ir A Variance Application m street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main; 952-249-4600 fax 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55322-Q066 Application U 0^^ Date Received Amount PaLd UOO CD '' Staff: Fee;S600 Renewal; $300 After-the-fact; $1,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. App cant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: cAscc po/^r y?o/^o Property Identification Number (PIN); (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): □ Yes, I own the-adjacent parcels. Present use of property: ^Residential □ Other __________________________________ Zoning District: ___________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal nares and marital status required for each interested party) Name: t7o6^m>m ______________________________________________ Phone (home): «-/-?«-/-gw8_______Phone (wr--^->. Ou.-^c,c -nsco_______ Address: Oic/u>- __________ Email: £j~n4c. (£L~ t/oGug . c c »rt Fax:gygrs OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names a'd marital status required for each interested party) Name. Phone (home): ________________________ Address: _____________________________ Email: Phone (work): Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:Estimated Project Cost: $ UOiCnior^ riF ‘-yiuirM K cttd /VJOD tU/ce /dOUtJi 'Afj //»iPrfrUnt> (Torio # -P* CO<Mcij c^o<i TO Sc£T TfIC. C^rY L.'/H-n-rfr //~ I CP Ht^i^ /»’‘r tooimtULK) S/Oc s:<rrOiScc /it: iO f ooT rA^rt7)t> or- /S F^'ct. P TfUtJIt- rs 40 (^dCI 4.'/2:7 i2XC# M,u5t:r^fd UhJth^r^fi^Cc:!^ \lcn$o iS «.rt-S' ucT'o*-!:) Ax-'o r7/4C Ho<^st~ /oi'uw C k ^O^ ^00 FKc/h /liV FiioPOCi-O HOUSll , rtiptit.' PO/IC TTlCiA /S /ot* rha f /S Fot r V /T /S /oor M u;.'/\r> . I /V-So /4 HAKO CO<^CK ,CCf ts So\St^^ r ^a:>,ooo ii-PT. P HAve c?c^,SC-/ S(- Ff cr cxcJt- /^/O Foil ^nu.crttiftC ^ Hi/T Oar f--,c rfA^©cc.'at. j-hfcc c^<-v T Pm*i Pur <£ /O /<s c/'-A. * ..« t .3/. < • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □□□□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6‘^ Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 1 1" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or11"x 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 1 1" or 11 ” x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of ite potential merit. Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: Date: Date: OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner ’s Signature: Owner ’s Signature: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. .// I__ HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Page 1 of3 I This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City^______________________________________ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27. Subdivision 7 requires that a hardsliip be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please addiess each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply); "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." TH/C ^IZtr ce THS. *-0T f: fCc:TiSt*JAtfie.r g4/y ui/rn rxc. )______________ / Ne) "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." /*tV outyi- &0% (PP z,or itJ ThtL _________________________________ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essentia! character of the locality "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. " ______T fjtf /f pt,t Page 2 of 3 "Undue hardship also includes, but is not ‘imited to inadequate sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." “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. The: '2.c^,Aoc, rs ------------------------------------------ “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a ^ one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 8. 9. 10. 'll.*' "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. ______TH'JKtr. /S /♦- (.CL'i:- rnnr --------- rh4J*.i. rreu-- ty.- /<;y 4c/~ (!> —<r ------------ "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located “ ‘Thc: /♦y-'sVc3t /3 cQi.e^ifc: /^'~r------------------ /I^A -r c^rhei'. //-' i~nt^ "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 7c 7 5 Su rr /S ----------------------------------- * c i c-K “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." /,u - ^.r A-H1____________________________ M.(#v. «* '\.v /•, r^. » \ L • Page 3 of 3 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." IC.AJC4L • lutrorm ffuT DtZ __ ft, C^irtt rH£. Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary); _ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (=/-'■ ( nr .f*•O. I- - X i -pi^ un^o j^Booi£ %?9,4 fs ^^,S'h/ sc/=^r /^jy snac'T^tttei f=/r*^ /=^f/oe£ {jp^fSti x- /s % *= ) ^iV' ^tiuL(.rtiiu£: 1% ctoL.^ 3^^ Lo/m a Oi£Ci<c iOiT^ C4Ajt<^UtC. C.-C r "P Hh<~'l2. 00% Of* /r /*» /A,’ /wcr o-'7S % fiuLxz r^c3ce7^,ta ^ Ajor ^ /H<~ » 47 thh^^i CTHQC- ^ TS /TH S/fu T^frT H^<^C <S?brrt:>^ /‘V Hh-iiDLoCi^tC , .J^tO’PKOO ?t? 6t-T A- pcii Sfc% iCHlCH Ifr 'i'C'-f T?ilC<L jl'!^ <^Tht<:L ^T /-OTfc hCCo^^fCT 6/4'/^' So2i: /S /Cvr aiJ/i^^cuz AT" ^4oti-. « u #3'.n 0,^ 7A u “A ; ir m \ r • • M r 53-3- basement PLAN 2847 sqn i6’-r MAIN FLOOR PLAN 2900 sqll I 5ZT3ACX Z0^•2I (CIRCLE O.NE)0)75-250'250-K0'500-1000’ yyrgTTVf; farpcover i>‘ zo>~s A. Kcuse c c Ijsift \*5SS X X X s^. C r Sj. B. C-anj* C Drivewiy SJ. X X S^. SJ. D. SidewiOi X X Si'. SJ'. E. Ptfio/Dedc X X SJ. SJf. F. Landnpe Uodoiaia By Plastie X X X SJr. SJ. SJ. C. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE n * B X 100 - 12. Includes pnsp(i.'rt^ t. a-Q Ccxco^aia SJ'”. Q sj. .Pftft ss.• n % A fROpq«pHAa A. How __ ’f ^ TN TjOTTR Bo^:) X X X SJ'. SJv SJ* B. Gince X • X X - D. Skiswalk • • X ......... X .. _■ I*. PatkVDcck X X • X . _ X • By Plasde X • ■» ■»•SJ». SJ. SJF. SJ. SJ.\£)V£ S.F. SJ.LO SJ. SJ.J C. Other SJ. TOTAL EAPoXXJVER IN EJhe TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B ____X 100 Q -SJ.0'3 iS %=te ^jjrnice: - Ho, ooc so pt 6CJ>Vf2<r u>r /Vftoc ’d: ^ ^o^Sc\ epo, Sfcl SQFf“ /S?/d %:nu(cfuiz£. -= 30B*-i P f V ■:i r 5XT3ACX Z0N2: (CIRCLE OJfi:) O-'S" fCT^TTNT: r-ARDCOVER !>' ZG?S A. Kcuie ______________ HARDC OVZR CALCUi-Al xur» »t ujcvn-axui-x. ^ 250-;-:o’ Ls=** X X X 3. C Drivcwav D. Sldewtlk E. PadorDcck F. •Umdiwpe- C^ooV^ Underliin —i- By Plastic — X X X X X X X X X at C. Oltwr A. How P i CKJf\\ ejT —---------------- total HARDCOVER IN ZONE WUtti B. Conge C Dtiwiny 0. Sidewalk E. PadoDedc Xf T• • ——r Ucderiaxn By Plasac a 0*er X X X X X X X X X X X X total K-J^SIICOVER IS ZCNc _ toi al property area in zone ♦ 3 ____ £00-1000’ iiP.4 c - ♦ S--. SI. SI. SI. SI. ^31 SI. SI. ^ ^ S J. Si'. X m - IB SJ. SJr. SJ. \0.SJf. •T A ~ 7^. A S.F. A SI. B % .* \ Bno2. 1 S.F. SI. ~ SI. £' V„ SI. ^ • SI. SI.\ i •'SI. ZlS_sr. SI.•• SI. k 4CSi-* SI. SJ. 3^.S C- SI.I'1C/I#; 444 ^ nLT^ •SJ. A SJ. 3 • BY.5 ' % 11 t j I J - mvei .................= 1/^1*2106^ O) fv fe'-' SJl ' mm f V. X')39 /' 5 ■^<^m xn'iv.ijvva^.^,;'/&a Kp r ■; > M ' *.<•<• ‘ ? V»*>v^ » J ^ ^ >;',)4i 9 If /cc-j y*'^-<,4 4 1 X94J 7 X9A() 3 x^M; / 161.18 S 89z3;00‘* C / / ’Benchriiork:l lop of iron 944. f X 94/0 X'J41 .5 V C /Ik, ^Prci^ws&d 54t j / Fonce / ')29 b / / / /U /\ / / A . /' / ^ / X03/4/ /,. / / 'X9404/// / /^929 'J / / / / / /(/Xy' r /k 9 2 ) 9 9-'7~yf t ■U p. -TfC K- SXH1BIT6 THIS ITEM MS BEEN MICBOFIUIED ■J Ji i! 5 f^±. Dock Shoreline / T- / / y “Prapcrf^ /in«3 7 \ \% V, 'A. ■<• 'ty \ • 0 <' \ Plat of Surrey for Be»4le«» in HLook 3y Viashlp's Subdirisior of Lot 1, Spring Fbrlc 2nd Dlrlslc Hennepin County» Minnesota Scale: 1" s 50» Date I March 15, 1954 o t Iron marker Datum eleration: Gray's Bay Dam ■ 929,40' Water siirface of Lake Minne tonka on Miroh 17, 1954, * 929.42' according to records on file in the office of the Hennepin County Highway Engineer. KFLI£T & KELLEY, Engineers Long lake, Minnesota 7' ! ^lerr H 2618 Casco Point Road Qrono, MN Prepared by Svoboda Ecological Resources for: Eric Vogstrom IPlpi (Ji B aland Classification, Identification, and Delineation Project No. 2004-104-03 August 31, 2004 m fv* W. SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Consulting September 3. 2004 Erie Vogstrom 20840 Channel Drive Orono. MN 55331 RE:SER Project Name: 2816 Casco Point Road SER Project No: 2004-104-03 Project Location: A portion of the SE Va of the NW V* of Section 20, T 117N, R 23W, .City of Orono. Hennepin County, Minnesota Project Description: Wetland Classification. Identification, Delineation and Staking Services Dear Mr. Vogstrom, As requested, Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) personnel visited the above referenced property on August 31,2004, to examine the site for the presence of areas meeting wetland criteria. Criteria for determining jurisdictional wetlands are as desenbed in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. ' ' The project site is a small irregularly shaped one-acre lot separated by a small flooded inlet extending in a northerly direction through the center of the property from Carman Bay in Lake Minnetonka. The lot is sparsely wooded on the western side of the property but becomes denser along the periphery of the flooded inlet. The property is relatively flat closest to the basin but has an approximate 15 percent incline on the western side of the property which extends further west. The incline begins to level off after an approximate 12-foot increase in-elevation. An abandoned single family home exists at the top of the hill on the western most portion of the property. The project site is bordered by Casco Point Road on the western end. private properties on its northern and southern sides containing single-family homes and Carman Bay on its east-southeastern side. The property lies within the SE Va of the NW % of Section 20. Township 117N, Range 23 W, City of Orono. Hennepin County, Minnesota (Figure 1). MtTHODS National Welland Invenlory'(NWl) maps, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters maps. Soil Survey of Hennepin County, and aerial photographs were reviewed prior 2477 Shadywood Road • Excelsior. MN 55331 (952) 471-1100 (Office) • (952) 471-0007 (Fax) 10 the site visit to identify areas of concern. Areas illustrating evidence of wetland conditions were examined in greater detail din ing the field survey. Vegetation, soils and hydrology were examined (as outlined in the 1987 Manual) and used to characterize wetland types and determine wetland boundaries. Sample transects wore established in a representative wetland-to-upland transition zone in order to characteri/x the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the site. The transects consist of one representative upland sample point and one repre.scntativc wetland sample point. The number of tran.sccts completed per basin depends on the size of the basin and/or the number of wetland types associated with each basin. Other samples were taken at unmarked locations to provide verification of the wetland edge as needed. Information obtained from the sample points can be found on the field data sheets located in Appendix A. The wetland boundary was marked at the site by blaze-orange “wetland boundary flagging attached to 4-foot wooden lath. The wetland boundary is considered to be the topographically highest extent of the wetland basin; areas below the staked boundary met the three required wetland criteria while areas above lacked one or more of these criteria. Wetland classification followed methods de.scribed by Cowardin et al. (1979) and used in the NWI completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Circular 39 classification (Shaw and Fredine 1956) is also given. The indicator status of plants was determined using the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands - Minnesota (Reed 19S8). Explanation of the plant indicator categories is provided in Appendix B. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The NWI map (Mound Quadrangle) illustrates one wetland basin on the subject property. The NWI identified wetlands on the property consist of a Type 3/5 (PEMC/UBH) wetland on the southeastern portion of the property (Figure 2). The Soil Survey of Hennepin County indicates three individual soil types on the subject property (Figure 3). These individual soil types include; Hayden Loam (HbB and C). Klossner Muck (Ma). and Bellville Sill Loam (Lc). See Appendix C for a description of the soil series for each of these soil types. Of these soil types, the Klossner Muck (Ma) is classified as hydric soils {Hydric Soils of the United States). The DNR Public Waters Map of Hennepin County illustrates one public water (913w) on the subject property (Figure 4). SER personnel examined the subject property for areas meeting jurisdictional wetland criteria during the site visit and delineated one area as being jurisdictional wetland. Detailed vegetation, soils, and hydrology data for the wetland are provided in the data sh*ets of Appendix A. Basin 1 is located in the in the southeastern portion of the subject property (Figure 5). SER delineated the boundary of Basin 1 as a palustrine (P-) type wetland exhibiting emergent (-EM-) vegetation w ith a seasonally flooded (-C-) moisture regime along the outermost portion of the basin and a palustrine (P-) type wetland with an unconsolidated bottom (-UB-) that is permanently flooded (-H) in the central portion of the basin or a Type 3/5 (PEMC/UBH) wetland complex. ■ i i The wetland boundary was based on a dominance of Narrow Leaf Cattail (Typha angusii/blia. OBL). and Wild Mint (Mentha arvensis, FACW) on the wetland side of the boundary and a dominance of Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus carthartica. FACU) on the upland side of the boundary. The boundary was also based on an abrupt decline in elevation from upland to wetland and the fact that the soil was either saturated to the surface or flooded in several areas along the boundary on the wetland side • SER used 20 lath to delineate the wetland boundary of Basin I. Photographs 1 through 6 (Photo Log) depicts Basin 1 at the time of the site visit. CONCLUSIONS SER examined the subject property and delineated one wetland basin, which exhibited a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Basin 1 was classified as Type 3/5 (PEMC/UBH) wetland complex. RECOMMENDATIONS While the wetland boundary that SER has delineated is not official until approved by a WCA approved local government unit (LGU), SER advises the property owner to refrain from any filling, draining, or excavating, or any impact to the area SER has delineated as wetland. Depending on the location of the property, buffers around the wetland may also be protected. Any activities in the proximity of the wetland should be cleared with appropriate WCA regulatory agencies. It is also advisable to have the wetland boundary surveyed by a licensed land surveyor, or located with a sub-meter GPS unit. Since the lath used along the boundary can be vandalized or inadvertently knocked over, a survey or GPS location of the lath will assure the permanence of the boundary. The client should also be aware that approved wetland boundaries are typically valid for only three years from the date of approval. Please feel free to contact Brian Burgner or Frank Svoboda at (952) 471-1100 if you have any questions regarding the information in this report. You will be receiving a follow-up phone call in two to three weeks to see if there is anything else that is needed. SER appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project and we look forward to serv'ing any future needs that you might have. Sincerely, Svoboda Ecological Resources . ,Soo4t»i)c5^ Franklin J. Svoboda, CWB, PWS Vice-President %~ysJ2- Brian K. Burgner Wetland Ecologist DATA SOURCES Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory Map. Hennepin County. 1985. USDA. Soil Survey of Henepin County. June 1 971. 159pp. plus appendices. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map - Mound Quadrangles. 1991. (Taken from May 2(X)3 aerial photographs). uses. Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle - Hennepin County, Section 20, Township 1 17N, Range 23W. uses. May, 2003. ‘Jf LITERATURE CITED Cowardin. L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golel. and R.T. LaRoe. 1979. Chtssificatinn ofWetUmds utui Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fi.sh and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp. Eggers, Steve D. and Donald M. Reed. 1997. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. US Army Corps of Engineers. St. Paul District. 263pp, unclassified. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. 19S7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., Misc. Publication Number 1491. 1991. Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Minnesota. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. Shaw, S.P., and C.G. Frcdine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. 67pp. Si Figures r V "O Oa: c o ^ Q. ^ O CD(/) ,r (D ^ U CO <£) CNJ I *1tJ £ ?! a M O < s Og o: r.-o-i5 1*%^ VJ ‘ob o O COo » 4 w : m M, %r^ / lUBH^Wm 9>.t ‘ UUBH tK^t LLi^ «i% vttx |PJ E»7y*-< W ’ ■iM ,/ • ■-;'V i.fe-it®i'lS mmii r>ii^ l^‘ I >«> .- <^ • . 4 11' bc.t >.r»l.^ .tid 'm ’ ^ S:." «n W'-W ■vslii F “ ._ *' gltfT^TriMi. _ - "i Si| - •^- V'r -- - ¥>^' w;. ■ ^ vi‘- I ilwi ;»*'• '■, ‘;‘*4j *» -K v^ Mm 'mMl L'. * ^ V '- f.mm,'-' ' 'iS^'I- '-- M-' 'N’*v !' yjii 'iisi.. i ' .’ dtas;% » > * » ■ /'< \ •• • » ' ' ,k' 'W*. - ■• .W-.. i* , ■ ■ kr fi,-* -'-. .j . ..'U: V . ^ ^ y , . f*ra S;;, ^.’■' "-a.. ;i}d:i^,. as -■■ a ■■iita .i '.v_.'V —"’f-*J^ '> f (' T -.r • •» '*^ •* .mn ■^*C# '■'I A 7 fS :f5J 'A ,9* f ^ '1L>«‘!^ . *» #Sk>» ^5. r N^t, > ' .' i-. i Approximate Wetland Boundary Overlayed on 2003 Aerial Photo i'(*SVOBODA i ■' F'-'oIo^ic.iI Rru '.irce? *•» •'(tr'Ai i ? • • r* /if*’* *kx» t v, ^ j f' • .iv “.e; t? ■A 26 ’8 Caset’ Po nt Ro^ic F.qj'e 5 Appendix A Field Data Sheets ^ < Ik "1 SVORODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES WctUuids Invcntnrv A Dchncatinn • ri.shchcs • Wildlife • Natural Cammunilies Siic N.imo Casco Point RojJ lUMrt Area Dasm I lnvc»tiVJtiir«BKB Dale Sainple Piimi II). Liimmunity Type Alh! 31. 2004 SP M WET Tv PC V> (PEMOUBHL Di»turbeil Conditum* Y cn Nature of Di>iurbanwe: VEGETATION Dominants (>20*i ♦ ha.ol *»r jcnal cmcrage)Non-dominants T\ nh(t atwtrUi/nhn i^tratum II V s T II V S T II V S T II V S T H V S T M V S T H V S T Irdrcalof S!atu> OBL Specre< Rluitnnii < airtlmuica tnipatii'm mncru%FACW snn Stfntum Indieatur H V S T F.ACU H V S T H V S T H V S T H V S T II V S T H V S T >50% of Dominants FAC Of wetter * ✓ Yes No >50* • of Dominants FACW, OBL tFAC-ncutral test) »/ Yes No N/A Notes No vine or shrub species obseved at this sample location. SOILS County Soil Suncy Map Unit; Hayden loam Soil Senes is on National Hydnc Soil List Area mapped as depression or wet spot on Soil Survey field Observations Hydnc soil assumed because plants arc OBL and FACW and wetland boundary is abrupt Organic Soil^ Mineral Soil Horizon/Dcpth Matfi.x Color 0-6 ’ Texture Peat Features 6.20‘N 2 5/0 elev Sandv clavloam Hydnc Soil Prcfcnt'* ^ Yes Notes Undetermined [Pfmury indicators (P) 5f« onda;^ indicators tSt HYDROLOGV Deptl. of sampling 20 Inches Inundated. Depth of Water (P) Free water in borehole. Depth from Suriace: Water Marks. Elevation (P) Drift Lines or Sediment Deposits (P) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches (S) Drainage Patiems in Wetlands (P) Water-stained leaves (S) Local Soil Survey Dtia (SI FAC • Neutral Test tS) Hydrology Cntenon Met'* ^ Yes Other Observations fdo frcc water observed in the borehole WTTLAND DETERMINATION b the Sample Point in W'ciiand ’ Yes ✓ No Undetermined Distance from Delineated Edge 5 tt N/A Hwia Wetland edge ba.sed on vegetation and topographic line iifWiiiiiir'iiinif'iiiii I SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES H’cihiiul.s finrnton- c'c Dcliimilion * Fisluii ics • iVildlifc * Natural Cummanilics Sue N.inic 2r>IS Casco Point Road Dale Am?. 31. 2(MU ll.iNimAre.i B.isin 1 Sample Point ID SP l-l UP InvcMig.iiorv BKB Community Type:UPLAND l)i\iurK‘il C ondition ' Yes No ^ Nature ol Dixiurbance: VEGETATION PtHi praien.\n Dominant.^ t>20*i ^ basal ur aerial cvncr.igc) Sifaium Iniltcaior Slaiits Non-domiriiints Rlictnmtir t (ir that tied II V S T n V S T II V S T H V S T H V S T H V S T II V S T FAC- Spcvics Fraxinus fwnnxxUvnica F.‘\CU fntpfttirns cupt*n\l^ Smmm lntl^calt»r Stjtu< n V S T FACW H V s T FACW Mains spn. G'icentra liedcraccii Galium tnflnrum H V S T H V S T I! V S T II V S T H V S T FACU FACU-i- >50*‘« ol‘ Dominnnii FAC or weiicr ’Yes ^ No >5C*.4 of Dominants FACW, OBL (FAC-neutral test) Yes •/ No H'A Notes No vine or shrub species obseved at this sample location. SOILS County Soli Survey Map Unit; Hayden loam Soil Series is on National Hydne Soil List Area mapped as depression or wei spot on Soil Survey Field Observations Hydric soil oisumed because plants arc OBL and FACW and wetland boundary is abrupt Organic Soil^ Mineral Soil Horizon'DcDth 0-7* Matrix Color 10YR4/3” Texture Sandy loam Features 7.12‘lOYR 4/3*Sandv loam Few/Finc/Prominent SYR 5/8 lOSM* Common/Course/Disinct IOYR2yi 12-20'*10YR2/1 Sandv clav loam Hydne Soil Present *Yes ✓ No Undetermined Notes ‘Iron Oxide Soft Masses Primary indicators (P) Second.uy indicators iSi HYDROLOGY Depth ol sampling:20 Inches Inundated. Depth of Water iP) Free water in borehole. Depth tiom Surtace Water Marks. Elevation (P) Dnit Lints or Sediment Deposits (P) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches (Si Drainage Patterns m W'etbnds (P) Water-stained leaves (S> Local Soil Survey Data (S) FAC • Neutral Test tS) Hydrology Criterion Met**Yes ✓ No Other Observations [s^o free w ater observed in ihe borehole U the S.imple Point in Wetland * Yes WETLAND DETERMINATION No ✓ Undetermined Distance from Delineated Edge 5 It N A Notes Wetland edge based on vegetation and topographic line Appendix B Plant Indicator Categories 3 INDICATOR CATEGORIES* Obligate Wetland (OBL) - Occur almost always (estimatedprobability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) - Usually occur in wetlands (estimatedprobability 67% 99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAC) - Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% • 66%). Facultative Upland (FACU) - Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimatedprobability 67% • 99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimatedprobability 1% - 33%). Obligate Upland (UPL) - Occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in non-wetlands in the region specified. If a species does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not on the National List. *Reed. P.B. 198S National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Minnesota. National Wetlands Inventory. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg. Rorida. Appendix C Soil Series Descriptions i V BELLEVILLE SERIES The Dcllcvilic series eonsisls ul ptuirly UiaineU and very poorly drained soils lormed in samly materials anderlain by loamy glacial or lacustrine sediments at 20 to 40 inches Permeability is rapid in the santly materials and moderately slow in the loamy materials. Slopes range Irom 0 to 2 pereent. Mean annual precipitation is about .^3 inches, and mean annual temperature is about 4s) degrees F. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy over loamy, mixed, semiaciivc. mesicTypic Endoaquolls TYPICAL PEDON: Belleville loamy fine sand on a 1 percent slope in a cultivated field. (Colors ate for moist soil unless otherwise indicated.) Ap--0 to 11 inches; black (lOYR 2/1) loamy fine sand, dark gray (lOYR 4/1) dry: moderate medium granular structure; friable; common fine roots; mildly alkaline; abrupt smooth boundary. (11 to 16 inches thick) Bg--11 to 20 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) fine sand; few fine prominent yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6) and few fine distinct light gray (lOYR 6/1) mottles; single grain; loose; few fine roots; black (lOYR 2/1) coatings in root channels; mildly alkaltne; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 20 inches thick) Cgl--20 to 30 inches; light gray (lOYR 6/1) fine sand; common fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) and common medium prominent light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) mottles; single grain; loose; slight effervescence; mildly alkaline; abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick) 2Cg2--30 to 34 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) heavy clay loam; common medium distinct dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) and few fine distinct olive (5Y 5/6) mottles; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; firm; about 1 percent gravel; strong effervescence; moderately alkaline; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 5 inches thick) 2Cg3-34 to 51 inches; dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) silty clay loam; common medium distinct dark gray (5Y 4/1) mottles; massive; firm; about 3 percent gravel; strong effervescence; moderately alkaline; clear wavy boundary. 2Cg4-51 to 55 inches; gray (lOYR 5/1) silty clay loam; common medium prominent olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) mottles; massive; firm; about 5 percent gravel; strong effervescence; moderately alkaline; clear wavy boundary. 2Cg5-55 to 60 inches; gray (lOYR 5/1) silty clay loam; few fine prominent dark reddish gray (5YR 4/2) mottles; massive; firm; about 2 percent gravel; strong effervescence; moderately alkaline. TYPE LOCATION: Wayne County. Michigan; about 7 1/2 miles south and 1 mile east of Belleville; 528 feet west and 2376 feet north of the southeast corner, sec. 34. T. 4 S.. R. 8 E. i RANGK IN CHARACTERISTICS: The depth to the 2C horizon ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The solum ranges from slightly acid to moderately alkaline. Rock fragments, dominantly gravel, ranges from 0 to 5 percent by volume throughout the pedon. The Ap horizon has hue of lOYR. value of 2 or 3. and chroma of I or 2. It is sandy loam, loamy fine sand, loamy sand, fine sand, or sand. A thin AE horizon is present in some pedons. The Bg horizon h.is hue of lOYR or 2.5Y, value of 4 to 6. and chroma of I or 2. It is loamy fine sand, loamy sand, fine sand, or sand. The C horizon has hue of lOYR to 5Y. value of 4 to 6. and chroma of I to 3. It is loamy fine sand, loamy .sand, fine sand, or sand. It is mildly alkaline or moderately alkaline and has slight to strong effervescence. The 2C horizon has hue of lOYR to 5Y. or is neutral; value of 4 to 6; and chroma of 0 to 6. It is clay loam, loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam. Thin lenses of fine sand or sand arc in some pedons. COMPETING SERIES: There are no competing series. Similar soils are the Breckenridge. Brevort. Burleigh. Corunna Ed more. Essex ville. Granbv. Pinconning. Ro.scommon. and Wau.scon scries. Breckenridge. Brevort. Burleigh. Pinconning, and Roscommon soils have frigid tempcraturcf. The Breckenridge and Corunna soils are coarse-loamy. Edmore soils do not have mollic epipedons and are sandy. Essexvillc soils arc calcareous. Granby soils are sandy. VVeuseon soils are coarse-loamy over clayey. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Belleville soils arc on nearly level lake plains and till plains. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The soils formed in sandy glaciofluvium underlain by loamy glacial or lacustrine sediments at depths of 20 to 40 inches. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 29 to 37 inches, and the mean annual temperature ranges from 46 to 50 degrees F. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: The well drained and moderately well drained Metea soils and somewhat poorly drained Sclfridge soils arc in a drainage sequence with Belleville soils. In most landscapes with the Belleville soils are the Corunna. Granbv. Oakville. Pewamo. Tedrow. and Thetford soils. The Oakville and Tedrow soils do not have loamy material. The Pewamo soils do not have sandy materi.il. The Thetford DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Poorly and very poorly drained. Surface runoff is very slow or ponded. Permeability is rapid in the sandy horizons and moderately slow in the 2C horizon. USE AND VEGETATION: The greater part of these soils is cropped to corn, soybeans, and small grains. A few areas of these soils are in pasture, idle land, woodland, truck crops, or sod production. The wooded areas are chiefly low land hardwoods. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: The southeastern pan of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The series is of moderate extent. 1i MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Indianapolis. Indiana SERIES ESTABLISHED: Wayne County. Michigan, 1974. REMARKS: Classifictition was adju.sted to agree with ST I.s.sue #17 on 7 Sept 94 by CLG. Diagnostic horizon.s and Features recognized in this pedon arc: mollic epipedon the zone from the surface to 11 inches (Ap horizon); aquic moisture regime. ii : t tr I HAYDEN SERIES The Hayileii senes etmsists of deep well drained soiK that Uirmed in ealeareous loamy j:!aeial till on glaeial moraines and till plains. These soils have moderate permeiihility. Their slopes range Iroin 2 to 40 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 2S inches, and mean annual temperature is about 46 degrees F TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mi.xed. supcraciivc. mesic Glo.s.sic Hapludalfs TYPICA.L PEDON: Hayden loam with a 6 percent convex .slope on a terminal moraine in a deciduou.s t'ore.st. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.) A--0 to 2 inches; very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; about 5 percent coarse fragments; neutral; abrupt smooth boundary. (1 to 4 inches thick) E-2 to 9 inches; dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) light loam; weak thin platy structure; very friable; few- very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) wonn casts in upper part; about 5 percent coarse fragments; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 1? inches thick) BE--9 to 14 inches; brown (lOYR 5/3) fine sandy loan, weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; many distinct coatings of clean sand and silt particles on faces of peds; about 5 percent coarse fragments; medium acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 8 inches thick) Btl”14 to28 inches; yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) loam; moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; firm; few faint coatings of clean sand and silt particles and few faint dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) clay films on faces of peds; about 5 percent coarse fragments; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. Bt2-28 to 38 inches; yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) loam; moderate fine and medium prismatic structure parting to moderate fine and medium angular blocky; firm; many distinct dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) clay films on faces of peds; about 5 percent coarse fragments; few prominent black clayey fillings in root channels; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. B13-38 to 43 inches; yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) loam; few fine prominent reddish brown mottles; moderate fine and medium prismatic structure; friable; few distinct dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/4) clay films on faces of peds; .about 5 percent course fragments; slightly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of Bt horizons is 12 to 30 inches.) C--43 to 60 inches; light olive browm (2.5Y 5/4) loam; few fine faint grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) and light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6) mottles; m.assive; friable; and 5 percent coarse fragments; slight effervescence; mildly alkaline TYPE LOCATION: Rice County. Minnesota; about 4 miles north of Faribault; 1,920 feet cast and 30 feet north of the southwest corner of sec. I, T. 110 N.. R. 21 W. I RANdK IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickncNS anti Jcpth lo iVcc carbonates ranee from 24 to 54 inches. Coar.se fragments of mi.\ed lithology comprise 2 to S percent of the volume of the control section. The A horizon has hue of lOYR. value of 2 or 3. and chroma of 1 or 2. The Ap horizon has value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 1 or 2 and value of 6 when dry. The E horizon has hue of lOYR. value of 4 or 5. and chroma of 1 or 2. The A and E horizons typically are loam, silt loam, sandy loam, or fine .sandy loam, but include clay loam, if eroded. They are neutral to medium acid. The Bt horizon has hue of lOYR in the upper part and lOYR or 2.5Y in the lower part, value of 4 or 5. and chroma of 3 through 5. Mottles are present in the lower subhorizons in some pedons. It typically is clay loam or loam, but sandy clay loam is in parts in some pedons. The argillic horizon has IS to 35 percent clay and 30 to 45 percent sand. It is slightly acid to strongly acid. Some pedons have a BC horizon. The C horizon has a hue of lOYR or 2.5Y. value of 4 or 5. and chroma of 3 through 6. It is loam or clay loam. It lacks mottles in some pedons. It has 15 to 25 percent calcium carbonate equivalent and is mildly or moderately alkalikne. COMPETING SERIES: These are the Amanda. Belmont. Belmore. Chcnault. Chili. Coegon. Conestoga. Douds, El Para. Gal I man. Grellton. Hebron. Hickory. High Gap. Hollinger. Kalamazoo. Kanawha. Kendallville. Kidder. Kosciusko. LeRov. Letort. Lindlev. McHenry, Mandevillc. .Martinsville. Miami. Mifflin. Military. Nodine. Norden. Ocklev. Owosso. Pecatonica. Princeton. Rawson. Relay. Renova. Richland. Riddles. Rockbridge. Roseville, Sisson. Strawn. Summitville. Teanawav. Theresa. Wawa.sce. Westvillc. Whalan. and Woodbine soils in the same family. Amanda horizon soils have more illite in the B and C horizon; Belmont soils have redder hue in the B horizon. Belmore. Chili. Kalam;izoo. and Ockley soils formed in glacial outwash and have sandy or sandy-skeletal 2C horizons. Chenault soils have chert fragments in the solum and are underlaid by limestone bedrock. Coggon, Gallman. Hickory. Pecatonica. Renova. Riddles, Summitville, and Westvillc soils have thicker sola. In addition, Coggon soils have low chroma mottles in part of the B2 horizon. Conestoga, Kendallville. Letort. Richland, and Rockbridge soils have more coarse fragments. Douds, El Dara. Kidder, Sisson, and Wawasee soils have less clay and more sand or silt m the lower part of the B horizon and in the C horizon. High Gap, Hollinger, Mandevillc, .Mifflin, Military, Norden. Roseville. Whalan. and Woodbine soils have bedrock beginning between depths of 20 and 60 inches. Grellton. Hebron. Lindlcy. and Rawson soils have more silt or clay or both in either the lower part of the B horizon or C horizon or both. Kanawha soils are formed in alluvium from acid shale and are in an area of higher rainfall. LeRoy and Straw n soils have thinner sola McHenry and Miami soils have more silt or clay, or both in the upper part of the solum. Martinsville soils have redder hue in the B horizon and formed in stratified outwash or lacustrine sediments. Nodine soils have thicket sola which is more stratified and leached of free carbonates to greater depths. Owosso soils have more sand and less silt or clay in the upper part of their sola Princeton soils formed in aeolian sediments and have stratified C horizons. Relay soils have hue of 2.5Y or 5Y in all parts of the B horizon. Teanawav soils have firm sandy clay loam C horizons with 1 redder hue. Theresa soils formed partly in loess and have 2C horizons with 40 to 60 percent calcium carbonate. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Hayden .soils have plane or conve.x slopes on gently undulating through .steep glacial moraines of the Des Moines and Grantsburg sublobe of the Late Wisconsinan glaciation. Their .slopes range from 2 to 40 percent and mostly arc 80 to 300 feet in length. These soils formed in calcareous loamy glacial till. Montmorillonite is the dominant clay mineral in the glacial till. Mean annual temperature is 45 to 50 degrees, and mean annual precipitation is 27 to 33 inches. GEOCRAPHIC/VLLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Ames. Dundas . Hamel. Luther, and Nes.sel soils which are members of a topo.sequence with the Hayden soils. Moderately well drained Nessel soils have plane or slightly conve.x slopes. Poorly drained Ames and Dundas soils have slightly concave to slightly convex slopes with gradient of less than 2 percent. Poorly drained Hamel soils are on toe slopes. Organic soils are common associates in some places. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained. Runoff is medium and rapid. Permeability is moderate. USE AND VEGETATION: Mostly cleared and cultivated to corn, soybeans, small grain, and hay. Native vegetation was deciduous forest of m.aple. basswood, oak, and elm. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Southeastern Minnesota and in central Iowa. Extensive. MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE; St. Paul, Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1929. ADDITIONAL DATA: Refer to Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Central File Code No. 967 for results of some laboratory analysis of the typical pedon. KLOSSNER SERIES The Klossncr senes consists of very deep, very poorly drnineJ soils formed in well decomposed organic material 16 to 50 inches thick overlying loamy deposits on moraines, till plains, lake plains. Hood plains, and hillside .seep areas. They have moderately slow to moderately rapid permeability m the organic material, and moderate or moderately slow permeability in the loamy material. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent Mean annual precipitation is about 2S inches. Mean annual temperature is about 47 degrees F. TAXONOMIC CL.ASS: Loamy, mi.xed. euic. mesic Terric Haplosaprists TYPICAL PEDON: Klossner muck - with a 1 percent slope in a cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.) Oap--0 to 10 inches; black (N 2/0) muck, very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) dry; about 20 percent fiber, less than 5 percent rubbed; weak fine subangular blocky .stnteture; very friable; many very fine roots; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. Oa--10 to 26 inches; black (lOYR 2/1) muck, dark gray (lOYR 4/1) dry; about 60 percent fiber, about 6 percent rubbed; weak fine subangular blocky structure; very friable; many very fine roots; moderately acid; gradual smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of O horizon is 16 to 50 inches.) 2A1-26 to 36 inches; black (N 2.'0) mucky silty clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few very fine roots; slightly acid; gradual smooth boundary. 2A2--36 to 48 inches; black (N 2/0) silty clay loam; massive; friable; few dark reddish brown (SYR 3/4) iron o.xide concentrations in root channels; about 1 percent gravel; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of 2A horizon is 8 to 45 inches thick.) 2Cgl--48 to 65 inches; olive gray (5Y 5/2) clay loam; ma.ssive; friable; dark reddish brown (SYR 3/4) Fe o.xide concentrations in root channels; many medium prominent yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6) Fe concentrations; about 1 percent gravel; slightly effervescent; slightly alkaline; gradual wavy bounday. 2Cg2--65 to 80 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) loam, massive; friable; many medium prominent light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) and yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) Fe concentrations; about 3 percent gravel; slightly effervescent; slightly alkaline. TV’PE LOCATION: Nicollet County. Minnesota; 2600 feet north and 2300 feet east of the southwest corner, sec. 12. T. 110 N.. R. 28 W.; USGS Nicollet quadrangle; lat. 44 degrees 20 minutes 53 seconds N. and long. 94 degrees 8 minutes 28 seconds W.. NAD27. RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: The thickness of the organic material ranges from 16 to 50 inches. It is derived primarily from herbaceous plants. The organic matter content ranges from 25 to 60 percent in the organic surface and 5 to 20 percent in the 2A horizon. The reaction of the organic material ranges from moderately acid to slightly alkaline. Some organic layers contain free carbonates. • ^ I' h i The O Iiori/.on has hue of lOYR. 5YR. or is neutral, value of 2 or 3 aiul ehroma of 0 to 2. U is ilominantly muek (saprie material) however, some pedons have thin layers oniemic material, less than 10 inches thick. Some pedons have highly oicanie mineral plow layers. The 2A horizon has hue of lOYR. 2.5Y. 5Y or is neutral, value of 2 or 3 and chroma of 0 to 1 . It is loam, silt loam, sandy elay loam, silty clay loam, clay loa.n or mucky modifiers of these te.xtures. It is moderately acid to slightly alkaline. Some pedons contain thin layers of coprogenous earth. The 2Cg horizon has hue of lOYR. 2.5Y, 5Y. 5GY. or is neutral, value of 2 to 7 and chronia of 0 to 2. It is loam, silt loam, silty clay loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam, sandy loam or fine sandy loam, or their gravelly or cobbly analogues. It is slightly acid to moderately alkaline. The upper 12 inches of this horizon averages less than 35 percent clay. Some pedons contain thin strata of fine sand, loamy sand, or silt. Gravel or cobble sized rock fragments range from 0 to 25 percent by volume. Some pedons contain free carbonates. Sandy substratum and ponded phases arc recognized. COMPETING SER1E.S: These arc Linwood . Medo . Palms. Philbon and Siuilcar series. Linwood soils have well expressed granular structure to depths of more than 1 2 inches and formed mainly in woody fibers. Medo soils have sandy texiures in the lower part of the series control section. Palms soils have organic matter content greater than 75 percent and do not have an A horizon directly below the organic material. Philbon soils have fibric and hemic material in the upper 12 inches. Shalcar soils avc less than 26 degrees difference between mean January and mean July temperatures. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Klossner soils are in basins that were formerly lakes or ponds, lake plains, till plains, flood plains, or moraines. They are also on hillside .seep areas in moraines and sideslopes of river valleys. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent. The soils on nearby uplands are generally loamy. The mean annual temperature ranges from 45 to 50 degrees F. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 24 to 32 inches. Frost free days range from 110 to 160. Elevations above sea level range from 800 to 1400 feet. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: The main ones arc the Canisteo. Harps. Okoboii. Glencoe. Muskego and Houghton soils. Canisteo and Harps soils are on the rims of depressions. Glencoe and Okoboji are at the outer edges of the depressions. Muskego and Houghton soils are in larger depressions. DR.AINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Very poorly drained. Surface runoff is negligible. Permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid in the organic layers and moderate or moderately slow in the loamy material. USE AND VEGETATION: The greater part of this soil is cultivated to com, soybeans, small grains and specialty crops such as vegetables or grass sod. Other areas are in vegetation of grasses, reeds, sedges, alder, aspen, or willow. Some of the hillside seep areas are set aside as natural areas and called fens. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: The south central and southeast part of Minnesota and possibly northern Iowa. The series is e.xtensive. MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul. Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Nicollet County. Minnesota. 19S9. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized are: sapric soil materials from the surface to about 26 inches; loamy mineral material from 26 to 50 inches or more; aquic moisture regime. This soil was formerly included in the Palms Series in Minnesota. ADDITIONAL DATA: Refer to MAES-CFC#s 2697. 3251,3400 and 3475. 4‘ • A ■ ^ r. - ■ • \’)iA . r? t •- -A • t-11 .*» ,f V'jtr-. ^ >r- 5v-/.V- ■ > J-yj!y*-K S' -- ^f- ■> ’ •• ''*i • > i.*. “Hit fr' :iv ^ riK no I: H.i'iii I. tiiuni: norllic;!'! (ouani ( aritiau l'.a> at Sam|'ii.- I iiriswi! i 1 ..y 9^*% (r lt(r 't y ’ P ^ i W^m Hi V4 ^ V ■ ’y<«W “ '^i.' . • * # ' ‘ . "v ' ^ 'VM «A:V'" _ IMIOlO 2: HaMa I. faciiic a. K. I--I IMIOlO I (H. 01 SI I I i i':,.SVOBOiDA i • ft*'logical P.f'.ouitT^ .''^>l ’* ( » l\*ir! K,»tui •• • uj, If* ■ *^' '''. ^Ef • '•. Ri*•W^?^Jv‘^•^ ^ y\- .r,* * , . . . - v.*V 'I >#*.; * '•w w*. .f ^- . * • < , . -L... t:..-.>: > :• ■• : 1*11010 3: l^asin i. lav iivj c:i a alnnp iionl.LTr. ali:c o\ the K»u iil.t:\ IMIOl O 4: I .K iiiL’ soiiili ali»n^ northern edec ol the hi»utui* -------------------------------------- --►--Ik... • terl riiOK) I (k; oi s! i i I'ttSVOBODA ■} ■• Ecological R.e<ojrces -^'i C a>Ci’ roiHl Ri’jii ^'^Qn'«!fk^m w:>!>' L'^^.mm mm m'-i:: mmbM. ..::x ; ^ 7 •< ‘%4 r»i , /V ia&Tj I- . Mi*;lii 4- V / s ■ V f - K »1 /-y^ 1 - • i * ' f- \>f*■fJ!> .♦ Sd2 »«« « f Id r:I 1/ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik£( Associates Engineers & Architects 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 65I-636-4600 • Fax 651-636-1311 wwwtjonestroo com £.xthbtr I 0 21004September 1.2004 • f Ms. Melanie Curtis ’ ‘ Planner City of Orono Post Ofiice Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 2618 Casco Point Road Flic No. 139-u'4.C00 Plat No. 04-3052 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the proposed grading plans for 2618 Casco Point Road. The proposed improvements include rebuilding an existing home and regrading the lot. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed grading plan does not provide adequate information relative to existing contours and adjacent home elevations. A new survey should be submitted showing existing contours extending at least 50-fect beyond the lot lines of the subject property. The revised survey should identify any structures within 50-feet of the lot lines and show elevations around the structures along with first floor elevations. • It appears that the proposed new home is nearly twice the size of the existing home. This building footprint docs not appear to provide adequate room north and south of the home to allow for positive drainage towards the lake. It is likely the proposed building footprint will need to be scaled back to allow for the grading of swales to contain the storm drainage on site and direct it to the street or lake. • I he final grading plan should provide swales or drainage ways that contain all storm water on the subject property. Storm drainage should not be directed onto adjoining properties as shown along the fV»« • The final plans should include erosion and sediment control details, planting and restoration informatlo.t, and overall site restoration details. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono • St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester. Willmar, MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago. IL Affirmative Action, £qu«l Opportunity Cmployer orvtf Cr?iployec Owned 'll** O' City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting *) Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Only . . • . City Planner I i I'l Meeting DaterTime: AI 1.0 II ■ H fiji-'i PC Date hCt^ kWiat \s the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address; Pc»/a->t _________________________________ Property Identification Number (PIN): _______________________________________________ Zoning District; j C Size of Property: ________________________ □ Front Yard Setback □ Lot Width DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:^^^ H □ Average Setback 0 Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback ^ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area "bother: ________________________________________________________________________ ^tAf¥ df^UVrllt tv a n AA ai\f( n> ni^cP 1^' Applicant's Initials; HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: ‘Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form wilHse i eted by City staff. Applicant Signature:Date:gH7-oy O \J City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway. P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attention: Michael P. Gaffron Re: 2618 Casco Point Road (Vogstrom site) Dear Mr. Gaflftron, I live at 2648 Casco Point Road, the neighbor to the south of the referenced property. I have reviewed the survey with City staff and have a number of concerns regarding the application for a variance to the hardcover ordinance > Drainage; The natural drainage of the Vogstrom site is to the south, toward my property. The survey does not show any contour lines of adjacent properties, but the elevation of my improved property is substantially lower. The 10-foot side yard set back does not allow for and the survey does not show any provision for the evacuation of rainwater runoff from the site. There is a low area in Casco Point Road in front of my property 1 deal with huge amounts of rainwater runoff from the City street crossing my property A proposed driveway on the south side of the site would exacerbate this runoff problem. Adequate provisions must be made to deal with on site water evacuation either with the installation of an adec]uate swale or a catch basin and storm drain ^ _ > Off Street Parking; Casco Point Road is a heavily trafficked street. Visitors and homeowners park on both sides of the street (often on adjacent properties) causing a dangerous condition. Off street parking should be required for all new construction Any additional parking would create even more hardcovw. > Tree Protection: The survey shows a large footprint for the proposed house. This amount of hardcover may require the removal of a number of mature trees for construction and to enhance the view corridors There are large oak and maple trees along the property line that may be compromised by the constructicn. The City should require a tree inventory indicating which trees are to be removed and j^hichtrees are to be protected during construction Thank you r? JeffEssch f afM8~Casco Point Road. X ^ruu Ml o( l.ot^ 14 :7 AJ1 of l^t 3 unci th«i |wiri of lni% 4, 0, o, 7, B, IP aiul tl lyinf South of ilic Non. f«*i rhcfcof. (upr Tf sow^) 6 ■ ' . i.' *. ■>... RUN DATE :S/I&2(»4 38 2011723240029 HROF ADDR 2649 CASCO POINl RD OWNER NAME JUUANNE M SCHERVEN TAXPAYER JUUANNE M SCHERVEN NAME/ADUR 2649 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 3S39I HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPER! Y OWNERS Lllfr PAGE: I 38 2011723240030 PROP ADDR 264S CASCO K)IN7 RD OWNER NAME N J GREENE A A K GREENE TAXPAYER NORMA GREENE A ALAN GREENE NAME/ADDR 2645 CASCO POINT ROAD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723240031 PROP ADDR 2635 CASCO POINT RD OWNER NAME MARILYN D THORNE TA3CPAYER MARILYN U THORNE NAME/ADDR 2635 CASCO POINl RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723240032 PROP ADDR 2623 CASCO POINT RD OWNER NAME T PKUBALAK A P M KUBALAK TAXPAYER THOMAS P/PATRICIA M KUBALAK NAME/ADDR 2623 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723240038 PROP ADDR 2618 CASCO POINT RD OWNER NAME JOYCEATWEDT TAXPAYER JOYCEATWEDT NAME/ADDR 2618 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723240035 PROP ADDR 2617 CASCO POINT RD OWNER NAME G I. MARQUARU7/J M MARQUARDT TAXPAYER GARY L* JOAN M MARQUARDT NAME/ADDR 26I7CASCOPOINTRD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723240039 PROP ADDR 2648 CASCO POINT RD OWNER NAME JWABJ ESSEN T/VXPAYER JEPI REY & BARBARA ESSEN NAME/ADDR 2648 CASCO PT RD WAYZ-ATAMN 55391 38 2011723240036 PROP ADDR 2601 CASCO POINT RD OWNER NAME BRUCE J HEDBLDM ET AL TAXPAYER BRUCE J IIEDDLOM AND NAME/ADDR CAROL J CUNE-HEDBLOM 2601 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 PROP ADDR 38 2011723240042 38 ADDRE:s S UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME PAUL J & MARY E KASTEK TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PAUL J RASTER 2600 CASCO PO'NT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723240043 PROP ADDR 2600 CASCO POINT RD OWNER NAME PAUL J A MARY E RASTER TAXPAYER PAUL J A MARY E RASTER NAME/ADDR 2600 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 I I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESEKTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUF REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENTrTO THE BJ OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE g BY 5052 hlenncpin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department . •• ”WINiHIP'S SUBD LOf 1. SPRING 26(D DIVISION" nu V. •/ /T --Sh. • % Parqel Intorwatlon ID 2011723240038 Nous* Number 2618 Str««C Nam# CA3CO POINT HO This is noi B tegafiy recofcM map. H rapfeaents a compUaton of information j and data from City County, and State road authontias arxi othar soutcas, _^ i MAIN FLOOR PLAN 2005 sqfl rnr: SS' »■♦• /' ■ - • ■ • ■ , ' V ., ;.», >V «» .'^‘':.i rV?; STT- f-fj- .*1-^ — e^.p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETLNG Monday, September 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (^04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzp^rick, Continued) Gun\ich indicated people are allow^a stairway to the lake. Jurgens^|ted he also is persuaded somew^t by the fact that this ncighoH^ood is gradually goi towards th^rger lots, which is changing tlV character of the area. Fntzler stated ji^because someone buys a lot lake, they should not be e.xp^^d to sit on that lot for a period of tiira^ntil additional property can ^^cquired in order to create a la^r lot. Fritzler uated he would prefer to sec the residence a little bi^OTallcr and a little bit lower jusNm reduce the n»carance that it is a ok structure on a small lot, but 8^t he generally docs not have rnS|h t!is»cement with the pra^sal. Kemp\tated if a purchaser iMot allowed to build a decent n^e to live in on these small lot^ removeXhis type of lot from tlVmarket. Kempf stated he is i^avor of the proposal. Leslie thanlvd the neighboi. for thrkcomments on this proposal. Leslie niovcd^empf seconded, to rccmincnd approval of a lot art'A^riaiice, lot width variance, and north and ^ith side yard setback Cll^anccs to permit constructiontof a residence located at 356 West Lake Swet. VOTE: Ayes 5, Na^^, Jurgens Opposed. Jurgens stated he is opposed to the approval because he docs not see a hardship for the vananccs. 8.#04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD - \’ARI.\NCE Eric Voptrom, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The variances being requested arc a hardcover variance for 57.9 percent hardcover within the 75 ’-250’ setback zone where 25 percent is normally allowed; a variance for a side street setback of 10 feet where a 15-foot setback from the adjacent nght-of-'vay is normally required, and an average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 10' nearer to the lake than the properrv' to the south. Cuilis stated the current home on the property is set back approximately 86 feet from the ordinary high water level, with the applicant’s proposal showing a 75-foot setback. Curtis indicated the view of the lake from the property to the south should not be impacted by the applicant's proposal. Curtis stated bordering the applicant's property to the north is an undeveloped public nght-of-way. The applicant's property is approximately 80 feet in width. Allowing for a 10-foot setback on the south and a 15-foot side street setback on the north leaves a 55-foot wide buildable area. It is Staffs opinion a reasonable home can be constructed within this area. The applicant is proposing 57.9 percent hardcover for this lot, with a 3,002 square foot footprint to essentially max out the 15 percent structural coverage amount based on the totrl dry land area. The total property area is 20,561 square feet; however, this includes approximately 4,000 square feet separated PAGE 20 rl MENIJTES OF THE OROiNO PLANNING COM>USSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom, Continued) from the building site by an inlet of Carman Bay. The contiguous land area is approximately 16,400 square feet. The'applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total noncontiguous parcel above the 929.4’ elevation. Neither the lot coverage ordinance nor the Zoning Code definition of “lot area” clarify whether the lot coverage percentage should be based on contiguous area. The definition of minimum lot area found in the Subdivision Code would disallow noncontiguous land to be credited toward lot area. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing a 3,002 square foot footprint, 1,225 square feet of driveway, and 215 square feet of sidewalk to make up the 57.9 percent hardcover. There are no patios proposed and only one 18 ’ by 11 ’ deck on the lakeside of the home Curtis noted the driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at th** curb and would need to be substantially reduced overall to bring the hardcover down to a reasonable level. Staff finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land that would justify the side street setback variance or the hardcover variance as proposed. Staff believes that the 55-foot wide building envelope is veiy reasonable and that a setback variance to the side street is not justified. If the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant should get credit towaid the structural coverage for the dry land on the noncontiguous portion of the property, there may be some appropriate level of hardcover variance to support some reasonable level of development of the site. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and recommends denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcover variance. Staff also recommends removal of the existing gravel driveway within the city right-of-way and restoration of the area back to vegetation as part of the redevelopment of this lot. Curtis noted the grading and drainage plans have been revised since the issuance of the letter by the City Engineer, and that the applicant lias addressed the grading and drainage concerns that have been raised. Vogstrom noted the road is unimproved to the north and requested the Planning Commission allow the encroachment in the right-of-w-ay. Vogstrom stated the existing structure encroaches into the right-of-way by 14 feet. Vogstrom explained the existing hardcover calculation docs not include anythmg for a pad and driveway, which exists on the north side Vogstrom indicated at the present time there is no way to access the garage without going over the right-of-way. Vogstrom noted the current structure is located 21.8 feet aw'ay from the street and is nonconforming. Vogstrom indicate i he would be wnlling to restore the right-of-w'ay at his expense if the city is willing to work with him on the hardcover. Vogstrom stated in his opinion he has a hardship due to the amount of water on his property and the fact that his land is not contiguous. Vogstrom stated in his opinion the proposed residence conforms more witl. the rest of the neighborhood than what currently exists. Vogstrom noted the property at 2601 Lafayctie Read was granted hardcover in excess of 25 percent Vogstrom stated the current structure is 1 1S4 square feet and is figured at 26.4 percent hardcover. PAGE 21 MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVUSSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3052 Eric Vogstrom, Continued) Barbara Essen, 264b Casco Point Road, stated they have spoken with the applicant regarding the issue o'" dramage and that the applicant has indicated he is more than willing to ensure that drainage from this lot will not affect their lot. Jeff Essen stated the first plan did not show a swale, with the recent plan showing a swale. Essen stated the applicant has also indicated he woc.’4 be installing gutters and dowmspouts, which would also help to alleviate their concerns regarding runoff. Barbara Essen stated they are not opposed to the larger driveway since parking along Casco Point Road is a problem at times. Essen indicated the applicant has also expressed a willingness to preserve the nicer trees on this lot, noting that a number of larger trees were lost as a result of a storm in 1997. Vogstrom stated the preservation of the trees is also one reason why he would like to have appros'al of the 10-foot encroachment into the nght-of-way. Vogstrom stated the .najoriiy of the trees arc located on the south side of the lot. Alan Greene, 2645 Casco Point Road, stated he is located across the street from this lot. and that in his opinion the proposed hardcover for this lot is excessive. Greene stated his residence is approximately 1200 square feet on a lot that is approximately the same size and that the lot in question is being overbuilt. Vogstrom stated Greene’s footprint is 1374 square feet and his garage is 695, for a total footprint of over 2,000 square feet. Fritzler stated he does not see the need for the 57.9 percent where 25 percent is allowed and 26.4 percent currently exists. Fritzler stated he docs not sec the hardship for the increase in the hardcover. Fritzler stated he is also opposed to the 10-foot setback. Bremer inquired what number Fritzler would like to sec for this lot given its rc itrictions. Fritzler stated he would be willing to approve 27 percent hardcover for this lot, but that he does not see any justification for the additional hardcover or encroachment. Kcinpf stated he is in agreement with Fntzler and that the plan appears to have been laid out without any consideration for the hardcover restnctions. Kempf inquired whether the applicant would be adding a deck or patio in the future. Vogstrom stated a deck is included in his current plans and that he does not intend to add a patio in the future. Bremer indicated she feels the 27 percent is low given the restrictions of this lot. Rahn commented he also feels this is a hardship lot but that it does not justify the 57.9 percent hardcover being proposed. Rahn stated in his vnew more effort needs to be made to reduce the hardcover and that the structure could also be reduced to eliminate the need for the side street setback ^•ariancc. PAGE 22 MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-3052 Eric Vogstroin, Continued) Leslie stated the encroachment would be reduced if the size of the structure is reduced. Vogstrom inquired whether he would be better off remodeling the existing structure. Rahn stated that decision would be up to the applicant, but that the Planning Commission appears to be opposed to the proposed amount of hardcover. Leslie pointed out that a remodel is considered to be less than 50 percent of value. Rahn inquired whether the driveway could be reduced. Vogstrom r.oted there is no driveway figured into the existing hardcover calculation, and if a driveway was added into the hardcover, that would increase it to 34 or 35 percent. Curtis stated the property currently is accessed from the right-of-way. Paul Raster, 2600 Casco Point Road, indicates he owns the property on the other side of the fire lane. Raster stated the fire lane has been filled in over many years and that encroachment on the fue lane in his opinion should be granted because it would alleviate some of the construction problems the applicant is facing on this lot. Raster stated th fire lane curre; tly is not very passab'e given the vegetation and that allowing the fire lane to be used would have very little impact on the neighborhood. Vogstrom stated the hoi sc would also be angled and would only encroach in a couple of spots. Leslie stated in his view the hardcover could be reduced, which may in turn resolve the side street setback. Leslie inquired whether the Planning Commission could offer some suggestions on what they would like to sec the hardcover reduced to. Fritzlcr stated he believes the hardcover could be reduced to 2"’ percent. Leslie stated in his opinion some cf the hardcover for the fire lane should be applied to this property. Jurgens stated the fire lane is a public right-of-way and that the applicant has a right to use that fire lane. Jurgens suggested the applicant consider a side-loading garage if the City allows the fire lane to be used, Gaffron stated as far as the driveway is concerned. Staff has noi looked at sight Imcs and other issues rclatmg to safety, which need to be considered. Gaffron noted there is a slight cur.x on Casco Point Road friat may dictate where the driveway is located. Rahn stated it appears the Planning Commission would like to sec the proposed hardcover reduced and that the Planning Commission at this time is not prepared to set a definite percentage. Rahn suggested the applicant consider tabling his application to allow him time to redesign his plans. Rahn stated another option would be for the applicant to decide whether he would like to icmodel the existing structure. PAGE 23 -zrrrTZTT-r-T-r- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM>nSSION MEETING Monday, September 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (</04-3052 Eric Vogslrom, Continued) Vogstrom inquired whether the Planning Commission would allow the 10-foot side street setback gi\en the fact that the fire lane is heavily wooded and not used. Jurgens requested the property markers near the street be delineated. Leslie stated the applicant will need to make the decision on how to reduce the hardcover, and that the encroachment may be reduced once the hardcover is reduced. Leslie indicated it is impossible to say definitely whether the encroachment would be allowed given the fact that the plans need to be revised. Rahn stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the plans overall, and recommended the applicant continue working with staff to reduce the amount of proposed hardcover. Leslie indicated it appears likely that there may be some variance granted for hardcover given the restnctions of the lot, but that the applicant needs to take steps to reduce the hardcover down to something that is more reasonable for the lot. Kempf stated he generally is in favor of setback variances that have no negative impact on the neighbors. Rahn reiterated the Planning Commission needs to look at the plans as a wnole, and inquired whether the applicant would like to trble his application. Vogstrom rcqucslcd his application be tabled. Rahn moved, Leslie seconded, to table Application #04-3052, Eric Vogstrom. 2618 Casco Point Road, to allow the applicant time to revise his plans. N’OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ^»^1PL.\NN1NG Cg»(vi.MISS10N COMMENTS 9. REDORT OF PLAN:MNG^)M.M1SS10N RE PRESENTATI\T1S ATTE^ COUNCIXMEETINGS AUGUanS AND SEPTEMBER l/^2004 ILNG Leslieybdicated he anended thoAugust 23"* Council meetir^where a member ^hc public had inqui^ about the steps beinaraken to address the coyot^roblem. The rcsid^t had indicated that an in^^sing number of dom^mc animals have been disapi^armg. Leslie not^this matter has been rdwrred to the police denirtment. ^Leslie stated one of thif Council members had thy^cd the Planning Cmfimission foi their efforts at addressing the issuercoming before the City. I^lie noted the Couny does limit public commei^ five minutes at th^ meetings, which may hciypcople in attendancet Planning Commission irjcnngs streamline theiryomjncnts. Gaffion stateti that language could be ad^*^ fo Planning agendas. PAGE 24 Du MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated Stajfnas not conductC(K specific inventoarto determine that, but^the few instances they are awaj^f the lots are genpmlly largr cnouglymat th^y should be ahlg/o meet a 50-foot setbacl It vras the consensus oU^e Planning Conu^ssion to leave the S0-£|^t setback as is. Bremer reccmmeoMd the second po^tial in (c)(2) be elimii]^d and the ampcrsqjm between wear and tear be digged to the wor^nd. Rahn m^ed, I'rltzler secMdcd, to recommend ai^oval of the prop^^d amendment to Secffon 78-1577(c) reofrding exterior st^rag^n R Districts, establishing a one-time permU ire-existing useryfo continue the storage^ large vehicles utj^r certain conditions. VOTE: Aye^NaysO 3. #04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 6:17 p.m. - 6:36 p.m. Eric Vogstroni, Applicant, was present. Curtis noted this application was before the Planning Commission at its September meeting and was tabled to allow the applicant time to redesign his plan in an effort to reduce hardcover on the lot. Since that time the applicant has submitted another plan and is now requesting a hardcover variance for 38.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250’ setback zone, a variance for side street setback of 10 feet where a 15-foot setback from the adjacent right-of-way is normally required, and an average lakcshore setback variance to encroach 5 five nearer to the hke than the property to the '•■outh. Curtis stated since the time of the last meeting the applicant has also removed a number of trees from the propcrt>’ without city permit, Curtis noted the adjacent neighbor has submitted a letter regarding his concerns with th’S proposal. PAGES I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcover variance as proposed as there are no hardships to support the variances as requested. In addition, Staff is recommending approval of any variances be made contingent upon approval of a rectoration plan to remedy the vegetation removal on the property. Rahn asked for public comment concerning this application. Jeff Essen, 2648 Casco Point Road, indicated he had met with the applicant prior to last month’s Planning Cc.nmission and discussed his original plan and the concerns he had regarding drainage, trimming of trees, protection of established trees, and off street parking. Essen stated Vogstrom indicated at that time that he was agreeable to installing gutters and downspouts, drain tile, and construct a swale beriveen the two properties. Essen stated he agreed to work with Vogstrom on trimming his trees in an effort to improve Vogslrom’s view of the lake. Essen stated last week Vogstrom had a tree service come in who illegally took down two mature trees on his property a**, well as other trees and vegetation on his o\mi property. Essen indicated based on those actions, he no longer is in support of this proposal until such time as a restoration plan is approved and the damage has been adequately addressed. Paul Raster, 2600 Casco Point Road, stated he is the neighbor to the north and at the last meeting was in favor of the variance to encroach on the fire lane. Raster indicated since the applicant has now clear cut his lot, he would like to withdraw his support of the variance. Raster stated he now has concerns regarding erosion since the vegetation has been totally removed. V'ogstrom stated he is in agreement with his two neighbors regarding their concerns and that the tree company was hired to remove a couple of trees that were dead. Vogstrom apologized to the City and his neighbors regarding the removal of the vegetation, noting that he was not aware the tree company was going to remove as much vegetation as they did. Vogstrom indicated he did ask the tree removal company to contact Staff regarding this incident, but that he accepts full responsibility for the mistake. PAGE 6 1^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.tn. Rahn noted the applicant has made some hardcover reductions but that the proposed residence is still 10 feet from the right-of-way where 15 feet is required. Vogstrom stated on one side he is 13.5 feet and that the residence can be slid over somewhat to the south. Vogstrom indicated at the time the plan was drawn up he was trying to protect some trees in that area and that it was his belief the trees enhanced the lot. Jurgens noted the Planning Commission should act on this matter tonight given the 60-day time limit. Jurgens stated in his opinion the hardcover still needs to be reduced further, noting that there are drainage issues that also have to be dealt with on thin lot. Vogstrom noted the City Engineer had signed off on the drainage issues under his original proposal at the 58 percent hardcover. Vogstrom stated StafTinfonned him that the City Engineer did not ha\ e any issues with the drainage. Vogstrom indicated the property at 2800 Peasant Road was approved in mid Auvu. 2002, which is a lot that had a very similar situation where two-thirds of that lot was in the 0-75’. Vogstrom noted two-thirds of this lot is also in the 0-75’. Vogstrom stated the Planning Commission at that time found that wiiilc the 25 percent standard is feasible, such a limitation would result in construction of a residence that would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding homes. Vogstrom noted a hardcover variance was allowed in that instance at 39.2 percent hardcover. Vogstrom indicated the proposed footprint of his house is appro.xlmately 1100 square feet, with a three-car garage, which is not out of character for this neighborhood and does not constitute a large house. Leslie inquired how' many of the neighbors have three car garages versus two car garages. Vogstrom stated it is approximately half and half, with the newer homes having the three car garages. Vogstrom indicated he was attempting to address the off-street parking by constructing a three car PAGE? _an mfiiiiniTiia li lir~liliMnillTl k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. garage. Vogstrom noted the current residence is also located on the property line, which makes it nonconforming, and the amount of hardcover on the lot is also being reduced with his proposal from what currently exists. Winkey inquired what impact a reduction to 25 percent hardcover would have on the design of the house. Vogstrom stated he is better off going with the 1500 square foot footprint plus a small amount for a driveway and a sidewalk, which wculd bring the hardcover to around ?0 percent. Fritzler commented that in his view the size of the lot should give the applicant an adequate building pad and that he would be opposed to granting any variances. Fritzler stated he would like to sec the hardcover reduced to 25 percent. furgens stated based on the time limits, he would like to make a motion denying the application. Jurgens moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend denial of Application #04-3052, Eric Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road. Rahn noted the applicant dc-'s have the ability to sign an agreement extending the 60 days. Bremer stated she does not feel the Planning Commission should make a motion based solely on the fact that the 60-day time limit is abo^t to expire. Jurgens stated in his view the hardcover should be reduced to 25 percent and that there is no need to grant any variances based on the size of the building pad. V'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Rahn and Bremer opposed. Rahn stated he believes the applicant should be given the opportunity to revise his plans again but that he is in agreement that the hardcover be reduced. Vogstrom inquired whether he could utilize an end-loading garage. Jurgens stated the applicant does have that option but that a new application would need to be submitted. PAGES il r.Hi k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ralui suied he would not be in favor of any encroachment into the nght-of-way. Rahn commented the Planning Commission docs not have the time to discuss the applicant’s various options concerning design of the garage and residence but that the applicant needs to make those design decisions. Rahn noted the Planning Commission has denied the application and that this matter would go before ‘he Council. Bremer inquired whether denial of the average lakcshorc setback variance was also included in the motion. Jurgens indicated the motion was to deny the entire application. Bremer stated she would have been in favor of granting the average lakcshore setback variance but that the hardcover needs to be reduced on this lot. Bremer indicated she would be willing to consider hardcover in the higher 20’s since there is a lot of lakeshorc on this property and that there arc some circumstances where that could be considered a hardship. Bremer noted she is not in favor of the side yard setback variance. Vogstrom noted the existing 27 percent hardcover on this lot docs not include a driveway. Rahn noted this application would move forward to the Council, and suggested the applicant consider revising his plans in an effort to further reduce the hardcover prior to the City Council meeting. NEWJIUSINESS #04-3042>nLLAR HOMES ONJItHALF OF ROGER & ?AROL ROMCK, p.m. 1625 B01U»5 POINT ROAD - a ™R-THE-FACT CONDUHONAL USE PERMI PAGE 9 to % 10/18/2004 Ms. Mdatiie Cuilis City Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono. MN. 55356 Re: Request for Variance at 2618 Casco Point Road Dear Ms Curtis, Afler speaking with you and the City Administrator today 1 feel it necessary to prepare this letter and have it included in the public record of the Planning Commission meeting of 10/18/2004. The owner of 2618 Casco Point Road, Mr Eric Vogstrom has applied for a hard cover and side yard set back variance. 1 have expressed the following concerns to him and you. > Drainage between his proposed home and my home. > Trimming of trees to enhance his view. Protection of established trees > Off street parking Mr. Vogstrom and I discussed these issues and he agreed install gutter, downspouts buried drain tile and a swale between the properties tc drainage. He also agreed to work with me on tree trimming to enhance his view, and to protect existing trees Last week Mr. Vogstrom hired a tree service, which in addition to illegally cutting trees on hi' own property and neighboring public property, came onto my property and cut down mature trees that impacted his view without a permit or my permission These trees were cut down even after I pointed out to Mr. Vogstrom and his tree service exactly where the property line was located (survey stakes were clearly visible) As a result of his actions 1 do not believe he will voluntarily honor any of his previous commitments regarding drainage or tree preser\'ation and 1 am strongly against granting the requested variances Additionally I request the City Engineer make note of these concerns during his review of the Vogstrom site plan and drainage plan as part of the construction drawing review process to protect neighboring property owners Sincerely."^ *Jciir^ss( 2648 Casco Point Road Orono MN 55391 1'* F f I Hill llUlUlt I LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD PimrESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OCl 2 5 2C04 October 22, 2004 Timothy J. Keane 612-335-7192 tim.keanc(a'leonard.com Via Fax (952-249-46161 and U. S. Mail Ronald Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323-0066 Re: Eric Vogstrom Variance Applications - 2618 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. Moorse: The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that City Council agenda item 8 referenced as #04-3052 regarding the Eric Vogstrom application for variances at 2618 Casco Point Road be continued to the City Council meeting of November 8, 2004. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 612-335-7192. Sincerely, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Professional Association Timothy L Keane TJK:vn cc: Eric Vogstrom MO South Fiith Street Suite i)oo MiNsiAfoti^, Minnesota $5401 Tei Me 33$ i5oo Far ftij-335-i457 LAW orncis IH MlHKLAPOilS, SAINT PAUL, MANKATO, SAINT CLOUD AND WAYKlNwTCN. D C lONARD COM i r- CCTIMQ Date Application Received: 8-30-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-30-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-29-04 OCI 2 b 2004 CITY OF OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 20,2004 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlachy^' Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-3053, Aulik Associates on behalf of Bart & Betsy Butzer 2625 North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1 A. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre minimum) 1.97 acres (86.129 s.f.) 268 feet @ shoreline, 259 feet @75 foot setback List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Plaruiing Commission Recommendation B -- PC Action Notice 10-19-04 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 10-14-04 Applkation Summary: Applicant requests the following variance in order to replace an existing dormer on the lake side of the residence with a larger dormer: 1. Lake setback variance to permit structure within 75' of Lake Minnetonka. Slaff Recommendation: Staff finds that the applicant is requesting a reasonable improN ’ment without increasing the non-conformity. Staff recommends approval noting that the haiu.'iiip is the cunent lake setback of tire existing dormer and house. Planning Commission Recommendation The Pla:ming Commission voted on the consent agenda 7-0 to approve the request as submitted. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting a lark yard setback variance for 2625 North Shore Drive. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. 04-3053 WHEREAS, Bartholomew Butzer and Elizabeth T. Butzer, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 2625 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows; See Exhibit A (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow a dormer on the lake side of the home to be replaced with a larger dormer, while not increasing hardcover, when the house is setback 39 ’ from the lake when 75 ’ is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3053. 2. The property is located in the LR - lA zoning district, which requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres. The applicant’s lot is 1.97 acres in size. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on October 18, 2004 and recommended approval of the variance based on the following findings: a. The existing house is setback 39 ’ from the lake when 75 ’ is normally required. Page 1 of 5 b. No new hardcover is proposed. c. A variance would be required to replace the dormer in question as it currently exists. d. The dormer will match the existing dormer on the opposite side of the home. e. The proposed, larger dormer will not extend higher than the existing roof line and chimney, nor will it extend beyond the existing footprint of the residence. f. The visual impacts as viewed from the lake arc minimal. 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. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the 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 upen one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow a dormer on ^e lake side of the home to be replaced t\ith a larger dormer, while not increasing hardcover, when the house is setback 39’ from the lake when 75’ is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, anached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. Any Page 2 of 5 amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the existing 18.95®/o. 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 reduction in existing hardcover. 3. 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. 4.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 (October 25,2005). 5. 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. 6. 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 25* day of October, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owncr(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 or behalf of the City. State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Bartholomew Butzer, husband of Elizabeth T. Butzer. day of .2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Elizabeth T. Butzer, wife of Bartholomew Butzer. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 day of ,2004 EXHIBIT A LgGAL PgSCRlftTIQN! Thol pofl of Covernmenl Lois 4 end 5. SccUon 9. Township 117, Rongc 23. described os commencing ol l^e North Ouorttr corntr of soid SecUon; thence on o bearing of South (the north line of the K’orlheost Ouorler of sod Section being oitumed to hove o beoring of North 80 degrees 51 minutes West for the purposes of this description) o distonce of 2678.55 feet; thence Sroth 70 degrees 37 minutes 5t seconds Lost o distonce of 838.42 feet, thence South 67 degrees 19 minutes 23 seconds Cost o distonce of 266.25 feel; thence South 59 degrees 05 miruies 30 seconds Eost o distonce of 300.00 feet to the point of beginning of the property being described, thence cont>n»^rg South 59 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds Eost o distonce of 159.15 feet; thence South 26 degrees 36 mnutes West to the shore of Loke MInnetonko; tf.ence Northwesterly olong sold shore to its Intereection with o Ime drown South Z2 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds Weit from the point of beginning; thence North 32 degrees 16 mmutei 30 seconds Eost to the point of beginning, occcirdmg to the Government survey thereof, ond Thot po^rt of Cov'ernmenl Lot 4, Section 9. Township 1*7. Ronge 23. deser bed os foHowi; Commencing at the North Ouofter corner of loid Section; ther.ee on o bcoring cf South (the north line of the Northcest Ouorter of sold SecLon being assumed to hove o btoring o* North 88 degrees 51 minutes V¥«t for the purposes o» »° distonce of 2878.55 feet; thence South 70 degrees 37 minutes 31 seconds Eost o d-slonce of 838 42 feel, thence South 67 degrees 19 minutes 23 seconds Eost c distonce of 266.25 feet to ‘Point A* sold "Point A be*ng ihe oo'^X of beginning of the property being described, end oiso the point of beginning of Line A ; thence South^32 degrees o minutes 30 eecondf West olong *linB A" to o point on the shore of LoWe M.nretonko. ond soid end.nq. thence Southeosterly dong soid shore to o point 300.00 feet southeosteriy from ipid^ L»ne A . to'd 300 00 feel be nq meoiured on o beoring of South 59 dogreet 05 mlnutos 30 seconds Eost from sdd L|ne A ; degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds Eost o distonce of 37C feel to on miersection w.ih a l.nt drown South 59 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds Eost from sold "Point A"; thence North 59 degrees 05 mingles 30 seconds West to sed Pomi A* ot the point of beginning. EXCEPT thot port of sed obove described property lying northweslchy of the foMow.ng described line: Commencing ot sdd "Point A"; thence South 59 degrees 05 seconds Eost o 246.74 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described: thence South 34 degrees 54 m*putes 30 seconds West to the shore of Loke Minnetonka ond there ending. ©PROPOSED 3/32" • I' </* fr*-V I *» -1 i •>.r ^•:r.rr_—...*.-iv -.. . f -±-il L±A^\ L.X.-L.I SU^-,... - J - - --------Ij' .L_____________.‘- . ~tj.'-, I-------------- i A?f^v€P m X X 5 AUIIK V .Roi ir 2625 JiOW(SJ{OHtE ‘D'Ai'l^ UClSTlJig 5iytE VWTOSE'D 0S.2C04 3HT = J'-O* O I.•..» /• CiffifAf fornm^ !• •• • rw M» rvtcr or>‘T«Ynn4 irvil 97 AM lAMil CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 04-3053 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: October 19,2004 TO: Aulik Associates COPIES: Bart & Betsy Butzer Gary M. Aulik 2625 North Shore Drive 6401 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 TYPE OF APPLICATI()N:______t^e Setback V^Mce__________________ DATE OF MEETING: October 18,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: To approve the request as submitted. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, October 25,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from Ae 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. ........ iiiiiii^MiiiririwIiih W04-30S3 October 18,2004 Page 1 of 4 Date Application Received: 8-30-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-30-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-29-04 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ October 14,2004 04-3053, Aulik Associates on behalf of Bart & Betsy Butzer, 2625 North Shore Drive, Lake Setback Variance, Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) 1.97 acres (86,129 s.f.) 268 feet @ shoreline; 259 feet @ 75’ setback Application Summary^' Applicant requests the following variance in order to replace an existing dormer on the lake side of the residence with a larger dormer: 1. Lake setback variance to permit structure within 75’ of Lake Minnetonka. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds that the applicant is requesting a reasonable improvement without increasing the non-conformity Staff recommends approval noting that the hardship is the current lake setback of the existing dormer and house. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. UTien more than one setback applies to a site, stmetures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows; (1) Structure and on-site sewerage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high water level: Setbacks Sewage Public Witcr Structure Treatment Classification Unsewered Sewered System NE 150 150 150 RD 100 75 75 GD 75 75 75 Tributary 100 75 75 See. 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. I #04-3053 October 18,2004 Page 2 of 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications and Description of Request Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Survey Exhibit D - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E - Elevation (Before and After) Exhibit F - Property Owner’s List Exhibit G - Plat Map Background This applicant originally appeared before Planning Conunission at the May meeting proposing a new accessory building and a conditional use permit to allow installation of plumbing within that structure. The Planning Commission and Council approved this request in June. In conjunction with the work that was approved in June the applicants have been remodeling the existing structure, which sites within the 0-75’ lake setback zone. Had the applicants known that this request required a variance it would have been included in the original request made in May and approved in June, earlier this year. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.00 acres)200’ Actual 86,129 s.f. (1.97 acres)268 @ shoreline, 259’ @ 75’ setback LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front 50’N/A N/A Rear 50’296’ - house 240 ’ - garage NO CHANGE Left ''Ide 30 ’107 ’ - house 35 ’ - garage NO CHANGE Right Side 30 ’55’ - house NO CHANGE Lakeshore 75’39’ - house 100 ’ - garage NO CHANGE Average Lakeshore Less Restrictive than 75’ Setback Compliant NO CHANGE W04-3053 October 18, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Structural Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 86,129 s.f. (1.97 acres)Allowed: 12,919 s.f. (15%) Existing & Proposed: 4,941 s.f. (5.7%) Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75 19,880 sf 0 s.f (0%) 3,768 s.f* (19%)NO GRANGE 75-250 43,247 s.f 10,812 s.f (25%) 9,075 s.f* (20.9%)NO CHANGE 250-500 23,002 s.f 6,901 s.f (30%) 0 s.f* (0%)NO CHANGE Lake Setback Variance The applicant’s have proposed to replace an existing dormer on the lake side of the home with a larger dormer. This dormer will exist over existing roof and not increase the existing, non-conforming, 39 foot lake setback. No new hardcover or structural coverage is proposed. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hard.ship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In comidering 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 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 finds that the hardship is the existing location of the home. To replace even the dormer that exists today would require a variance due to the house’s 39 foot setback to the lake. The proposed dormer also does not increase the existing non-conforming situation as the peak will match the dormer on the other side of the home and the remaining roof structure and chimneys extend even liigher than the proposed dormer’s peak Staff finds that the applicant is requesting a reasonable improvement without increasing the non-conformity, with the hardship being the current setback of the house. Past renovation applications arc typically approved if the non-conformity is not increased, the changes are less than 50% of the volume and value of the structure, hardcover and structural coverage are not increased, and there are no negative impacts to ^04.30S3 October 18,2004 Page 4 of 4 the neighbors. Staff finds this application meets all those criteria Issues for Consideration 1. Is the view from the lake changing significantly? 2. Is the non-conformity increasing? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the plans as submitted. dmmt City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A Sfreef Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Application # 0^'f' Amount Paid; Date Received: Main; 952-249-4600 fax; 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Staff: Fee;S600 Renewal: $300 After-the-fact; 51.200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. App icant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION; Site Address: Vyz.\\j(S. Property Identification Number (PIN); o<\\ \'^ z i.ooo3. (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): \tlo3» □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: Qi Residential □ Other ___________________________ Zoning District: l.9.1 a__________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na-as and marital status required for each interested party) 'lame: (jth.’iS ^ AoutK ____________________________________ •hone (home)- __________________________Phone (work): (^sz) s-^l ~/soo_______ Address: Lmoi Suvp Email: A P Ki\ii-ia . c,o\r<r\Fax: r-ti^oo OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names c'd marital status required for each interested party) Name: C?A»g.T ^ 'icn-z.iS.e._______ Phone (home): f‘is?.) Address; 2.C»2.g Ntfv.TH 54^q-c. Vajup Email: Phone (work): C&iz\ S'o&-anoc Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ \ 2,o^ qoq Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary):______________________ It II —t.* O >-/ rI REQUIRED SUBMITTALS; All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6 ‘'’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5 " x 11“ or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original ^ee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardle^of its potential rn^t Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signatu Date: Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ,, „ . Date: . O' Date: Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: ZLQ.AjL-TT. t \ Applicant must Ifav^ll siibrj^ttals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plannfhg^omrnt^ion Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. 10° I.... *.'3; \7r V-.: iV'.* City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting/) Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Only. , City Planner; _____ Meeting Date/Time: PC Date. ^6/. M4j!hn^ Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 V\fhat is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION; Site Address; Property Identification Number (PIN); _ Zoning District; ______Size of Property: O^wl23^ 20003 •2-I?. Acir-C-i DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback □ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area ^ Other. lAJkt Scf-tksuJU " bviKj<r\KlfOop<- Of d/>rh\€A^ □ Front Yard Setback □ Lot Width 0-75* UHi StMfeuX. -2^^ -Tcv Applicant;. Initials! HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: ‘Please note: Your variance appHg^on will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this forpvvff0HSe completed by Cil Applicant Signatu : ^ '^3^ 7 i Description of Request The requcit is described as follows; • The Owner requests to enlarge the dormer and window within the existing master suite. The larger dormer will accommodate a window system that increases natural light, ventilation, and the view of the lake. Note, this dormer will not increase the hardcover, modify the use or increase the elevation profile of the existing structure. • • • • _______ • 1 ofl ■■ y i EXHIBIT B Hardship Documentation 1. “Tlie property in question can not be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the of^cial controls” N/A 2. “Tlie plight of the landowner is due to circumstauces unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The existing home was constructed witliin 75* of the lakeshore prior to the adoption of the 1975 hardcover ordinance that introduced the 75’ setback from the lake shore. The master suite currently does not meet the natural light requirement of S% glazing of the room’s square footage. In addition, the existing space does not meet the 4% natural ventilation requirement. The natural ventilation requirement also requires the windows to be ‘readily controllable,’ which the existing window does not satisfy these conditions due to it being located behind the tub. The proposed will meet and exceed all of these requirements. 3. ‘‘Tlie variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The character will be enhanced by creating a more aesthetically pleasing and balanced structure from the lake view. Even though an increase will be made to the square footage of the elevation, the increase will only be a total of 2.1%. This will not increase the overall height of the structure. The new dormer will rcmaui within the height of the existing structure therefore the profile will not increase in size from the elevation view. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Economics do not play a role. The change in question would cost more than it would to keep the existing condition. 5. “Undo 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, Sectionl 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with tliis chapter.” The master suite currently does not meet the natural light requirement of 8% glazing of the room’s square footage. The proposed will meet this requirement. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not pennit 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 of Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-famiiy dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” N/A & ') k hcijC r. i'i V ; I of 2 L 8. “The special conditions applying to the sL'ucture or land m question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” Tlte existing home was constructed within 75’ of the lakeshore prior to the adoption of the 1975 hardcover ordinance that introduced the 75’ setback from the lake shore. The existing conditions do not meet the requirements of natural lighting and ventilation. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” Though many properties m the distnct have a high water mark setback, not all have a high watermark setback and a delineated wetland setback. Not only does the property in question have both setbacks, but the combination of these setbacks also reduces the allowable area to build by more than half. The property in question has another disadvantage due to the majority of tlie shared driveway witliin the 75’ to 250’ setback located within its boundaries, decreasing the ability to add more hardcover. All of tliesc restrictions do not even allow for the Owner to do the extreme of rclocatuig a similar sized structure anywhere within the property. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The intent of the Owner purchasing and renovating the said property is to enjoy the lake and the lake view. The granting of tho application is necessary to allow the applicant to be able to take advantage of the lake view. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfon, morals, or in any otlier respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The granting of the application will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals. Hedth will be improved by the increase of natural sunlight and ventilation. Safety will be improved by increasing the view the Owner has of their laud allowing for a more watchful eye for intruders and/or the ability to prevent accidents at the lakeshore involving children or others that may need help. Comfort will also be improved by the increase of natural sunlight, ventilation, and the peace of mind the larger view shall create. 12. “Tlic granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenieriCe to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” Due to the existing conditions, the granting of this variance is necessary to allow for the applicant to be able to take advantage of the lake view, provide a healthier, safer, and . more comfortable space to live in. Hardship Statement The applicant would like to stress that they are willmg to and are doing everything they can to comply with the Zoning Ordinances. Per the Owners variance application (zoning file #04-3006) the proposed hardcover of 12,843sf (29.7%) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 14,2004. The Owner is willmg to decrease the hardcover by an additional 399sf above and beyond what was approved. This will bring the hardcover down to 12,444 (28.7%), for a net reduction of 4.6% from the existing. 2 of 2 I: L / fr. • V . • •* . t •i t ' / •\r* % V |i£MOVeP HAROWV&P- . ' t. >. ^ i gssl i EXHIBIT D HARDCOVER CALCULATION^iJl^HEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) ( 0 75-250'250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Lenph B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ________ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X B X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______ B lAn__ Width Vo X 100 WidUt : X too SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ". S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____S.F. A H.ggQ S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B • \ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X B X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B M5-2^250-500'500-1000' •• S.F. Width Looo Z,OD 75<5 ^.075 ‘J372jn xlOO - Width XlOO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. b.77z. S.F. ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. A S F. B % S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % —— TitiiAiiiiiiAr*'*--*- - ■ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONX: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ;existing hardcover in zone A. House ____________ Len|ih B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Lai^scape VlM: Undirlain By PlWic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER*^Y AREA IN ZONE A PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patiomcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B 5004000* ■ S.F. Width 6/7 449V Z.h X100 - Width X 100 S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. /2,gV'^ S.F. A yj Ml S.F. B _JLUZ_% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. A S.F. B •/o \ # t'V- 1 ‘ ■ I' ' . ©PROPOSED Msr • fc* •? .1 Al II IK . ,lu )l If 0826 04 im' = j'-a" ‘-r >-v /» 2625 'D'ATl^ i2>asTi9ig MTi'D rKP'Pos'L'n (•rf^ imn«K«j.lViCffeo. i/«rt »•> -------- . . .. ................ m.w.iR«.ri rxr itnrSM> rxivr NEW. 8/27/2004 1033 S7 AM ft i-i PI b.. RIJN DATE ; 3/25^ 3R 09117231 J0009 )P ADDR 2MO NORTH SHORE DR NEIt NAME K H HODOER A J D HODDER K6NT«.iUOiTH»HODOei> 2640 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391»4WAD0R jg 09H 7234IOOOJ JPAODR 2545 NORTH SHOI^ DR NI:RNAME EDWARD JCALI^^N R <PAYER EDWARD J CALLAHAN JR Sstauommn 38 091172)420001 npADDR 2655 NOR1H SHORE DR ?nername caunoellajji -indell xTay T CRAIG a a JENNH ERJ undell MI7AODR 2655 NORTH SHORE DR " WAYZATAMN 55391 3H 091172)420007 OP ADDR 38 address UNASSICNLD VNrRNAMC JA WAUCPR*J»SWALK£R ““"r «MtS*»S«.KONSW»Ua« ;mi«odk ORONOMN 55391 N N . ■« 4* ^ Va ' :> if' iNNF.I'W COUNT*- I'ROPEHn WMATION SYSTEM GE: I . PROPERTY OWNER ^ 38 0911723140007 POnP ADDR II30 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD S OWNER NAMfc THOMAS G A PHYLLIS D COLWELL taxpayer THOMAS G A PHYLLIS D COLWELL NAME/ADDR C/0 COLWELL INDUSTRltS INC 12) 3RD ST N MPLSMN 55401 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMC/ADDR 38 0911/2)410002 2515 NORTH SHORE OR MARY DALE JESTER TRUSTEE MARY dale JESTER 2515 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0911723410004 PROP ADDR 2565 NORTH SHORE OR taxpayer jefereylmarweau NAME/ADOR MELISSA Lon(NGER NAME/ADU ^jjj^0„^HS„0RtDR WAYZATAMN 55391 PROPADDR OWNERname taxpayer NAME/ADOR 3S 0911723410009 38 address UNASSIGNEO CHARLES St BIRGITf A SCTIOEN CHARLES & OIRGIT FA SCHOEN 7430 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0911723420002 PROP ADDR 2605 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME J D JEROME S.S K 'LJ'P'JE TAXPAYER lf3HN 0 & SANDRA K JEROME namc /ador j»sw>.hm «RE™ WAYZATAMN 55391 PROPADDR OWNI R NAME TAXPAYLR NAME/ADOR )8 0911723420003 2625 NORTH SHORE DR B DUTZER A E I UUTZER OARTHOI.OMF.W/ELIZADETH DU FZEiR 2625 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 .fr-rs-s. •4.’ / |V. i«/ It.* S H **) JC^AXllJDll O nnepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department # Q A. ^ Vi i-it Parcel Information %.J^ '^^arcel ID 0911723420003 ^ House Nuniiber 2625 Street Name NORTH SHORE DR Thl$ is not a legally racorded map. It represents a compilation of information and data from Oty, County, and State road authorities and offiersources. . WiiltBilieHiliiifai’ittiinitir ii li Bit IMG Date Application Received: 09-20-04 Date Application Complete: 10-04-04 60-Day Review Period Expiration: 12-04-04 ocr ^ b 2004 CITY OF OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dale: October 20,2004 Item No. / 0 Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Item Description: #04-3055 - Mark Ritter on behalf of Dr. Martha Spencer - 1005 Willow Dr S - Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acres/200 ’ width 95,002 s.f. (2.2 acres) 260 ’ measured at a line parallel to the shore List of Exhibits: A - PC Action Notice dated 10-20-04 B - PC Memo & Exhibits of 10-08-04 C - Draft PC Minutes of 10-18-04 Application Summary: During the summer of 2004,0-75’ setback hardcover, and lake setback variances were granted to this property in order to convert concrete patios to decks within the 150’ structure setback from the OHWL of French Lake as the home and patios existed prior to the adoplioti of the Shoreland ordinance requiring the 150’ setback. This current application was intended by the property owner to be included with the previous request for the decks but was never submitted to the City for review. At this time the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance within the 0-75’ setback in order to construct a gazebo and install paved walking paths, and a lake setback variance to construct the gazebo 22 ’ from the OHWL where a 150’ setback is required and a 45’ setback currently exists (decks). Planning Commission Recommendation On October 18,2004, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the hardcover and setback variances based on lack of sufficient hardship. Planning Staff Recommendation Denial of the variances per Planning Commission recommendation COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a denial resolution for adoption at your November 8*** meeting. - CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-3055 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 20, 2004 TO: Mark Ritter Exterior Design Studio 57S0 Lincoln Dr. #125 Edina, MN 55436 COPIES: Dr. Martha Spencer 1005 Willow Drive S Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: VarLinces DATE OF MEETING: October 18, 2004 Planning Commission voted to deny lake setback and hardcover variances as follows: VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, October 25,2004 - 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 Plamier, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. Date Application Received; 09-20-04 Date Application Considered as Complete; 10-04-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 12-04-04 FILE #04-3055 8 Octobef 2004 Page 1 of 4 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner 11 October 8,2004 04-3055, Mark Ritter of Exterior Design Studio for Dr. Martha Spencer, 1005 Willow Drive S, -Variances -Public Hearing RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District 200' width & 2-ncre minimums 95.002 s.f. (2.2 acres) ________________ 260' measured at a line parallel to the shore___________________ Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a lake setback variance to allow a gazebo within 150 ’ of the OHWL on a natural enviromnent lake and a hardcover variance within the 0-75 ’ setback zone in order to construct the gazebo and paved walkways. Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the variances as requested. Hardship: There is no hardship to support further encroachment of the OWHL or increase in hardcover. _________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1217. Classification of public waters. 1 he public waters of the city have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, part 6120.3300, and tlie protected waters inventory map for the countv: OHWL (feet)Protected Waters Inventory I D # (1)Natural Environment (NE) takes Lake Classen 974.5 I62-P Dickey Lake 985 5 161-W French Lake (South Basin only)9300 140-P FILE #04-3055 8 October 2004 Page 2 of 4 See. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: (1) Structure and on-site sewerage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary Setbacks Sewage Public Water Structure Treatment Classification Unsewered Sewered System NE 150 150 150 RD 100 75 75 CD 75 75 75 Tributary 100 75 75 Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constmeted within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, e.xcept 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. Betw'een 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Pre-Application Meeting Form D. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. PC Report, Council Memo & Resolution from previous variance 2004 G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map Background The existing home at 1005 Willow Drive South is located entirely within the 150 ’ structure setback for French Lake, a natural environment lake. Additionally, half of the home is located witliin the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL of French Lake. Any additions or alterations to the existing home would require a lake setback variance, a hardcover variance or both. In June 2004, lake setback and 0-75 ’ hardcover variances were granted in order to construct decks over existing patio hardcover resulting in a slight reduction in hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone. The applicant has advised staff that the current request was intended to be part of the previous variance application but the City did not receive any of the information regarding this portion of the proposal. I i FILE #04.3055 8 October 2004 Page 3 of 4 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acre)200’ Actual 95,002 s.f. (2.2 acres)260 ’ (parallel to shore) RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Lakeshore 150’ (Natural Environment Lake) House 50’± from OHWL Patio 45’± from OHWL House 50’i from OHWL Deck 45’i from OHWL Rear 50’51.T 57.7 ’ North Side 30 ’92.r 92.7 ’ South Side 30*90’90' Average Lakeshore No encroachment No encroachment Structural Coverage: The property exceeds 2 acres, thus structural coverage is not considered, Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 19,984 s.f.Os.f (0%) 1,532 s.f* (7.7 %) 2,338 s.f (11.7%) 75 - 250 22,847 s.f.5,711 s.f (25%) 4,260 s.f* (18.7%) 4,260 s.f (18.7%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lake Setback Variance French Lake is a Natural Environment lake which has a setback requirement of 150* from the OHWL for all structures. The existing home is located entirely within the 150*setback with the closest part approximately 50’ from the OHWL. Hardcover Variance The existing home is located appro.ximatcly 50’ from the OWHL and the newly constructed decks are set back 45’. The total hardcover existing is 8% hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback. The applicant is proposing an increase in hardcover for the 0-75 ’ setback of 4%. With the previous variance approval the applicant was required to remove all fabric from the landscape areas which would result in a 75 ’-250* setback zone hardcover below the allowed 25% at 18.7%. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit D, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. FILE #04-3055 8 October 2004 Page 4 of 4 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, 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 only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Overlay Ordinance (1992) which identified French Lake as a natural environment lake requiring a 150’ setback. Prior to adopting the Shoreland ordinance the home was in a conforming location, as it was only subject to a 26 ’ wetland setback at that time. Staff finds that due to the location of the existing home and patios, there was a valid hardship for granting the lake setback and hardcover variances for the conversion of concrete patios to smaller decks. The resolution granting these variances stated on page 3 of 5 item #2 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 reduction in existing hardcover". However, staff does not find that there is a hardship to justify granting lake setback and hardcover variances for the gazebo or walking paths proposed with this application. The gazebo could be relocated to a conforming location on the property and the walking paths are not necessary in order to access the property. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the gazebo and walking paths are a property right of the applicant? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances as requested as there is no hardship present to support the request. 4 ifriittiiiiihui I City of Orono ^ Variance Application _____ Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55355 Application it *~ Date Received. Q- 20 -0^ Amount Paid: ____ Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Staff: kAi- (<x>n; Fee:S6C0 Renewal; $300 After-the-fact. $1,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. Appxant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: ________loo^ t>j-x\\ot.o Ofvu-L Property Identification Number (PIN); j A tt.___t_______inn ii riUfJciiy luciluiiwciuwii I'lwjii'wwi _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _-— ■ — (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) . ______L.. A____/I ^ fl YpQ I OWH th© noow.ii —w w._____— _________________isi SO: Zoning District: ________ APPLICANT INFORMATION; (Complete legal nsres and marital status required for each interested party) Name: RvUvior ------------------------------- Phone (work):Phone (home): m/A________________________— Address; /L.wnlv^ Erg/.rv^ .Aih)__ Email; <14.7. ^)r>oi ■ <• o t-v>.Fax: OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names a'.d mantal status required for each interested party) Name; Or. Phone (home): ‘Siwi Address; Email; to*b •?> ________Phone (work): N JA- tDrnL,\0 . viriro n//A Fax: __r^i A DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cosh $ .3l_,.f1oo Describe the reguest in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary). Ic?j‘- <o<x.L'‘o vj-^iVrf^'o.os C^om 5 2.fU> ct. ptco r 0•^g' ------- CvpatNoo 4 ----------------------------------------------------—---------------------------------------------- pmm% 4 *0 •>m< t i . - ■ r,, I .44^ fUx t ,* ^H,. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: ah of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List — owners within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6'^ Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey fsigned by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11” or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" xlTorlTx 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to rejectJlLlJntil it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardl^ss-rjints p9t^nHaLn»i4tr Applicant's Signature; Applicant’s Signature: Date: Date; OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date; Date: 9 //^ /u'4 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at ail scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. % ! i - ■r » yj 1 i i eK.0- Hardship Documentation Form 1. ‘The propeity in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The official control for this property will not allow the homeowner to create a safe environment. After 22 yrs of living at this residence it is not as easy to get around the yard so we would like to correct *he slope with walkways with steps and a patio that will create level areas to walk and sit for the enjoyment of the property. Also, with all of the diseases insects cany, a screened gazebo is to be built to create a safe area away from the insects of the wetland area. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” True, the existing grade of the property is unsafe and unusable for family activities. 3. "The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Wc are still allowing the property to retain the natural character of what exists; we are creating an area for the homeowner to enjoy the beauty of nature. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” 0% hardcover docs not allow us use of the backyard, for the fact of grade changes and an unsafe and unusable environment due to insects from the wetland area. 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, 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." No, it is not. 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 inunediately adjoining property’.” I . The conditions are applying toward the property itself. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in tlie district in which said land is located." True, the conditions are applying to the property in question itself. 10. “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.” . We are creating a safer, more functional environment so the homeowner is able to enjoy, be comfortable and safe in their yard. 11. “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 right of a homeowner is to have use of all parts of their property, with the existing situation the homeowner does not feel safe in using their yard. We are plamiing on giving the homeowner a safe and enjoyable place to spend their time. Statement Wliat we are trying to do is create a safe and enjoyable environment for the homeowner and their family. How we are planning on doing this is, with the steep slope that is on the side yards it makes it difficult, to almost impossible, to ^^'alk from the front yard to the back yard. What we propose to do is create walkways with steps that will allow the homeowner to move freely about the yard. The existing patio is not functional because of its size; it is too small for enjoyment during family gathcrings/social events. So we are proposing a new seating area so the family may enjoy their time outdoors. Due to the fact the property is located on a wetland area, it is a known fact insects are plentiful. To stay safe from the diseases insect carry we arc proposing the use of a screened in gazebo. This will provide a safe environment where the homeowner can sit and read and enjoy her back yard without the worries of disease carrying insects. 3u&5 AI 1 i ■ I/M tn o B)C.O City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.-) fi/i/fl/uni'cFor Office Use Only City Planner; ___Street Address: Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.Box 66 ,-------------^ ^ Orono MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Meeting Date/Time; /^J PC Date: 0/An)yry Main; 952-249-4600 Fax; 952-249-4616 What is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, infornn them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: /0O' y l/\/111DUO Property Identification Number (PIN): ________ Zoning District: Size of Property:■/.. 'I /•/ (■ rx •» Applicant’s Initials: 0f/ /-S-Ia. a I'if.i ^ L hfL y /ifr I-///;/;'//. "I'lJ 1/ ^\i r? ‘ ^ ‘‘ t f ft ’ft. L ^ V •- . / I > . . i I f•f)>f !tf) jhm>/ ■r>^V//-0 OTHER INFORMATION: HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. ‘Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this fojpvwtlllJF^ompleted by City staff. Date:Applicant Signature: ^ * $% -> V. Vi \5* V* rr^TT^’' S» K * n*.V, & fiiiiita».N»Mi 111 N«fiiiMM«»i B mmHct 0€$iff% Studio ttumip !«•! fiBAOA p*«aMW ■ ■■MltoAt ftMt IM* n *VMi «< M ^ VmIm «f mM Ltf • to M 1«MMIh ^ • Ml |M*1 «llMlM litf «wdM tow «M to *• «l ,ucmtmk» I |i n .......— mssmi6fiSssssL^^>>flll.a|.i wptolwitoWf Ml toll towt tmmm* tmOm ■to !•«• «r llto Itoto «4 Ml •Mptopra^kltoito KIMWrAArjWfSS Vr *2. CNAPHIC SCAIX {•« l“ 1^* L MM ■ - I wmm mmm mm nr MM tommm */*f0 tm-t*KU ) r / / / 1 \ \ 5 5J'30'29" W —314.80 — \ \ round 1/2' Found /T'i + ^ % 169.88 \ \ \ \ \ \ t 5PN> N 57.7 's I ^ —496.97‘— N5330'29 ”E \ i SZTSACX. 20N2: (CIRCLE O.N2)/'^‘>T^ 7&-Z£0' 250-£v0' FVrgTTVG FXRDCQVER T>~ 70NX A. Kcuse ______________ ^ Lr=i*ViiiA X o. C-eras;e C Drivew^ X D. SicewiC<X X ca tB E. PatiaDcdc X X F. Landscape l/aderlam By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER CN ZONE total property area in zone B ___X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Drivt^vay X X D- Sidewalk X X E. Panc/Deck X X ^ Lancsezp*? Underlain By Plasnc X X X G. Other (g^-V u..' TOTAL KARECO'/ZR IS ZOSc __ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONs + B ____X 100 - '* r * ' r iL\- *" i*N *i -77 »; O' 4 ex. e 5-:o-'c;co ’ ^ * c rw < C T i.r. //g^SJ. s^. SJ^. S.P. -2-11 SJ. s^. S.F. SI. SI. Ili-S.F. S.F. A I q.qfe-w ~ S.F. B % ii&°t S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. \S.F. vi5 ”SJ". SJ. SJ. SI. 'll!S.F. S.F. S.F. 3.F. S.F. SJ. ' S j’. SI. 3 n.i y. <1/!(,/.+' ._aI e^. t=^ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE 04-3030 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 27,2004 TO: Craig Lagorio COPIES:Dr. Martha Spencer 7155 Cahill Rd 1005 Willow Drive S Edina, MN 55439 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: July 26, 2004 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Thursday, 7:30 to 5:00 and Fridays 7:30 to 11:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. Variance approval is limited to the extent showti on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. A building pen-nil must be obtained no later than July 26, 2005. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have questions please call Melanie Curtis, City Planner, at 952.249.4627. ■) Date Application Received: 06-03-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06-29-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08-30-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dale: July 22,2004 Item No Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner___ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-3030 - Craig Lagorio for Dr. Martha Spencer, 1005 Willow Dr S - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre/200' 2.2 acre 260' @ shoreline List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice dated July 20,2004 C - PC Memo & Exhibits of June 29,2004 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a lake setback variance to allow grade level decks within 150’ of the OHWL on a natural environment lake and a hardcover variance for 8.0% hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone where 0% is normally allowed and 9.2% exists in order to construct lakeside decks over existing patios._______________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On July 19,2004, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the lake setback and 0 75 ’ hardcover variances. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279 SUBDIVISION 1 AND 78-1288 SUBDIVISION A FILE NO. 04-3030 WHEREAS, Martha Alice Leigh Spencer, a single person (hereinafter “the applicants”) is the owner of the property located at 1005 Willow Drive South within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City") and legally described as follows: Attached as Exhibit A, (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 Subdivision 1 to allow construction of lakeside decks 45’ from the OHWL where a 150’ setback is normally required and the existing house is set back 50’ from the OHWL; and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 Subdivision A in order to allow a 0-75’ zone hardcover level of 8% where 0% is normally allowed and y.2% currently exists in order to construct lakeside decks over existing patios within 75’ of the OHWL. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RJISOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Miruiesota; FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3030. 2.The property is located in the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 2 acres and a minimum lot width of 200’. The applicant’s property is 2.2 acres in area with approximately 260’ of width measured at the shoreline. Page 1 of 5 nr r-r 3. Tlie Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on July 19, 2004 and recommended approval of the variances based on the following findings: a. French Lake is a Natural Environment lake which requires a 150’ setback from the OHWL. b. The existing home is located approximately 50 ’ from the OHWL, entirely within the required 150’ setback. c. Prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1992 establishing a 150’ setback from Natural Enviroiunent lakes, the home was subject to only a 26’ wetland setback, at which time all structures were in a conforming location. d. The applicant has proposed to a net reduction of 1.2% hardcover witliin the 0-75 ’ zone. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Plaiming Commission, reports by City .staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the 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 Plair 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 Sections 78-1279 Subdivision 1, and 78-1288 Subdivision A to allow hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone of 8% where 9.2% currently exists and a lake setback variance to allow decks to be set back 45’ from I Page 2 of 5 the OHWL of French Lake where 150’ is normally 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 B. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Plamting Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0*75’ zone shall not increase above the vel of 8% or 1.604 s.f. Hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone shall be limited to 4,260 s.f. or 18.7% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicied on Exhibit B. 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 reduction in existing hardcover. 3. 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. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed by the footing inspection for the proposed decks. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the properly not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction w’ithin one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 26,2005). 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 temis of tliis 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. 5. Page 3 of 5 a:. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 26“' day uf July, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owncr(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN thThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26 day of July, 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 Page 4 of 5 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Martha Alice Leigh Spencer, a single person. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 5 of 5 4.1.*»«•#*I.V w^».pc*iM*'» vy^w 040095 10/117/23 JLM DESIGN BUILD ^VANCE SVRVEYING & ENGINEERING O 5300S.Hwy.No.l01 Min«eto«K MN 55345 Phooc (952) 474 7964 F« (952) 474 8267 SlIRVEY FOR:jlm design buil. SURVEYED: March, 2004 DRAFTED: March 11,2004 of dK NorUiwesl Quorter dirtmt 395 feet 10 md.« ftom North alMB *e Wert focli tliciiec at an angle a Ihe Ihm. Oa. poinl of begini^g and parallel with e SCOPE OF WQRfc . r u leara lin« of the above legal description. The 1. Showing the laigth and direction of which is a legal matter, scope of our services does iiol incite delermiiung w counsel. *We“AoTXalweadccdrora complete legal andwoenevec rsh^rg'to^oertion of cxirting ofthe property.3. Selhngncwnioniune.itoorvenfyjngold.oonainCTUto ra ^ „f 4. Showing and mbulaung hmd cover and ^ „..a „„ve™menul aaeneics aa may have junsdartron over hard cover rw| 4. Shoviring and labulatnrg hard cover ano ^ o. u.v ™ , nNuir«“eiils. such govemmenul agencies as may have junsdartron over hard cover req nn^P r °vMiinr s * rONVEN nONS: ___«„.nh.r 0215. set. unless otherwise •>'"«d. ; ^ ..... r n- 11) nilK with plastic ptog beanng blale Liocnso Numoet v CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Cr^ stal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-3030 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 20,2004 TO: Craig Lagorio 7155 Cahill Road Edina, MN 55439 COPIES: Dr. Martha Spencer 1005 Willow Drive S Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST:Lake setback & Hardcover Variance DATE OF MEETING:July 19,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: lined with removal of all plastic & fabric landscapeApproval of the proposal as subm; liners: VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; City Council - Monday, July 26,2004; 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. Page 2 of 4 Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows; (1) Structure and on-site sewerage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary Setbacks Sewage Public Water Structure Treatment CUssiticL.ion Unsewered 1 Sewered Svstem NE 150 150 150 RD 100 75 75 GD 75 75 75 Tributaiw 100 75 75 Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constmeted within 75 feet of the ordinary hign 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 tlie OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 50C feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations E. Aerial Photo F. Property Owners List G. Plat Map Background The existing home at 1005 Willow Drive South is located entirely within the 150 ’ structure setback for French Lake, a natural environment lake. Addixlcnally, half of the home is located within the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL of French Lake. Any additions or alterations to the existing home would require a lake setback variance, a hardcover variance or both. The applicant has proposed to construct decks over existing patio hardcover rerulting in a slight reduction in hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone. The property is surrounded by mature tree.s. I FILE #04-3030 29 June 2004 Pp'je 3 of 4 LOT ANALYSIS VVORSHEET Lot Arca/Width; ______ RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Actual 95,002 s.f. d 2 acres) 260’ (parallel to shore) Setbacks: RR-IB Required Existing Prop-'3cd Lakeshorc 150’ (Natural Environment Lake) House 50’± from OHWL Patio 45 ’± from OHWL House 50'± from OHWL Deck 45 ’± from OHWL Rear 50’57.7 ’57.7 ’ North Side 30 ’92.7 ’92.7 ’ South Side 30 ’90’ ^90’ Average Lakesliorc No encroachment No encroachment Structural Coverage; The properly exceeds 2 acres, thus structural coverage is not considered Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 19,984 s.f.Os.f (0%) 1,847 s.f* (9.2 %) 1,604 s.f (8.0 %) 75-250 22,847 s.f.5,711 s.f. (25%) 4,260 s.f (18.7%) 4,260 s.f. (18.7%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds liake Setback Variance French Lake is a natural environment lake which has a setback requirement of 150’ from the OHWL for all structures. The existing home is located entirely within the 150’setback with the closest part approximately 50’ from the OHWL. Hardcover Variance The existing home is located approximately 50’ from the OWHL and the existing patio is within 40*. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing patios an., .cplacc with a slightly smaller deck. The total hardc-over existing is 9.2%, and the applicant has proposed a reduction to 8% hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback. The 75 ’-250’ zone is below the allowed at 18.7% not including the fabric lined landscape beds. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be a;ked for additional testimony regarding the application. FILE #04-3030 29 June 2004 Page 4 of 4 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, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Conunisslon shall consider recommending approval for variances front 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. The home was constructed prior to the adoption of tlie Shoreland Overlay Ordinance (1992) which identified French Lake as a natural environment lake requiring a 150 ’ setback. Prior to adopting the Shoreland ordinance the home was in a conforming location, as it was only subject to a 26 ’ wetland setback at that time. Staff finds that due to the location of the existing home and patios, there is a valid hardship for granting the lake setback and hardcover variances. Hardcover within the 0-75’ setback will decrease as well. Issues for Consideration 1. Will the new decks over existing patio areas have any negative visual impacts as viewed from the lake? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested with the following provision; 1. Removal of all fabric and plastic landscape liners. * S; IMAY. 7.20041 4:45PM 952^ &4ViRjir A '.-PEOS ENOO 952 993 17611 landscape ci^iiy OT Orono Variance Application NO. 502 P. 2i 02 street Address; 2760 KsHey Parkway Orano, MN 66366 Wain; 952-249-4SC0 fax; 652-249-4615 Milling Address; . P.O. 6ox 66 Crystal Say. MM 55323-0033 Apsllcation it On Date Received; i\f i D O^r ~ Amount Paid; ,v»'-Amount Paid; Staff; \ Fes: S600 Renewal; S300 AP.er-tha-fact $V2Q0 Dousie Pcc This application form must be completed in fu'l, Applcant will be notified within 15 days as to tne ststu: uf me appltcatio.n. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: ^ Site Address; lopg uv>tu-c tO 'O'^ ^ Property Identification Number (PIN)://r //7Z?/Z- (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey,) Date Property Acquired (month/year): 1) I □ Yes, 1 own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property; ^Residential □ Otner Zoning District: _________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION’. (Complete lepal narr.ae and marital status required for each Irtercsted party) Name: CiC4-/ c>________________ Phone (home): -js'i ________ Address: h'ri'c/jftiLi, /.-..H) . a,aJ ■ /s'VJ*''/ Email: Phone (work): iz jf c-6- y^.L-V Ci; C> -cr^ /W.V tliL Cr^ >\^Fax: //L o OWNER INFORMA •'tisrms: Phone (home) Addrens; loots” ^oi Email: vo ors- %0 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST; Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary); VcTc-lJ c/'J Acft-C- Estimated Project Cost; $ //r.-v jMAY. 7.2004i 4:45PM 952c' '-P£OS ENOO 952 993 176h landscape ' ■: (iO. 502 P. 3: 03 required SUBMITTALS: .... AM of the following information nnuat be aubmitled by the application deadline date m oroer for your application to be processed. □ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. □ Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6‘'' Street. Minneapolis, telephone 012-348-5910 □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting a'l the requlrsments listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11’ or 11" X17" for reproduction □□ □□Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5’’ x 11" or 11" x 17"). Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the prcjoct • APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by tne Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original foe payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred In review of this application and certifies that the information supplied Is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submittinn a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it \b complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardl^ of jts potential morit. Applicant’s Signature: /^ ^ Date- ^ ' Applicant's Signature: 7 __//____ __________ Date: ________ -ddWN^'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT^ The owner Tiereby ack’nowledg'SS and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission & Council Members for purposes of Investigation and vorificetion of this request. Owner’s Signature;Date; Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 23 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. gawv!>ir??Pag£ 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota Stale Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in deterrnining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply); 1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." -TThA-J < .XV < T^//C/<■ —_____________________________________________ "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his properly not created by the landowner." 3."The variance, if granted, will not alter the essentia! character of the locrlity.' 4."Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ^ij L i Page 3 of 3 . 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." C.*' r /f r?.- /*gcV -v Me i TT Hardship Statement . . ^ i. u Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary); ,:-?3nK•t I ’*'• .n 1 BHHife'T C ©ctVtti) (T -p HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHx,£T SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)^^ 0-7^ F,X1STTNG hardcov er TN ZONE 75-250’2SO-500 ’500.1000' A. House UOS_s.F X X X S.F. Sr. S ?. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway X X LLS-S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.r. S.F. E. Paticv'Dcck X X /ri.S.F. S F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X SF. S.F. S.F. G. Other e,+u±S.F. total H.ARDCOVER IN ZONE a L ^ <>36.5* TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * 1^V7 SF. * B X 100 fROPOSED HARDCOVER ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Pla.xri^ X X X /y, yg v_ S.F. A B \\o^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. k\2 S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. 377 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. OuHer total PR^EMT ZONE 113: X 100 • S.F. A ■ S.F. B % cyf \ c L StTPACK ZONE: (CmCLE OvNE) 0-T5 EAR- -OVER CALCXXATION \YORXSE T 2'D-fOO' rnyriNG p^RPCOVEa zone A. Kcuss Lmr-^i Vrid-j; X X X 6. Gang: C Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/TDcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X C. Other u>«aVl TOTAL HARDCOVER tN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B ___X 100 « PttOPQSFn HARDCO^^*^ ZONE A. House Un|th Width X X X B. Caras^ C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X V5: E. Pt;io/Deck X X F. Lsndsc-p** Underlain By Plastic X X X G. O&er TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -*• B ___X lOO • 4AQ A QHi fOO-lOCO' 1 0 33 s.f. ST. 5.F. S *r • S.F. S.F. SF. Vf7 S5. ST’. S.r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. licil S.F. S.F. A fe-E.g V7 -- S.F. B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. ■ 3T. A S.F. B Vo 1 5"A5/oY 5 'AStliL • = j: V>. • •*«♦ * % • ^ ^ V'' • f •* ¥ ?f5-5#V .»*A »>, V. . • ' *•*: : ' - ici, •• K / I • • j -A ^ ^ , # ^ / >' V :r.i/‘Vv ♦K •V.- > * y •> ^ • • ' •’^» ./■ »• •- • '"v r,. -v; y * ' T ^ ^ V .• ' •—i rs , *• % ■< •. ^•‘ '0 • •!■ ^ ^ 4 m A *•• .> •V '•■■I- i» JN •. ■ • V\*. '* > •* r- O; V ,, • ■• r ,r •» •■ H-U >%•• ^ V ' w'r- .*X* X ■‘■.’‘iV „‘i;:j' • ''ft' W€^ %.t j:j >' •i.-5.-V X ** . 'ir« ‘ * '1 •^ ■» vL ^ 'l l - ■'*' c v..^X-r'.#. 'fe"v« •SV4 •> ^,4*^ \ iV**. X»>x \ 'V •hC ' *.Vj *.- » *•*1 • * r. >. '.^’T *u ■ ^ / ••yr' > -t •V » V •'V'^'^i.'fciv * "^•'x • “v' .i\.W 1 i a* ■ •' * a a. . # « * •■^ -',4* RUNDA1U:VIV2aM 38 I0i:7?3il0004 PROP ADDR >000 WIIJjOW UK S OWN&R NAME L R KI-OMUIEVU A KLOMOIOS LINUSAY K7I1 ANNA KLOMlilES NAME/AODK • «W WILLOW DU S WAYZATAMN i53YI 38 I0II723230004 PROP ADDR 38 ADDREI»!i UNASSICNEO OWNER NAME CLARK J WINSLOW ET AL TAXPAYER SHARON ft CLARK WINSIXIW NAME/ADDR 1205 PRENCM CREEK CIR WAYZATAMN 55191 38 1011723240010 PROPADH 1211 BRIAR ST OWNER NAME TEFRANK&ULf RANK TAXPAYER THOMAS* BARIIAKA I HANK NAME/ADDR ' ^ WAYZATAMN 55391 a t- t nu'.i.o. .n ''^«^p*gRy;,oVwi:RS LIST 18 I0II7232I00O6 PROP ADDR 2195 FRENCH LAKE RO OWNER NAME ERICS GORRELL TAXPAYER ERICSOORR e LL NAME/AUUR 2*95 FRENCH LAKE RU WAYZAIAMN 55391 38 I0M7232I0009 PROP ADDR 2115 CARRIAGE LA OWNER NAME SCOTT ft NANCY REID TAXPAYER SCOTT REID NAME/ADDR 2135 CARRIAGE LA WAYZ/ .AMN 55391 38 10117232)0005 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME RCftNLUX taxpayer B(»3tRT C & NANCY LUX NAME/AODR >209 FRENCH CREEK DR WAYZATAMN 55391 18 1011721140012 PROP ADDR 1005 WILLOW DR S OWNER NAME MARTHA L SPENCER TAXPAV^R MARTHA ALICE LEIGH SPENCER m'mbadd. -o»ox«s CRYSTASLHAYMN 55181 38 '011723240014 PROP ADDR 1055 WILLOW DR S OWNER NAME DftJKAYE TAXPAYER DALE R ft 30AN KA5 E NAME/ADDR '0'' WIUT7W DR WAYZATAMN 55391 3R 1011723240017 PROP ADDR 2125 CARRIAGE LA OWNERNAMI; K A SIIIBLEY&KA MALETTA TAXPAYER KIRK SIIIULEY ft KIM MALETTA NAME/ADDR 2125 CARRIAGE LA WAYZATAMN 55191 I cnRTIFY TMATTHE FAU!^> KEPR^SEKI^ONTIrt; RECORDS OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND »ELIEF.^^^ ^ ^ H !• 0/ ^jka % Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department V. / /7/ Parcel Information Parcel ID i Q11723240012 v: ir House Number 1005 y - JP ' Street Name WILLOW DR i■;> . - \ ^ This Is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compilation of Information . * aM data from City, County, and State road authorWea and other aourcea. ■: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. The applicant is also requesting a lake rctback variance to allow a gazebo setback of 22 feet where a 150 feet structure setback is required and 45 feet currently exist. The existing home is located approximately 50 feet from the ordinary water high level and the newly constructed decks are set back 45 feet Staff is recommending denial of the variances as requested as there is no hardship present to support the request. Ritter stated there are grade changes in the rear of the yard that they are attempting to accommodate in order to allow the property owner access to her rear yard. Ritter stated the property is located on a swamp, which makes the property almost unusable during the summertime due to the mosquitoes. Ritter stated they are attempting to make the back yard functional and usable. Rahn noted the property owner is allowed a pathway on a descending slope to the wetland. Rahn inquired why one of the decks could not be screened in. Spencer pointed out if the deck was screened in, it would obstruct her view from the house and cut down on the amount of light that is allowed in. Rahn staled according to the elevations, it appears the roof of the screened in deck would be at about eye level. Ritter pointed out the law requiring a 150-foot setback was not put into effect until 1994, with Mrs. Spencer residing in this property for 20 years. Thcie were no public comments concerning this application. Kempf stated he has toured this property and also felt the deck could be screened in. Kempf stated he understands that does limit the light into the residence somewhat, hut that the applicant must make a choice on what type of hardcover she would like in order to help protect French Lake. Ritter reiterated that that law was not implemented until 1994, with his client residing in that residence for ten >'ears prior to that. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Curtis stated the 1994 law that Mr. Ritter is discussing is the adoption of the Shoreland Overlay Ordinance that identified French Lake as a natural environment lake requiring a 150-foot setback. Curtis stated the amount of allowable hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone was not changed at that time and has remained the same since the late 1970’s. Jurgens noted there cuiTently is a variance for the hardcover on the property. Spencer pointed out that the existing hardcover is less th.'m what had existed previously on the property. Jurgens inquired whether the applicant would be willing to trade a deck for a gazebo. Jurgens stated the applicant is allowed a certain amount of hardcover but that he would not be in favor of increasing the hardcover that currently exists on the property' since there tlots not appear to be a hardship. Winkey questioned why the gazebo was not part of the original plan. Spencer stated the gazebo w'as part of the original plan. Ritter stated the plan for the gazebo for some reason 'Hm submitted to the City and only the deck was approved. Curtis stated there was a phone conversation with staff concerning the gazebo but that no information was ever supplied to the City during the original application. Rahn pointed out one of the conditions for the hardcover variance was that the hardcover in the 0-75* setback zone shall not be increased above 8 percent. Curtis indicated the gazebo was discussed at the time of the application for the decks but that no information was ever supplied to the City. Bremer inquired whether any hatdeover could be removed in the 0-75’ zone. Spencer stated there is a cement dog pen. Jurgens noted the dog pen is not shown on the survey but is located closer to the shoreline. Spencer commented they have removed as much hardcover as possible. PAGE 15 J r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18, 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Fritzlcr stated he docs not see a reason to increase the hardcover in this area and would not be in favor of a gazebo at this time. Ritter inquired whether the walkways would be permitted. Fritzlcr stated he is not in favor of the hardcover increasing. Curtis inquired whether the pathways are actual steps. Ritter indicated they are a combination of walkways and steps to enable the property ONMier to access her back yard. Ritter noted the walkway was sho^vn on the original plan. Curtis stated the stairway as proposed is to get around in the yard and not to access the lakeshore. Rahn pointed out the only hardcover that is allowed to encroach in the 0-75’ area would be a pathway from the home down to the lake. Spencer commented that would be more detrimental in her view than a gazebo located further away from the lake. Kempf stated the gazebo is located approximately IS feet from the existing deck and that he does not recall the area being that uneven. Spencer indicated the ground in that area is uneven. Ritter stated there is a hill on either side of the house that makes it difficult for his client to access the back yard from the front. Kempf inquired whether the area where the gazebo is proposed to be located is fairly flat. Ritter stated that part of the yard is flat. Ritter indicated the patios were designed to be transition areas so the property owner could access the back yard. Ritter stated it is his understanding a property owner has the right to make their back yard functional. Jurgens stated a gazebo is not necessary to make a back yard functional and usable. Ritter noted the property is located on a swamp. Jurgens stated there might be some reasoning for the pathway to the back yard but that the portion where the gazebo is located is flat and a pathway is not needed to access that portion of the property. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18, 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the current design or the amount of hardcover being proposed, Ritter reiterated that the reason for a variance is to make a back yard functional and usable. Rahn indicated he is not aware of that language being contained in the code. Gundlach indicated she also is not aware of that. Leslie stated the two plateaus in the back yard do not prohibit the applicant from enjoying the back yard. Leslie stated the property owner has access to the back yard through the lower level of the house and access to the front yard from the upper level of the residence. Leslie stated the back yard is being used today and is accessible. Leslie stated in his opinion the absence of a gazebo does not make the back yard nonfunctional. Ritter inquired what detriment there would be to the environment or to the property if a gazebo were constructed as proposed. Leslie stated the City has a community management plan that the applicant is etcome to take a look at that addresses the intent of the ordinances. Leslie stated basically hardrny;;- ic<>(rictions arc designed to preserve the water quality of the lakeshore in qiiestion. Ritter commented that the residence is located quite a distance from the lakeshore. Leslie moved, Jurgens seconded, to recommend denial of Application if04-3055,1005 Willow Drive South, for a lake setback variance to allow a gazebo w ithin 150* of the OHWL on a natural environment lake and a hardcover variance within (he 0-75’ setback zone in order to construct a gazebo and paved walkways. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. #a«058 TIM0‘ 7^-^8:12 p.m. zwart , drive >^ariances . ✓ /‘Rahn moved,J^mer seconded, fo^commend approval o^fppUcatioa #04-3|l^, 3970 North Shore Dr^, granting of biuKover, lot area and lot ndVtb variances in sffaix to construct ucew PAGE 17 Date Application Received: 9-21-04 Date Application Considered at Complete: 9-21-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-21-04 t.mq REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 0C1 ^ 6 2004 Cl IY OF ORO.MO Date: October 20, 2004 Item No.: |/ Dc urtmcnt Approval: /^dminiitrator Approval: Nan:.*: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-3059 James Render, 1335 Tonkawa Road - CUP - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10-20-04 C - Memo and Exhibits of 10-11-04 D - Draft PC Minutes of 10-18-04 (not available as of this writing) Application Summary: Applicant requests CUP approval for a cupola extending from the easterly roof peak of the residence. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions: Planning Conunission held a public hearing and reviewed this on October 18,2004. One neighbor was present who had no comments for or against the proposal. On a vote of 4-3, Plamiing Commission recommended approval for the CUP for the cupola as presented. Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the majority conclusion of the Plaiming Commission and recommends approval of a CUP to allow the feature as a cupola. Please review the memo and exhibits of October 11 as well as the draft Planning Commission minutes. Planning Commission members voting in favor of the motion to approve, apparently concluded that this feature is acceptable as a cupola, and will have little or no visual impact in the neighborhood. The minority opinion apparently was that this feature appears to be merely an extension of the roofline, and the CUP is just a way to get around the height issue. The minority conclusion was that it would not be appropriate to approve a CUP for this feature as a cupola. The zoning code docs not define ‘cupola’, nor does our usual reference, “The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions’*. The following definitions were found: Random House College Dictionary: 1. Arcliit. a. A light structure on a dome or roof, serv ing as a belfry, lantern, or belvedere, b. a dome, esp. one covering a circular or polygonal area. 2. Any of various domelike structures. W04-30S9 133S Tonkawa Road October 20.2004 Page 2 Penguin Dictionary of Architecture: A dome, especially a small dome on a circular or polygonal base crowning a roof or turret. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: a. A domed roof or c filing, b. A small structure surmounting a roof. From staffs perspective, the feature as presented is without question a cupola. Its roofline is offset from the extended roofline of the house by a few inches (see Exhibit C-4 of October 11 packet). The zoning code provides no standards for cupolas, nor for determining when CUP approval is appropriate, other than the ability mitigate negative impacts. Staff Recommendation Despite genenl concerns about heights ofbuildings, staff would recommend ^proval for this application per the majority Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution granting a CUP for the proposed cupola for the property at 1335 Tonkawa Road. ORONO PLAN^sSoOMM^ION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.ra. 1,350 square foot single family home, with the condition that the hardcover not exceed 36 percent within the 75-250’ setback zone. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Fritzler opposed Fritzlcr indicated he was opposed to the motion because there is no incentive to reduce the hardcover down closer to the 25 percent standard. 8. #04-3059 JAMES RENDER, 1335 TONKAWA ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:13-8:26 p.m. James Render, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use pennit for a cupola extending from the easterly roof peak of the residence. The proposed cupola will have a peak elevation of just under 983’. The bulk of the proposed house vidll have a peak at 966’-967’, or 3 ’ below that of the existing house just to the east. The other adjacent residence to the immediate west and slightly uphill from this property has a continuous peak elevation of 978’. The City Council recently reviewed this application as an appeal to the administrative decision regarding the original proposal at their September 20"* meeting. The Council concluded that the height measurement policy using the average of the highest window and the peak was valid and appropriate. The Council also concluded that the lower measuring point should be established at 940’, which matched the original grade at the west side of the current lot before the adjoining home was razed. Further, Council had suggested that the proposed design could be revised to meet the height code and applicant could make revisions to the peak feature and apply for a conditional use permit for a cupola Gaffron explained Section 78-1366 does not contain any specific standards for approN'al of a conditional use ocmiit, but docs reference the general Conditional Use Permit standards which states: The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form, if on the bzsis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the following findings: PAGE 18 —* - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (1) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, (3) That the proposed conditional use will comply -.vith each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. Gaffron indicated the comprehensive plan states building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Staff estimates that typical tree height in the neighborhood ranges from 40’ to 70’, with a few mature trees probably in the 80’ range. The canopy elevation as viewed from a distance probably is in the 970’-990’ range. The lot itself is somewhat open, such that from certain angles the peak may be more visible than from others. Gaffron indicated the visual impact of the height of the cupola will be somewhat softened by the higher natural topography of the surrounding neighborhood and by the higher trees in the immediate neighborhood. Staff concludes that from a distance, from most angles, the cupola peak will not extend higher than the general canopy of the area, although from certain angles it may be visible through openings in the canopy. Gaffron noted the majority of the proposed residence is below the 30’ height restriction. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of a cupola extending 6.7 feet above the peak of the house per the submitted plans. Render commented Gaffron in his opinion has done a great job. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments concerning this application. James Erler, 3448 North Shore Drive, indicated he is here tonight to try to understand the applicant’s proposal and asked if he could withhold any comments until later. Rahn indicated that would be fine. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Kempf inquired what material the cupola would be constructed out of. Render indicated there would be cedar shingles on the roof with some copper (lashing. Fritzler inquired whether there is an actual roof underneath the cupola. Render indicated there is. Leslie commented in his view it would be difficult to imagine this house without the cupola and that the sole puipose of the cupola appears to be to continue the roof line. Leslie stated in his mind the reason a conditional use permit exists for a cupola is to allow a small structure relative to the entire peak of a roofline and that this is clearly a continuation of a roodine. Leslie stated the cupola serves the purpose of finishing the roof and is against the purpose or reason a cupola e.xists as a conditional use permit. Jurgens noted he was in attendance at the Council meeting when this matter was discussed and that in his opinion the cupola is a reasonable compromise based on the issues involved with this application. Jurgens indicated the applicant’s architect did not have the benefit of staff s policy used m determining height of a structure and that they relied solely on their interpretation of the code that they found on the City’s web site. Jurgens noted the policy, which further defines the code, is not found on the City’s web site. Jurgens stated the option of incorporating a cupola into the design was arrived at as a mutual compromise. Jurgens indicated there were also some issues i""olving the grading and elevation on this site. Fritzler stated in his view this still constitutes an extension of the toofline and that he is not in favor of the conditional use j. - mit. Ralm commented that he also had the impression that it was an extension of the roofline but that it appears to be an in between method to achieve the design that the applicant is looking for. Rahn stated in his opinion the Planning Commission also has the option of calling this a cupola. Render indicated it was his understanding the Council had directed him to pursue a conditional use permit. PAGE 20 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78.1366(A)(3) FILE NO. 04-3059 WHEREAS, James D. Render (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1335 Tonkawa Road (hereinafter “the property ”) within the City of Oi ono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 1, Tonkawa Shores 2*^ Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1366(A)(3) to pennit a cupola to be constructed upon the roof of a residence where 30 ’ defined height is the maximum allowed for the LR-IC zoning district, such cupola to extend 7 feet above the highest peak of the roof of the house. 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 October 18, 2004, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3059. 2.Tlie property is located in the LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 18, 2004 and recommended approval of the proposed conditional use permit by a vote of 4 in favor and 3 against. Page 1 of 4 T: •'t :' 4. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The cupola is decorative, does not increase living space, and extends from the easterly visual peak of the building but has no visual impacts over the remainder of the structure. B. The cupola is not out of character with the neighborhood, and is anticipated to be no higher than the general tree canopy line for the neighborhood. h 5. C. Hardcover and lot coverage by structures does not increase with the cupola. D. There is no access from the residence to the cupola. E. The proposed residence in all other respects meets setbacks, height, and lot coverage by structure requirements. F. Zoning Code Section 78-1366 allows such a structure via Conditional Use Permit with no specific standards to be met. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding properly 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. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 4 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit fpr 1335 Tonkawa Road per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1366(A)(3) to permit a cupola to be constmeted upon tlie roof of the proposed residence where 30’ defined height is the maximum allowed for the LR-1C zoning district, such cupola to extend 7 feet above the highest peak of the roof of the house, subject to the follow'ing conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan and cupola design submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicant, but arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building pennit within one year of lire date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date October 25, 2005). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tenns and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically tenninate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of October, 2004. ATTEST; Linda S. Vcc, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicant ($) Page 3 of4 J jjgl 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____ 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. day of Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COU"NTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .20..personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ..a____ whose identity I proved on the oatli/affirmation of________________________ credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/shc/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of4 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600________ ZONING FILE #04-3059 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 20, 2004 TO:Jim Render 1315 Tonkawa Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Pennit DATE OF MEETING: October 18, 2004 Planoing Commission recommended as follows: Approval of CUP for cupola as shown on submittals. VOTE: 4 FOR 3 AGAINST The minority opinion apparently was that this feature appears to be merely an extension of the roofline, and the CUP is just a way to get around the height issue. The minority conclusion was that it would not be appropriate to approve a CUP for this feature as a cupola. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confinned as: City Council - Monday, October 25, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plamiing Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Dale Application Received: 9>21->04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9-21-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-21-04 To:Chair Rahn and Plamhng Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director '' October 11,2004 #04-3059 James Render, 1335 Tonkawa Road - CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre min. 0.80 acres Application Summary: Applicant requests CUP approval for a cupola extending from the eastc roof peak of the residence. ______________________________ Sta/f Recommendation: Approval as presented. List of Exhibits A - Application & Description of Request B - Survey / Site Plan C - Elevation View D - Airphotos of Proposed Location E - Staff Sketch Showing Relationship to Neighboring Properties F - Plat Map G - Property Owners List Pertinent Code Section Section 78-1366: Height of Structures (A) The height limitations imposed by other provisions of this Chapter may be increased by conditional use pennit by 50 percent when applied to the following structures; 1.Church spires.8.Flag poles. 2.Belfries.9.Chimneys. 3.Cupolas and domes which 10.Smokestacks. do not contain usable space.11.Parapet walls extending not more titan 4.Monuments.three feet above heiglit of the building. 5.Water towers.12.Cooling towers. 6.Fire and hose towers.13.Elevator penthouses. 7.Observation towers. (B) Heights in excess of those allowed under Subsection A above for the uses enumerated in that subsection may be permitted only by conditional use pennit granted pursuant to the procedures as set forth in Article V, Division 2 of this Chapter. #04-3059 l33STonkana Road October 11,2004 Page 2 Discussion »i The City Council reviewed the height issue for this proposed residence in September as an appeal of an administrative decision to deny a building pennit based on excessive heiglit. Council concluded that the height measurement policy using the average of the highest window and the peak, was valid and appropriate. Council also concluded that the lower measuring point should be established at 940', which matched tlie original grade at the west side of the current lot before the adjoining home v/as razed. Council suggested that the proposed design could be revised to meet the height code, and applicant could make revisions to the peak feature and apply for a CUP for a cupola under Section 78-1366. CUP Standards. Section 78-1366 does not contain any specific standards for approval of a CUP, but does reference the general Conditional Use Pennit standards of Article V, Division 2 (Sections 78-911 thm 78- 922). The pertinent excerpt is 78-916(a) which states: (n)Tlie Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modilled form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, tlie City makes the following findings: (1) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan: (2) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under w Inch it would be operated or maintained w ould not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, (3) That the proposed conditional use will comply w ith each ofthe applicable provisions of this Chapter. Staff is on record as being reluctant to support this application, based on a past history of fielding complaints by residents, Plaiming Commissioners and Coimci I members about excessive residential bui Iding heights in the City. However, if Planning Commission concludes that any negative impacts of the excess height associated with the cupola can be suitably mitigated by attaching reasonable conditions to an approval, or ifPlanning Commission finds that there are no negative impacts associated with the proposal, then a recommendation for approval may be in order. Comp Plan Policies. The Community Management Plan (CMP) in Part 3 A, the Environmental Protection Plan, states the following policy under “Urban Policies for Natural Resource Management”: “2. Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clcarcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Namral vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in w hich case they w ill be screened with natural vegetation." MA-30S9 1335Tonkawi Road October 11,2004 Page 3 Cupola Height Perspectives. The proposed cupola will have a peak elevation of just under 983'. The bulk of the proposed house will have a peak at 966'-967', or 3' below that of Render’s existing house just to the east The adjacent Fasching residence to the immediate west and slightly uphill from tliis property, has a continuous peak elevation of978'. The new house at 3440 North Shore Drive, uphill and to immediate southwest of the site, has a confomiing gable roof system with a peak 40'+ in length at an elevation of980', or just 3' below the proposed cupola. Staff estimates that typical tree height in the neighborliood ranges from 40' to 70', with a few mature trees probably in the 80' range. The canopy elevation as viewed from a distance probably is in the 970'-990' range. The lot itself is somewhat open, such tliat from certain angles the peak may be more visible than from others. As viewed from the west side ofNorth Arm Bay (Loma Linda access), applicant's existing house appears to be perhaps 10-20' below the general area canopy. The visual impact of the height of the cupola will be somewhat softened by tlieliigher natural topography of the surrounding neighborhood, and by the higher trees in the immediate neighborhood. Staff would conclude that from a distance, from most angles, the cupola peak will not extend higlier than the general canopy of the area, althougli from certain angles it may be visible through openings in the canopy. Issues for Consideration 1. Does Planning Commission have any specific concerns with the proposed cupola? 2.Will there be any impacts to the surrounding neigltborhood if this request is approved? If so, what reasonable conditions can be established that will mitigate those impacts? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow construction of a cupola extending 6.7 feet above the peak of the house per the submitted plans. Planning Commission should determine whether any specific conditions need to be added to the recommendation. A-] Application# Date Received Amount Paid_ 1/lJ SIcCO.qO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . ^ Site Address _____/.6 3 /o ^ /cV.w (^ro<Lc/_________________ Type of Application to be Filed _______^ ct "P — t 1_____ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.)____oS' ’ Jt 1 -^3 -/2- oom APPLICANT.. Name __%^ayVL?5■^ Phone fhome> 9^2.^ v ?/ • ?.i C7 Phone(work) S2. ~ SfVi'- Address h\i^ 7o^7/trju^ir. City (0Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Phone (home). Address DaJfiLProperty Acquired _____/^/a., / v9 y____ (3^(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. A'/ Phone (work) _ City______Zip. /V9y 1 (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $600.00 Residential Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ____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 $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation _______$600.00 Easement Vacation _______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule" REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6*^ Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). . List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;_________________ ____Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date f OWNER’S SIGNATi/ri The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signafbfe^Date q/z./ Applicant must have ill submittals into lie City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meel.ng. Planning Commission Matings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled reviewv^eetings of the Planning Commission and Council .f an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent aUend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of tfiis change prior to the meeting .'V ‘V 1 #•* i'r-‘ /\-e Description of Request Applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a cupola 7 feet high by 10 feet wide at its base atop a single family residential structure to be built at 1335 Tonkawa Road, Orono Minnesota. See attached plan for exact location and detail. <?- ' 3 \ JTiV \A ' 8S»w w ;; SiPg !■■«> JS > 1 VTmh^ BBIt^ ^--------------------- Iff ••it »iw |« MMMtMT o £^SS»tVMMWiiaWIIs;&:.rs4tu © f iP ctiffii lAUii ««■ I \Jf^'^ I U1,: € *«W -f WL; laftr' •«fcs=-------L-■'■ti i-ri " ■■• lap r stwvcATicAi nm « «• ViaTttM «MUt n «• eMM* MMU. .„,/ Xs3r^^!^*/ / ea.!«r7M5! •flOSBC •W*«— mg^—-' — —::, Sifrties:::^ uiM i /v^55'S^»- CXI U« All fM r*AK4t Cvr> «0Tn /■ mm ^WEi .'•; Y*'-•■;A . Ac:*.V .. I *mv---- «CM MMA. IU&9A. k ^2 ■?? IMI ■■■ III nil Ml -W ic> r*" 1 <*^i r ri r.m i r ti r rr.i i rni r.Ti {•■ II II ^ .• HH !!l::]:■!!:in!! l&!SI Li !! » ■■ ■■l■• •■li 1 !! Li M r^v.z' II II I ii Im l■’ll|ll H I II II I cii c -l!!!!l!!'i!Pl lll[llllilllllll"lll,lll |!l!!!!ll!!!!l 'A** * 'iISz^^SsrSssss^M I'iImi QH III'If '-I'llliittiSI rSiH W s''PS SI SB' ''p'pI PP PP PP PP PP PP CtV. ‘Zy) <-D. :ci; :c: PI PP PI M PP PI m IMl_______ * %. ♦ v*i ^au5i- ___5j1vX^^.5W!v^-------ttjsaj'ba. ffV At* «•/maO lUiiti.. L'AVi JJ ^= !s:j: '^l ■Trai ^ i •^ * T: B-sr.r\ •f*»* *»/ »*M •!«» « / • *rr* •' '•• J':***'-j^-*,- il' ■«fcr • *«MK ATTIC • *AA«W ATTIC fffeTKt ■ MUM msjs**• «T *1* «SlU A • *A***C pmtmmm - -----------«V^-' .»*t« J t. bvrJl<v«’*rfe« AI4.•« •*»«»• c 'Tto r ar nta MrUNIAII HUI All CONTRACn I 8UI-C0NT1UC iiU2k0Mmmmiqanatmtmmm fiqPMrpIliir ITTmcmOiPpC MCoMMSsOn MmmPMM lltltOMPOMrnmm^mmr MPl(lM.lipi| MgKMIpP^ Render Residem Design Develop Drawing nil lAAii 0»t»« a mm. ' f^x^ vx/fsites l\2-Z~ (V\ \o vJ 'U nN .T1 * • •,) f<<r*. J 'X) I .> «v 1 *tj U ^ '- ; • V . !.• 'ji m i\ t S 1 e n c e 335 Tonkawa Road Orono, Minnesota - y^:: • .r-* It ‘ . r ‘-' ; .* .’■ •*-' , . » Iv . . % .-. - . I ‘ ■> - ■ 1 - • \ . - • ■ ■ ! . . . '.% C -.’•I- ifP S5. @C“I .1 .V - lias... s'}* mmm u j---- I , * ;...........................::::::.::::;:*:;.::v:::::-‘- scum f«c«a.6' (^uyjijuia /Jofcjn r<cc»^ r -J \ P ^ r L fr - OF BORv* Mippeo IROOF, etEBROW WOV/, 1ST FLR & BASEMENT WOW GROUPINGS. •tOF MIPPSO ;roof ^ 4--8' t OF CORVER, 'WOW GROUP 9 1ST FlR & WOW 9 B asement FUTURE CUPOLA **• ' :-v.r,T. r^.S -v-n • • ‘ ‘^' r - fST/T'----------' I • # I i_ “i‘r* /^..Zx.t. - *—"^rX*--1. t •''•rr*’;*, rt.w JT^, r» : **^—f*i- — ► .ku_. , i, Lti ^r;r7o,x:::: pi J /•» «N» t •» 4 J-V-.' * J r - •• f ' ••*7' , •■* ■» 1 iof.-• .1 .....»■ .. U'A’ v....••-■-T'• -,- -•, -. ■• —' '?V ' ■': v'-s—..............r.f - •!■ }!—^UJP ■V I •• mmm.Jl -------- ,rtfi' f I ^OT .. □ I T -■7 -t> *. •, / wm XK^'^-rf ,y % X V •w' K.•> V V / 1-r-iy.'- - f ¥ K-? •* I « m..r, ^k*''" Vi i:^ px-{.- rm ^ r:V .. r—-> r ■ " V? • 1 ■'.!>••'..,i A...<:s .■;. %i»^A *■.»• >e^' V'Vl":^ . i* ■,5'-£r V - r vj ! " •_.s*l« • «« ^■'t* ■:y. : Ph *lii}~ REA R t-f. N u ]^t.\r/V( 1V> - fc*«e <?V _____ < /.*» > : 31 ! 7~~ , nil >M! hi ki Sr«ra- )%fX .1^ ________________q7ft*________________ ^a*rt!ac>Kr^ m^^«r=r c=r=: |lg£3S?sl3;;l;;;SI«: ::::, >H* " •• - f\ •i^:^<ii\‘ i:* “ * t ZL:.':=*^6 pc- M I- e/^. ? p r r L /3!:.r r^/H-Av\A (fbo&:: / »oT rKOi-'? V siv-f ■'■i: I 17^m nn»i 1 ^Pfpi ^>*ir|r4v:.-.-.r:«iZtiS8«£*sjfc,»T(fs«As^xsi ‘-^fV A':ck//j6. r// iT7/..t<:, SSv3' -‘-Dcn M'Jt, J:/ F Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department p -n< • ' .*V*•V... i. • Parcel Information ) ; ( Parcel ID 0811723420011 ^ ^ House Number 1335 Street Name TONKAWA RD This is not s legally recorded map. It represents a compilation of Information .. and data from Oty, County, and S^to road authorities end other sources r 'll / i run DATE tWIWCW HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMAT ION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08II723I300I8 PROPAODR 1205 TONKAWA RO OWNER NAME N A SMITH * T H SMHII TRSTES TAXPAYER THOMAS H& NANCY A SMITH NAMF7ADDR 120$ TONKAWA RP LONOUKEMN 55J5(> 38 0811723420001 PROP AOPR 1220 TONKAWA RD OWNER NAME MICHAEL J EBERTZ TAXPAYER MICHAEL J tOLRTZ NAME/ADDR 1220 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0811723420002 PROP A DDR 3398 NOR111 SHORE DR OWNER NAME STATE OF MINNESOTA taxpayer DNR REAL ESIAIE MGMl NAMF/ADDR ATTNOEUBIEGURTIN SOOLAFAYEfrERD ST PAUL MN 55155 PROP AODR 38 0811723420003 3366 NORTH SNORE DR OWNER NAME STATE OF MINNESOTA TAXPAYER UNR REAL ESTATE MOMT ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD NAMFyADDR 38 0811723420009 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UN ASSIGN ED OWNER NAME JAMES D RENDER taxpayer JAMES D render NAME/ADDR 5120 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BEVO EDINA MN 554J9 38 OKI 1723420010 PROPADDR 1355 TONKAWA RD OWNER NAME MICHAELC& ELLEN I FASCHING TAXPAYER MICHAELC& ELLEN I FASCHING NAME/ADDR ' 555 TONKAWA RD WAYZATAMN S5J9I PAGE: I /i V*’*.*'^*, i ^ s4k 9 Vin ] SrPAULMN 55155 38 0811723420011 PROPADDR 1)35 TONKAWA RD OWNER NAME JAMES D RENDER I^^P^YI'R JAMES D re .NDER NAMI /ADDR 5120 F.OINA INDUSTRIAL ULVD EDINA MN 55419 38 08I172M200I2 PROPAODR 1)15 TONKAWA RD OWNER NAME JAMES D RENDER TAXPAl'LR JAMES D RENDER NAME/ADDR 1315 TONKAWARD ORONOMN $5)91 38 0811723410016 PROP ADDR 3400 NOR EH SHORE OR OWNER NAME K R STEIN & D J S1EIN taxpayer KENATII R A IXINNA J STEIN NAML/ADDH 3400 NORTH SHORE dr WAYZATAMN 55391 • V * PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 18 0811721410017 1410 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL r REGAN & wipe: DANIEL r REGAN 3410 NORTH SHORE DRIVI! WAYZATAMN 55191 38 08117214lOOIK PROPAODR 3420 NORIII SHORE DR OWNER NAME NANCY A A1.TORO taxpayer nancvaaeioru NAME/ADDR 3420 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0811723430019 PROP ADDR 1440 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME DAVID J LINDBERG taxpayer DAVIDJLINDllIRC. NAMI/ADDK 3440 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55191 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 081172)410020 3442 NORTH SHORT. UR GERAI.D1 RAY ETAl GERALD J RAY 3442 NORT H SHORE OR WAYZATAMN 55)91 38 OSI17234)0021 PROPADDR 3450 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME WiaiAM C ODDI N T AXI'AYT R WILLIAM C ODDEN NAME/ADDR 3450 NORTH SHORI DR WAYZATAMN 55391 18 0811721410022 PROPADDR 3444 NORTH SMOKE; DR OWNER NAME WILLIAM 0 ROBINSON TAXPAYER ROBINSON NAMC/ADDR 3444 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN S5J9I • PROPADDR OWNER NAME taxpayer NAMI/ADDK 38 081172)43002) 3450 BIRCH LA ERENGlFR&nCNGlF.R EDWARD R A BONNIE ENGLCR 3450 BIRCH LA WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0*11221410024 PROPAODR 3448 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER name J&MERTER iAMl.S A MARY EREER NAME/ADDR 5'**® ^*5R IH SHORE OR WAYZ.AIAMN 55391 j REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCf 5 2004 Date: October ohono Item No.: I ^ Department Approval: . Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Item Description: #02-2840 Dahlstrom Development, LLC/Landform -783 Boulder Drive Request for RPUD Flexibility - Lot 6, Block 1, Stonebay List of Attachments A - Letter of Request B - Proposed Resolution C - Survey and Building Plans D - General Development Plan Resolution No. 4915 Bxeerpts E - PUD i'.o. 4 Agreement Exceipts F - Declarations Excerpts G - Prior Variance Documentation Please review the Letter of Request, Exhibit A. VVlien the Stonebayproject was approved, variances were gnuitcd to the 35' required property boundary setback for tlie three most northerly rambler townhome units in Phase 1. Lots 28 and 29 (rc-numbered on tlie plat as Lots 7 and 8), with a north-south orientation, were allowed setbacks of 15’ and 1 O' respectively, and Lot 27 (re-numbered as Lot 6 and the subject of the current request) was allowed a 20' setback, as shown on the map attached to Exhibit G. The final plattingwas done at a scale that resulted in an unintentional error, recently discovered, in which Lot 6 was actually platted at 19.6 feet from the north boundary instead of 20 feet. When the applicants applied for the building pemiit for Lot 6, it was also determined that the standard 2' overhangs, the 6" bay window bump-out, and tlie 18" dining area bump-out would extend to sliglitly less than 20' from the lot line. We have allowed such non-footprint encroachments into the ‘common area’ when they ha\ e not impacted a City-required setback, and such encroachments are allowed and covered by casements in the development’s Master Declarations; how ever, this is the first such encroachment w here a City-required property boundary setback is involved. The Development Agreement directs that "Auy substantial changes to the gross square footage, footprint/wall/roof dimensions or defined building height shall require a prior amendment to this Agreement. 'Substantial changes' shall include, hut not he limited to. (1) an increase in gross square footage or footprintAvall/roof dimensions of any unit so as to require a rcplatting to keep the unit within Its ownership pad:In this case, the option to rc-plat is a poor option, because the combination of Lots 5 and 6 is severely constrained by wetlands to the south and west. These tw o pads arc squeezed into the north end of the site and the site does not have the flexibility to move the pad further fi-om the north lot boundary. M2-2840 October 22,2004 Page 2 Applicants request PUD flexibility to allow the north wall of the building to be 19.6 feet instead of 20 feet from the north boundary; for the 2- foot roof overhang to be 17.6 feet from the north lot line rather than the 18.5 foot setback we would nonnally allow with a 1.5' non-encroachment overhang; and for the dining room bump-out to be 18.1 feet from the north lot line. The bay window as designed would be allowed as a non-encroachment because it docs not extend more than the 2' limit past the 20* setback line. The basis for granting the variances for Lots 27-28-29 (now Lots 6-7-8) was that without such variances the standard building pad size developed for Stonebay would not be possible due to the signi ficant wetland restrictions in this area. Further, it was noted that the nearest neighboring homes, in Willow View, would be approximately 300' away, so there is virtually no visual impact created by the minor encroachments proposed. The proposed encroachments will have no impact on utility easements, nor will they tend to reduce separation between buildings or reduce open space. Technically, the proposed encroachments do not rise to the level of requiring a re-plat, so their approval can be memorialized by a simple amendment to the provisions of Resolution No. 4915. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a minor amendment to Resolution No. 4915 to allow the proposed encroachments, finding that the proposed encroachments can be allowed under PUD flexibility rather than via the formal variance process, and that the proposed encroachments have no visual or other negative impacts on this development or on neighboring properties. Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. / r OCf 'i t LANDFORM MINNEAPOllt-fHOfNIX October 20, 2004 Michael Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: StoneBay Minor PUD Modifications Dear Mr. Gaffron, On behalf of our client, Landform is requesting approval of a minor modification to our approved PUD plans related to building encroachments. Specifically. 1 . Setback for Lot 6, Block 1. After approval of the StoneBay project, we realized that we had erroneously shown a 19.6-foot setback from the north property line for Lot 6 (0.4 feet less than the 20-foot approved setback). Due to the way the lots were dimensioned on the plat, we did not realize our error until the lot certificate for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 were recently completed. It was certainly not our intention to knowingly thwart the approved plans, but was simply an oversight in the many iterations of the plan during the approval process. We are not able to shift the buildings without replatting the project. The homes to the north are 200-300 feet from the planned building: therefore, the change to the plan (less than 5-inches) would not be distinguishable from the adjoining properties. The modification to the PUD setback would have no impact on adjacent properties because the approve setback for other portions of the site allowed a 10-foot setback from this lot line. The adjacent building (on Lots 7 and 8) to east was approved with a 10-foot setback from the north plat boundary and the only difference is that the adjacent building is 10 feet from the rear of the building and we are requesting flexibility to allow a 19.6-foot side yard setback. We believe this is consistent with the StoneBay PUD approvals and the project design. If we are required to replat the property, it will result is significant delays for the residents ready to begin construction of their new homes on Lots 5 and 6. which are the only lots affected by this issue. We hope that you will use the City’s discretionary authority to approve this modification to the PUD. 6%0 BUTICR NOflTH BL-iLOlNa 5lO FIRST AVCNJC NCRTH MlNNCA^QLiS. MU 55403 OFFiCf 612 252 9070 TAX 612 252 9077 www rift r Michael Gaffron Page 2 Re: StoneBay PUD Modification October 20. 2004 2. Save Overhangs. Our envelope lots for this development were intended to enclose the building footprint, and allow for eave overhangs. Unfortunately, it was recently brought to our attention that your ordinance allows 1.5-foot overhangs to encroach into the setback requirement, not 2 feet as proposed on our units. Due to the setback issue described above, our eaves encroach into the setback beyond what is typically permitted. However, we believe that this encroachment is consistent with the intent of the PUD for StoneBay and request PUD flexibility to allow this encroachment. 3. Structural overhangs. We have a bump out proposed on Lot 6, Block 1 which also encroaches 1.5-feet into the setback. While we understood that this encroachment was similar to an allowed encroachment for a bay window, we now understand that because the cantilever is from floor to ceiling on the main level, it would not be allowed to encroach into the seioack even though it does not include an extension of the foundation. The City has approved similar cantilevers in other portions of the project, but these elements have never created a setback issue. This is a unique circumstance due to the envelope lot setback: therefore, we are requesting flexibility to allow this encroachment for Lot 6, Block 1. Unfortunately, this lot has been restricted beyond the limits of other lots in the PUD due to the error in the setback. We believe that while the cantilever does not meet the letter of the law. it does meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance and we ask that you provide setback flexibility for this homeowner. We are very excited about the StoneBay project and believe that the project is a wonderful addition to the City of Orono. The wetlands, approved building designs and approved lot layout, create constraints that are unique to Lot 6. However, we believe the requested flexibility is indistinguishable to surrounding properties and does not diminish the spirit of the StoneBay PUD approvals. Therefore, we request approval of these modifications to the approved RPUD General Plan based pm the finding that they are generally consistent with StoneBay approvals and would have no impact on surrounding properties. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me or Steve Johnston at 612.252.9070. Sincerely, LANDFORM* COPY: John Hassler, John Terrance Homes, LLC *Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landform 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 wvvw.landform.net 1 A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 4915 REGARDING LOT 6, BLOCK 1, STONEBAY - FILE #2840 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 (hereinafter “City Council ”) has adopted land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has approved certain Conditions for development within tlie Planned Unit Development plat of STONEBAY, Hennepin County, Minnesota, via City Council Resolution No. 4915; and WHEREAS, Condition 2(j) of Resolution No. 4915 grants a variance for rambler townhome Lot 27 (platted as Lot 6, Block 1, STONEBAY) to be located 20' from the north plat boundary instead of the 35' building setback nonnally required; and WHEREAS, Dahlstrom Development LLC (the applicant) has requested a minor amendment to the PUD approvals granted in Resolution No. 4915 to allow PUD flexibility for certain proposed cncroaclnnents of the 20' setback required in the aforesaid Condition 2(j), as follows; 1.Developer requests PUD flexibility to allow the north wall of the townliome building on said Lot 6 to be 19.6 feet instead of 20 feet from the north boundary. 2.Developer requests PUD flexibility to allow the proposed 2-foot roof overhang to be 17.6 feet from the north lot line rather than the 18.5 foot setback that would normally be allowed witli a 1.5' non-encroachment overhang. 3.Developer requests PUD flexibility to allow for the proposed dining room biunp-out to be 18.1 feet from the nortli lot line; and Page 1 of 4 t WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed encroachments and has determined that there will be no negative visual impacts created by the minor encroachments proposed, and that the proposed encroachments will have no impact on utility easements, nor will they tend to reduce separation between buildings or reduce open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby amend Condition 20) of Resolution No. 4915 and does hereby grant approval based on PUD flexibility to allow the proposed encroachments of the required 20' setback for Lot 6, Block 1, STONEBAY as described herein, subject to the following conditions; 1. The proposed encroachments shall be constructed as described herein. 2.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the developer, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for construction of a townhome residence on the aforesaid Lot 6 within one year of the date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date (October 25,2005). 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 appliaent has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and onbehalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the affected properties. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of October, 2004, ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 2 of4 ^3.^ - ^ - STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instniment 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 instniment was acknowledged before me on this___^day of ,2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, aMinnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 C-! !:; v,i.'? r 4^-M M M M N i ^:>< 1-------- :^^oi Q P\ p" I I D CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL g) i) NO.4 ^ of the Lofts west building. The City’s Public Works operation may be a 24- hour operation dependent on weather and other emergency situations. A disclosure regarding the Lofts buildings proximity to Public Works shall be required of Lofts buyers to help limit the expected complaints about City activity and noise from the Public Works site. All residential buildings including the Lofts shall havepitched roofs as shown on Sheets A1.2, A2.2 and A3.2 to maintain a rural residential character. Roofs for the Lofts units shall be low-pitched rather than steeply pitched to decrease the impact of excess building height. Developer shall submit proposed conditions for development of the commercial outlets to maintain the natural amenity values of the pond and protect the perimeter of the pond from encroachment by commercial development. Final landscaping plans shall be subject to the recommendations of Wallace Case as enumerated in his letter dated 11/6/02 as revised or amended per the Memorandum by Tom Kirby dated January 17, 2003. The pertinent Homeowners Association(s) shall be responsible for permanent maintenance of landscaping per the Landscaping provisions of the RPUD District. As a condition of the PUD No. 4 Agreement, Developer shall provide landscape performance security as required in the RPUD District standards. j) ■ The following variance to the RPUD development standards is hereby granted: Building height variance for Lofts building from 30' to 38' defined height (measured from final average grade at high side) Building setback for r; nbler townhome Unit 27 to be 20' from the ^ north properly boundary and for rambler toumhomc Units 28-29 to be \ 10' from the north boundary* where a 35' setback is the standard, as j depicted on Sheet 2.1, Revised Site Plan dated 1-24-03.. . I Page 6 of 18 £HXC e) Outlets A and D shall not be used except for public recreational trail use until such time that they are platted into Lots, at which time their permitted uses will be further designated; except that Outlot A may be used for a temporary sales trailer and parking area for the residential portion of development until such time that the trailer can be moved onto the residential portion of the property. f) Outlets B and C shall used for regional stormwater ponding purposes and public recreational trail purposes. No other uses will be permitted for Outlets B and C. Other uses shall not be allowed except by amendment of this PUD agreement. 5. Site Access. The only residential access to adjoining public streets shall be onto Kelley Parkway, except that future development within Outlot H shall be allowed one shared driveway access onto Willow Drive. Access driveway locations shall be as show n on the approved site plan. Exhibit A. A right-in/right-out access from Willow Drive to Outlot A may be used to access the parking area for the temporary sales trailer until such time that the trailer is moved onto the residential portion of the property. Future long-term access to Outlot A from Willow Drive shall be determined at the time Outlot A is developed. Future access to Outlot D shall be solely from Kelley Parkway. No direct access from Outlots A and D shall be allowed to Highway 12. Internal circulation for the Property shall be via private drivew'ays, sidewalks and parking areas within the defined common areas. 6. Building Design and Constmetion. All residential buildings on the Property shall be constructed according to final plans which shall first be certified by the Planning Director as being in conformity with the approved plans attached as Exhibit G to ensure compliance with the architectural standards of the RPUD District. Final decisions by the Developer regarding colors, types and qualities of building materials shall be subject to City staff approval to confirm their conformity wiilrthe approved sample colors, types and qualities documented by reference in ExhibU G. Construction of all buildings shall be in conformance with the building codes and regulations adopted by the City of Orono. Any substantial changes to the gross square footage, footprint/wall/roof dimensions or defined building heights shall require a prior amendment to this Agreement. “Substantial changes” shall include, but not be limited to, (1) an increase in gross square footage or footprint/wall/roof dimensions of any unit so as to require a replatting to keep the unit within its ow-nership Lot; (2) any increase in building height for rambler townhome units or tw'o-story townhome units that would result in the need for a variance to the standard 30’ height limit; or (3) a one foot or greater increase in height of the loft building above the 38' defined height approved per Resolution No. 4915. The separation distances between townhome buildings shall be a minimum of 15' except where specifically shown as less than 15' on the approved General Development Plan. Within each Phase of development, if any changes to plans result in building separations less than 15', such plans shall be subject to prior review and approval by the City Council. /T Page 3 of 19 iPllDeveloper Initial ' * City Clerk Initial ; ij'f ••'’T •« fi^\z‘^ compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations or procedures promulgated by the Master Board or by any governmental authority. Such easement shall include without limitation the right to implement erosion control procedures, the right to drain and redirect water, the right to control access and the right to apply authorized fertilizers and pesticides, and the right to correct any condition on the Property which violates such governmental controls. The exercise of these easement rights shall be in strict compliance with all applicable environmental law's and regulations. 5.10 Encroachments. An exclusive easement to maintain, use and enjoy certain encroachments for the benefit of the encroaching Improvement is hereby granted: a. In the event that a Dwelling or Nonresidential Building or any part thereof or any other Improvement now or hereafter lawfully constructed encroaches upon the Master Conunon Elements, Neighborhood Corrumon Elements or another Parcel due to minor inaccuracies in survey, construction, reconstruction, settlement, movement or otherwise; b. For roof overhangs that are part of the original construction of a Dwelling and extend not more than thirt)'-six inches beyond the boundary of the underlying Unit; c. For box windows or cantilevered sections that are part of the original construction of a Dwelling and extend not more than eighteen inches beyond the boundary of the underlying Unit; and d. For cantilevered deck overhangs that are part of the original construction of a Dwelling and extend not more than thirty inches beyond the boundary of the Underlying Unit. This easement for encroachments shall continue for as long as the encroachment exists (and in the case of a roof overhang, cantilevered deck overhang, box window or cantilevered sections, for one year after the same is destroyed or removed, to allow time for replacement and rebuilding, and if replaced or rebuilt during such year, this easement shall continue as if the destruction or removal had not occurred) and shall not affect the marketability of title. This easement for encroachments shall also include an easement for reasonable access across the adjoining Master Common Element or Neighborhood Common Element for the maintenance and rebuilding of the encroaching Improvements. 5-n Project Sign Easements. Master Declarant and the Master Association shall each have an exclusive right and easement to erect and maintain monument signs and related Improvements identifying the Property or specific Neighborhoods or features, on and across the Master Common Elements and Neighborhood Common Elements. Tlie areas on which monument signs or related Improvements are located shall be subject to exclusive easements in favor of the Master Association for the contmuing use, maintenance, repair and replacement of -15- 1I 6~l tt02-2789/02-2840 January 24,2003 Page 3 It is staffs recommendation that the Stonebay developer should make a contribution toward affordable housing with the following conditions: -The developer does not need to make the contribution up-front. The timing of the contribution can be worked out between staff and the developer. - If the City has not put in place a program to assist the development and preservation of affordable housing within one year, the contribution does not need to be made. Latest Site Layout Revisions - Setback & Wetland Variances; Parking Impacts It would be fair to say that the site layout has remained mostly unchanged since it dropped from 167 to 162 units in November/December. However, the minor changes that have occurred are a result ofthe wetland discussions between the developer and MCWD staff. The ewest layout of the northerly roads and townhoinc units reflects anticipated approvals and diaapprovals of specific proposed wetland impacts. Two significant changes to consider are shown on Exhibit B-2 and include: 1) because it is expected MCWD will not approve wetland fill for creation ofNorthwest Lane, developer is proposing a bridge over a 100* finger of wetland that was originally proposed to be filled; and 2) because it is expected that MCWD will not approve certain minor wetland buffer encroachments along North Lane, the latest layout shows 3 rambler townliomc units encroaching into the required 35 ’ setback from the north boundary of the property. Speci fically. Unit 27 is proposed at 20' from the north boundary and the attached Units 28-29 are proposed at 15* and I O' respectively from the no.nh property line. Witli this 1 O' setback. Unit 29 docs avoid encroaching into the 1 0 ’ plat perimeter drainage casement. However, an issue of potential concent is whether sufficient vegetative buffer exists or will need to be added in this area to protect tlie separation to the homes in Willow View (wltich arc 300' away). Council must reach a conclusion on whether the setback variances should be granted. Staff believes a 20' minimtun setback should be attempted in this area. 1 Other more subtle but significant changes resulting from the revisions include:J The number of units with driveway access to Nortliwest Lane increases from 19 (attnijfcis) to 20 (18 rambler, 2 two-story) units. At the same time, designated on-streetpaiking in Nortliwest I ane is reduced from 17 stalls (12 parallel and 5 hcad-in) to just 6 stalls (all hcad-in). Capacity for driveway parking appears unchanged. The shape of the Northwest Lane cul-de-sac raingarden has become slightly more elongated. The char.icter and feel ofNorth Lane becomes much more ‘open ’, as the number of units with driveways accessing North Lane reduces from 16 to 12 (all ramblers). On-strcct designated parallel parking remains at 9 stalls. \ i **. • J 1 M^ -JU /Dilqvr j ■........1 yj \ w~ 1 f * i ^^1024 '8?C \ \ / 1::^ ^3.4 'f?l \< 55V_\026 \ CB BO / s:i 03 f§i(\ \V \ ■1020 O / 10??. 7 / :-■ w 16 AfO uti:ty OVER ALL or 46 N *;• ' V Ri '■’-' . '■ STONE ,-NORTH LINE ?E OUTLOT B. WlLOV PROPERTIES AOOITKJN S88"58'44”£: 4J8.49 CM2ANACE ANC EASEMENT 0\ OE LOT I to oin ‘ N88‘58'44’W 94 00 Ooo 00 6 o cb ♦o S88*5fl*44’t --------------------------------------- 94 00 —r^9--------7;rTr \ sa8*5a'44”t 80 00 \ DATE: October 22« 2004 ITEM NO: j 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ocr 5 2004 ciry OF OHONo Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Proclamation-Housing Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Attached is a letter from LaDonna Hoy, Executive Director of Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners (lOCP), inviting Orono to participate in the lOCP's conununity initiative to raise awareness about local housing issues by proclaiming the week of November 13-20 “Housing Week" in Orono. A resolution proclaiming November 13-20 as Housing Week in Orono is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution proclaiming the week of November 13-20 as “Housing Week ” in Orono. CITY PROCLAMATION OF HOUSING WEEK TO BE NOVEMBER 13 - 20,2004 IN THE CITY OF ORONO WHEREAS, an adequate supply of safe, well-kept, affordable housing is an important component of a strong, stable, economically vibrant community; and WHEREAS, wages at lower levels have not kept pace with rising housing costs, and the wage-housing cost gap has led to rising homelessness; and WHEREAS, the shortage of affordable housing contributes to homelessness; and on a given day, 8,800 Minnesotans are homeless and an additional 11,547 are at imminent risk of losing their housing; and WHEREAS, 350,000 Minnesota households spend more than 30% of their income on housing; and WHEREAS, chiluicn make up 33% of Minnesota ’s homeless population; and WHEREAS, homeless children are much more likely to experience physical, behavioral, and emotional health problems, be held back in school, and suffer from learning disabilities than non-homeless children; and WHEREAS, National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week is November 13-20, 2004;and WHEREAS, Interfaith Outreach & Community Partners (!OCP) provided 1660 emergency housing assists to 604 households in FV’2004 to prevent homelessness; and WHEREAS, public, private, non-profit partnerships play an essential role in the development and preserv'ation of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the City is a participant in the Metropolit.an Livable Communities Act; and the City Comprehensive Plan supports a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels; and WHEREAS, "Housing Week" is a community initiative to raise awareness about local housing issues, to raise money to address housing needs, and to promote community involvement and voluntecrism. Page I of2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orono City Council does hereby proclaim November 13-20,2004 to be: HOUSING WEEK in the City of Orono, and does also encourage all citizens to participate in the activities associated with Housing Week. Adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on October 25, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of2 ;»r October 11, 2004 The Honorable Barbara Peterson City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 I 3 20W Dear Mayor Peterson: Attached is our annual request for the City of Orono to issue a Housing Week proclamation in an effort to increase awareness around the issue of affordable housing We so very much appreciate your active participation in the kick-off event on Lake Street in Wayzata together with the other four mayors of our area. Thanks again for your personal involvement as well as the city’s great support of that effort! The purpose of this letter is to invite the City to again participate in our community initiative to raise awareness about local housing issues by proclaiming the week of November 13-20, 2002, “Housing Weak" in the City of Orono. (see enclosed draft proclamation). Background Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners serves low and moderate income households in Plymouth. Wayzata. Long Lake, Orono. Medina. Minnetonka Beach. Medicine Lake, and Hamel. lOCP is actively involver' in the Wayzata Housing Coalition to provide support for the preservation and development of affordable housing in Wayzata. One of lOCP’s housing goals is to raise community awareness and support for increased housing opportunities for low-income families throughout the community. To this end, lOCP, along with several local congregations, will be observing the week of November 13-20 as "Housing Week ”. Calendar Housing week will be initiated on night of November 12''’ as the Home Base kids from several area schools sleep out for one night at two school locations in Plymouth. On Saturday. November 13*'’- Bob Fisher will begin his ninth annual Sieeo-Out. Bob will be sleeping outside to raise funds to address and prevent homelesooess in the community. This year our Housing Week financial goal is to raise $1.250.000 in an effort to meet the skyrocketing housing needs of the families we serve! A community-wide kick-off will take place at 6:00 - 8;00 pm. in front of the Wayzata Depot in downtown Wayzata. The kick oft will include hot dogs, entertainment, and a short program. We expect significant media coverage including television news, radio news and interviews, and newspaper coverage once again this year. On November 14 “’, several leaders of the faith community will deliver messages from the pulpit about the affordable housing issue. Many of these congregations will be taking a special offering to raise funds that will seed some exciting new housing 1 to Grand Avenue South, Wayzata. Minnesota 5.^391-1872 9.12/473-24• Fax 952/473-4337 • www.iocp.org initiatives in the community. In preparation for Housing Week, lOCP will be working within our member congregations to provide education about affordable housing issues. Several youth groups from churches in Wayzata, Plymouth and Long Lake will also be sleeping out the night of November 13“*, each in their respective churchyards. Several scout groups will also be hosting sleep-outs, as well as some of Wayzata's businesses. A number of CEO’s in the community will be sleeping out with Bob Fisher that first night at Klapprich Park. The multiple sleep-outs on November 13“’ are a sign of solidarity and support for those who are homeless. An Invitation Cities are key partners in the effort to meet the housing needs of low- and moderate- income residents and employees. We hope that the City of Orono will consider participation in Housing Week in the following ways: 1. Join with the mayors of the cities of Plymouth, Long Lake, Wayzata, and Medina in issuing a proclamation of Housing Week, (proposed text included) 2. Participate in the November 13, 6:30 kick-off program on Lake Street in Wayzata. 3. Encourage city staff and council members to participate in the November 13th kick-off event and subsequent sleep-out. 4. Distribute a short information piece (see enclosed brown card) at your front desks and other places in your office that have high interaction with the public. 5. Print the History of Bob’s Sleep-Out in your city newsletter, (see attached) Thank you for your consideration of our requests and your continued support for addressing this criticai issue. Please call Jill Kohler, lOCP Development Director, at 952 473-2436 if you have questions or would like additional information. Respectfully, LaDonna Hoy, Executive Director End (5) Cc: Ron Moorse -V ■ . V . V \ V f jgji • *r-r-TtMQ DATE: October 22,2004 ITEM NO: ji), REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 2 5 200A chyof oaoNO Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Recognition of Mag^c Knutson for Earning the Milken National Educator Award-Resolution Attached is a resolution recognizing Maggie Knutson, a teacher in the Orono School District, for receiving the Milken National Educator Award. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution recognizing Maggie Knutson for earning the Milken National Educator Award. A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MAGGIE KNUTSON FOP. EARNING THE MILKEN NATIONAL EDUCATOR AWARD RESOLUTION NO. ___________ WHEREAS, Maggie Knutson has been a teacher in the Orono School District for eleven years, and is a fifth grade teacher in the Orono hitcnnediate School, and; WHEREAS, she is highly regarded for her commitment to excellence in education; and WHEREAS, Maggie Knutson was recently named as one of four teachers in Minnesota to receive the Milken National Educator Award; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Milken National Educator Award is to "celebrate, elevate, and activate the highest caliber professionals in our nation’s schools”; and WHEREAS, the high quality of education provided by Maggie Knutson and her colleagues at the Orono School District is an important element of the quality of life available to Orono residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby recogn'‘’c and congratulate Maggie Knutson on earning the Milken National Educator /vtxard. ATTEST: Linda S. Vcc, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION not U i/^M • OCf ^ 5 ?004 City oh uhono DATE: October 25.2004 ITEM NO.: /5 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Direttor of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: StoneBay Development Stormwater Trunk Fee Credit Trunk Fee Cred its This 162 unit development is being platted in phases. Phase 1 was platted in June of 2003 and contains 54 units which is 1/3 of the units in the full development. The development trunk fees for each phase are paid when (he lots in that phase are platted. The trunk fees for Pha.se I have already been paid based on the 2003 Fee Schedule and a prorated share for the 54 units in this phase, fhe fees for future phases will be based on the current Fee Schedule in the year in which they are platted and prorated for the number of units in the pha.se. The development agreement for the Si.uicBay project provides for reimbursement of Development Trunk Fees that have been paid by the developer as compensation for the additional costs incurred for the construction of trails, storm sewer improvements, and water system improvements that provide u regional benellt beyond the improvements necessary to only .serve the dex elopmenl. Regional Pon d Co sts The developer’s agreement includes a stormwater trank fee credit for the additional costs to construct a regional pond, and the jacking of an outlet pipe unde*" the highway, abr)ve and beyond the costs ncce sary for the required facilities to serve oi.iy the StoneBay development. A trunk fee reimbursement of $148,109 for the regional pond excess construction costs was previously approved. The developer has submitted information on the costs for the installation of the new regional pond outlet pipe under Highway 12. We have reviewed these costs and are recommending a stormwater trunk fee credit in the amount of $39,919 for the t>utlet pipe, riiese two fee reimbursements satisfy all of tlie requirements of tlie developer’s agreement for stormwater trunk fee credits. Page 1 of 2 '« » The total Stormwater Trunk Fee for the entire development is $253,149 based on the 2003 Fee Schedule. The total fee that will actually be paid will be in excess of this amount as the fees for future phases will be collected at a higher future Fee Schedule rate. The Stormwater Trunk Fee collected for Phase 1 is $84,240. A summary of the stormwater trunk fees accounting for this project is shown below. Regional Pond Costs Reimbursement May 24, 2004 Regional Pond Outlet Pipe Costs Reimbursement October 25, 2004 Total Stormwater Trunk Fee Reimbursements $148,109 $39,919 $188,028 Phase 1 Stormwater Trunk Fee Collected by City $84,240 Stormwater Trunk Fee Credits Available to Offset Fees for Future Phases $103,788 The stafl* recommendation is for approval of the following motions to approve a Stormwater TrurJc Fee reimbursement of $$39,919 to Dahlstrom Development, for the regional pond outlet pipe costs, and to approve a Stormwa.er Trunk Fee credit of $103,788 to Dahlstrom Development, to offset Stormwater Trunk Fees due for future phases of the StoneBay Development project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve a Stormwater Trunk Fee reimbursement of $39,919 to Dahlstrom Development, for the regional pond outlet pipe costs, to be funded from the Stormwater Utility Fund and approval of a budget adjustment for the 2004 Stormwater Utility Fund budget to reflect this expenditure. Motion to approve a Stormwater Trunk Fee credit of $103,788 to Dahlstrom Development, to offset Stormwater Trunk Fees due for future phases of the StoneBay Development project. Page 2 of 2 1 iML I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION REVISED DATE: October 25,2004 ITEM NO.: 16 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Admit istrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Accept Quotations Casco Cove Drainage Project. We have been working on developing a drainage project along Casco Point Road in the Casco Cove area in which there is an unnamed dead end spur off of Casco Point Road that the neighborhood refers to as Casco Cove Road, even though the houses all have Casco Point Road addresses. A map showing elevation contours and drainage area boundaries is attached, and a review of this map shows two major drainage areas. The northern area drains through a low area that is owned by the City. This water then drains through .several existing pipes and into the lake, north of the end of Casco Cove Road. The southern area drains into a low point on Casco Cove Road then flows between two houses into the lake. The volume of water flowing between the two houses has resulted in basement and yard flooding. Our recommendation is that this drainage project fits the criteria for City funding based on the drainage from City streets contributing to the problem and the property damage to homes. The priorities for City funding are in priority order are property damage, and erosion concerns, with the lowest priority being flooding or wet areas on properties. We have held two neighborhood meetings at the project site to discuss this project. The consensus of these meetings was to utilize the City property and existing pipe system to divert some of the drainage from the southern drainage area to the north. According to a long time resident of the area, there used to be more drainage to the north into the low area. A new’ n" pipe will be directionally bored to divert the flow from the existing culvert under Casco Point Road at 2901 Casco Point Road across the front of 2900 Casco Point Road to outlet at the City property. This solution will reduce the flow between the two houses by 2/3 and also reduce the total peak How and phosphorus loading to the lake about 10% because of the storage and treatment available on the City property. This option will have negligible impacts on the City property as for a 100 year, 6 ” rainfall, the water level will only increase about I”. The downstream drainage pipes should be able to handle the slight increase in peak flow . There is about t 100’ gap in the pipes located between two houses in which the water flows through a swale along the property line. These property owners have not had any drainage problems and are okay with this project. Their only request is that if the swale area becomes too wet that the City connect the two pipes. This would be a relatively inexpensive and easy project to complete if necessary in the future. ►f We have prepared a request for quotations for this project and sent them out to several directional boring contractors that we have previously worked with. This project will cost less than $50,000 so the .solicitation of quotations is acceptable. The deadline for the receipt of quotations was at 11:00 a.m. on Monday October 25* Three quotations were received, and we are recommending acceptance of the quotation from EJ Mayers Inc., Corcoran Minnesota in the amount of $24,375. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the quotation for the Casco Cove Drainage project from EJ Mayers Inc., Corcoran Minnesota in the amount of $24,375 to be funded from the 2004 Stormwater Utility Fund Budget with approval of a budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. t*J F I Jki&uiiMiili r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCl ^ ^ 2004 Cl IY UH OKONO DATE: October 25,2004 ITEM NO.: /6 Department Approval: Nome Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: n Public Services Director's Report n Item Description: Accept Quotations Casco Cove Drainage Project We have been working on developing a drainage project along Casco Point Road in the Casco Cove area in which there is an unnamed dead end spur off of Casco Point Road that the neighborhood refers to as Casco Cove Road, even though the houses all have Casco Point Road addresses. A map showing elevation contours and drainage area boundaries is attached, and a review of this map shows two major drainage areas. The northern area drains throu[:h a low area that is owned b* the City. This water then drains through several existing pipes and into the lake, north of the end of Casco Cove Road. The southern area drains into a low point on Casco Cove Road then flows between two houses into the lake. The volume of water flowing: between the two houses has resulted in basement and yard flooding. Our recommendation is that this drainage project fits the criteria for City funding based on the drainage from City streets contributing to the problem and the property damage to homes. The priorities for City funding are in priority order are property damage, and erosion concerns, with the lowest priority being flooding or wet areas on properties. We have held two neighborhood meetings at the project site to discuss this project. The consensus of these meetings was to utilize the City property and existing pipe system to divert some of the drainage from the southern drainage area to the north. According to a long time resident of the area, there used to be more drainage to the north into the low area. A new 12” pipe will be directionally bored to divert the flow from the existing culvert under Casco Point Road at 2901 Casco Point Road across the front of 2900 Casco Point Road to outlet at the City property. This solution will reduce the flow between the two houses by 2/3 and also reduce the total peak flow and phosphorus loading to the lake about 10% because of the storage and treatment available on the City property. This option will have negligible impacts on the City property as for a 100 year, 6" rainfall, the water level will only increase about 1". The downstream drainage pipes should be able to handle the slight increase in peak flow. There is about a 100’ gap in the pipes located between two houses in which the water flows through a swale along the property line. Theve property owners have not had any drainage problems and arc okay with this project. Their only request is that if the swale area becomes too wet that the City connect the two pipes. This would be a relatively inexpensive and easy project to complete if necessary in the future. We have prepared a request for quotations for this project and sent them out to several directional boring contractors that we have previously worked with. This project will cost less than $50,000 so the solicitation of quotations is acceptable. The deadline for the receipt of quotations is 11:00 a.m. on Monday October IS"’, and we will provide a recommendation for acceptance of the quotations for Monday ’s meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the quotation for the Casco Cove Drainage project from ___________ Minnesota in the amount ________to be funded from the 2004 Stormwater Utility Fund Budget with approval of a budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. VI REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT d 5 2004 DATE: ITEM NO: / y Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Dii -.tor of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Service Director's Report Item Description: West Farm (Homestead) Sewer Project Adopt Assessment- Resolution An assessment hearing was held on March 22,2004 for this project and the project assessment was adopted. Project construction has been completed. The historic City policy has been to adopt the project assessment after the assessment hearing to ensure funding for the project. After project construction is completed, the assessment is readopted to restart the interest accrual on the assessment, as by state statues the interest on the assessment begins to accrue on the date the assessment is adopted. The next step will be to notify the residents of the jO day prepayment period without any interest added to the assessment. After the end of the 30 day interest free prepayment period, the assessment will be submitted to Heimepin County to be levied beginning in 2005. We are recommending approval of the resolution adopting of the assessment, in the amount of $6,400 per unit, for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve resolution adopting the proposed assessment for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project ift ■ > toi II 11 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WEST FARM (HOMESTEAD) AREA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, ihc Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of sanitary sewer in the West Farm ( Homestead) area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono. Mimiesota; 3. 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 ass issmeni levied against it. Su'b assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 yearo. the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2005 and shall bear intere.st at the rate of 6.25% per innum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resohuion. To the first installment .shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution, and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such pay ment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. Pace 1 of 2 4 The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certined duplicate of tliis assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of tlic 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 25th day of October, 2004, ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Pagf 2 of 2 H.II far WmI Farm (Horoeitead) S.iiil«ry S«w»r Proj«€l D.1K 25 October J004 Mo.ldp.1 Code: 38 Mukipalily: ORONO Levy Number: Tolil Project Assessment: $44,800t00 Levy Description: West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sesver Project Interest Rate: 6J5% Number of Years Payable: 15 PID Number Total Principal Property Owner’s Name Properly Street Address Properly Owner’s Mailing Address 27-118-23-43-0016 $6,400.00 J. W. & J. A. Pierpont 1849 West Fanil Road 27-118-23-44-0016 $6,400.00 J. W. & J A. Pierpont 1801 West Fann Road 34-118-23-11-0002 $6400.00 J. 1) & P. M Stavid 780 Brown Road N 34-118-23-11-0001 $6,400.00 R. D. Benson & B A Luikens 776 Brown Road N 34-118-23-11-0007 $6.400 00 V.&D Stein 800 Brown Road N 34-118-23-12-0006 $6.400 00 i(. & I Hutter 770 Brown Road N 34-118-23-12-0005 $6,400 00 T. M. Scliultze & M. L. Steil 744 Brown Road N Total Astosment $44,800.00 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake MN 55356 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake MN 55356 780 Brown Road N I nnPL 1 akr MN 55356 776 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 800 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 770 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 744 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCl 5 2004 o,, t or umun O DATE: October 25,2004 ITEM NO.: /<3 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa THIc Dii ector of PubI ic Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: 1220 Garden Court Sanitary Sewer Extension Assessment- Resolution The property owner has signed an assessment waver requesting to be assessed for this project to extend sewer to a vacant lot on Garden Court. The project is currently under construction. We are recommending approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll, in the amount of $29,700, for this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve resolution adopting the 1220 Garden Court Sanitary Sewer Extension assessment roll. r A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1220 GARDEN COURT SEWER EXTENSION ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the property 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 1220 Garden Court Sanitary Sewer Extension improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Miruiesota; 1. 3. 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 benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installmei'.ts extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or bdvos- ttie first Monday in January 2004 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum nom the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment tfoin the date of this resolution until December 31, 2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. I hc owTicr of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution, and he may. at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged tluough December 31 of the next succeeding \ ear. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. Page 1 of 2 t i tr t'. ■r^' * /'i ■'V ] 4.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 os other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 25th day of October, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 2 \ 1L _______J P • - = • ■ 'i- •' r Assessment Roll for 1220 Garden Court Sewer Extension Date: 25 October 2004 Municipal Code: 38 Municipality: ORONO Levy Number: L.e^ v Description: 1 220 Garden Court Sewer Extension Total Project Assessment: S29,700.00 Interest Rate: 6.25% Number of Years Payable: 15 PID Number Total Principal Property Owner’s Name Property Street Address Property Owner’s Mailing Address 07-n 7-23-32-0045 $29,700.00 RVC Homes Inc.1220 Garden Court 62 Hamel Road Medina MN SS340 Total Assessment $29,700.00 I fiiMiiin inrifflrm REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION no* J*^*'^** * OCT 5 2004 Cl IV OH ORONO DATE: October 21,2004 ITEM NO = Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:n Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Establish Date and Time for Canvassing Board Meeting The City Council must select a date and time to convene as the Canvassing Board to certify the results of the municipal election being held in conjunction with the General Election on November 2, 2004. This meeting must be held within seven days of the election according to State Statute. In the past, the Canvassing Board has met within a few days of the election, completed its work, and adjourned within 10 to IS minutes. The Council has a work session scheduled for 5:45 p.m. on Thursday, November 4. The Council could hold the Canvassing Board meeting at that time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion by Council to select a date and time for the 2004 Canvassing Board meeting. ocr 2 5 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CllYOHORONO DATE: October 22, 2004 ITEM NO: Departmeot Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Admioistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval There are no licenses. CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register®ift 10/:.:.0'»9 05 AM Page 1 'MG UCI ^ .S 2004 OCTOBER 2004 Oi I y ut* uhunu Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 PrimaryCath ......................... .............. PaWTjhk# 079437 16/i 1/2004 ' 'UNltED STATES'POSf AU SERVICE E 101-41900-322 Postage $541 63 10/11/04 Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $54163 . •^•e^e««»»- «»« Postage - Fail Newsletter Paid Chk# 07944S 10/25/2004 AEROSOCK, INC E 101-42260-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $50 20 104543 Windsock Frame • Nav Fire Tout AEROSOCK. INC Paid Chk# 079449 'i6/2572064 ""B£^UC^ E 101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing Tout BEAUCHENE MAILING $50-20 $367 98 433 Fall 2004 Newsletter $367.98 Paid Chkr07W50 *10725^‘604' ‘b 'ERGERSON -CASWELL INC! E 601-49400-405 Repairs/Maint-Wateimains/plant $2,199 43 13585 recondition control vaivA/Velfi Total BERGERSON-CASWELL INC. $2.19S 43 Paid ChWTl^fWSr** 10/25/2004” BONESTROd ROSENE A ASSOC. E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineenng-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 406-48736-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48037-304 Engmeenng-Consultmg E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 234-45680-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress Tout BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC. $136.38 $129 00 $1,075 15 $621 50 $10.267 07 $451 50 $99 00 $50 00 $210 00 $3.42050 $1.556 00 $4,096.05 $852.5(' $1,485 00 $2,111 02 112251 112251 112251 112251 112251 112251 112251 112251 112251 112252 112253 112255 112256 112257 112258 356 West Lake St Plat 04-3051 3220-40 Watertown Plat 04-2971 Big Island Access Rd Wetland Ordinance Slonebay Plat 02-2789 Robert Mack Plat 04-3034 Orono Senior Hsng Drainage council mtg 8/9/04 Hwy 12-Morries Auto Drainage Fendale Rd Bridge replace Fox St Bridge-replace 8/2004 Birch Lane Stormswr Casco Cove StormSwr Evaluate Barn Moving Garden Lane San Swr Ext $26,560 67 ‘Paid cVk#^079452' 10/2572664' ’BORIS7 SCOTT E 101-42110-437 Training & Levelopnnent $14 39 092904 tfaining Emergcy mgml Paid'ifhki 079453' Total BORIS. SCOTT 10/25/2004 BUDGET printing ' ' $14 39 •» • • *• « < E 101-42110-322 Poslago ToUl BUDGET PRINTING $610 1038 ups chd.ges $8.10 Paid Chk# 079454 10/25/2004 CARGILL SALT E 601 -49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products Total CARGILL SALT $1.892 30 1120824 coarse solar salt $1,892 30 ?SdCWii"’67^55'’~fC/25^004“^6MlilT8iONER ”OFTRA E 234-45680-412 Building RenUls $1,200 00 213L277255D Rant 11/2004-3580 Way Bh/d Tout COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION >aM“Chi5'079456 To?2iwW'' CORCORAN rciTY OF R 101-33490 State Grant-other $1.200 00 $312 11 SEP172004 Aug-Sap/Safe&Sobfif Tout CORCORAN. CITY OF $312.11 Val7b{M*0794S7 10./25./2004 COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD CITY OF ORONO 10/22/04 9 05 AM Page 2 Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-41410>439 Meeting Expentei E 101-41110-439 Meeting Expenses Total COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD $6 90 106 $12 00 106 election training council 9/9/04 t^a d Chk# 079458 $18 90 10/2 W004 COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES E 101-41900-407 Janitorial Services E 101-42110-407 Janitorial Services Total COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES $1.574 40 89636 $1.070 00 89636 janitonal for Oct04 janitorial for Oct04 $2.644 40 Paid ChK# 079459 10/25/2004 CULLlOAN E 615-49830-403 Repairs/Mainl-Misc Equip $ 14 00 101 -09083676- Softener Service ToUl CULLlOAN Paid Chiy'679460*"'""*16725/2b04 ' OCiT- WIRE ONLY* G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts ToUl DCA-WIRE ONLY $14.00 $1.929 72 10/12AM flex spending $1,929 72 Paid Chk# 079461 10/25/2004 DELL E 101 -421 10-570 Office Equip and Furnishings E 101-42110-570 Office Equ'-p and Furnishings E 101-42110-570 Office Equip and Furnishings Total DELL $1.489 55 B47735020 $1.173 63 B47745351 $1.480 50 B49565105 Pentium computer f/PD Pentium computer f/PD Pentium computer f/PD $4.14368 A . ^ Paid Chk# 079462 10/25/2004 DELTA DENTAL G 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins G 101-21709 Dental Insurance ToUl DELTA DENTAL $56.70 37220072 $1.486 50 37220072 DenUt insurance -11/04 Dental Insu'^ance -1 1/04 $1.543 20 Pa:dCVkll 07946'3 ' "ib/2‘5«bS4'DEPfOPli^^ .......... ......... E 101-42110-311 Data Processing Communication $37 00 DV04080299 phone ToUl DEPT OF ADM • INTERTECH GROUP >aid ‘ChlT#"679464'’‘^ io/^MOOT DEPUTY REGlsf^ $37 00 E 231-45650-441 Licenses & Taxes E 231-45650-441 Licenses & Taxes ToUl DEPUTY REGISTRAR $13 50 10/04/05 $1350 10/12/04 95 Buxk-fo'feiture 1991 Mazda 626/forfe:ture $27 00 >akJ Chki 079465 10/25/2004 DEX MEblQ ^ST LLC E 613-49830-340 General Advertising ToUl DEX MEDiQ EAST LLC $306 30 22767261000 Directory Adv - GC $306 30 Paid Chk# 079466 10/25/2C04 DICKS AUTO DETAILING E 101-42110-102 Full-Time Employees Overtime ToUl DICKS AUTO DETAILING $319 50 14992 prepare 191&192 for auction $319.50 Paid Chk# 079467 10/25/2004 DOBO'S E 101-41110-439 Meeting Expenses Tout DOBO S $247 44 6326 council work sessions f/Aug & $247.44 Paid Chk# 079468 10/25/2004 ELECTRIC PUMP E 602-49450-406 Repairs/Maint Swr lines/lits Tout ELECTRIC PUMP $395 63 0027140-IN repairs to LS#1 & LS# 13 $395 63 >•5 Chk#-bfSiSb*" ■ 1 SfiSniio*"emergency medical training spe E 101-42260-437 Training 8 Development $2.600 00 1067 1st Responder Training Tout EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRAINING SPE $2.600 00 r LI CITY OF ORONO 10/22/04 9;05AM Page 3 Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 079470 10/2S/2004 ESS BROTHERS & SONS E 651-49910-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies ToUl ESS BROTHERS & SONS $356 78 GG5318 Northern Ave Drainage $356.78 )».. *f' Paid Chk# 079471 10/25/2004 FARNIOK. CORREY E 101-42110-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip ToUl FARNIOK. CORREY $322.48 10/08/04 Caron - Digital Camera $322.48 Paid Chk# 079472 10/25/2004 FORTIS BENEFITS G 101-21713 LTD Insurance ToUl FORTIS BENEFITS $824 54 4019825-1 LTD Insurance • 11/04 $624.54 PardChMi 071473 10/25/2004 GENUINE PARTS CO. E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 101-43000-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts ToUl GENUINE PARTS CO. $41 82 604942 $6 27 806741 Gr Gun. Castrol Circuit $48.09 Paid Chk# 079474 10/25/2004 GOLF CARS & MORE E 613-49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals Total GOLF CARS & MORE $434 00 14649 Cart Rental - Tournament $434 00 Paid Chk# 079475 10/25/2004 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL E 602-49450-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 601-49400-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges __ ToUl GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $177.67 4090639 $177 66 4090639 locates ijcates $355.35 ••A 0,0ms Paid Chidf 079476 ^10/2S'20d4 -HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT E 101.41900-329 Other Comrr.unications ___$75 66 24097173 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH OPT $75 68 Database Access 9/2004 Paid Chk# 079477 10/25/2004 HINSHAW A CULBERTSON E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainer E 101-43280-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consjtting E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting E 225 45219-3C7 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainer _ Tout HINSHAW A CULBERTSON $1.23500 $1.300 00 $1.128 50 $2,625 90 $1.442 73 $1,201 24 $1,301 80 10414320 10414321 10419678 10419679 10419679 10419679 10419681 DeMuth/Stonebridge Violation Council Mtgs - July 2004 Applications Pagonis Boat Dock Nelson/Cartson Vacated Oak PI 3422 Lync-Navarre Park Cou^al Mtgs Aug 2004 $10,235 17 Paid Chk#^679478 ** 10/21/2004 HUEBSCHRENm ............ E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Mamt-Bldgs/Grourds $27 01 154578 ToUl HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE Mat Service - GC $27 01 Paid Chk# 079479 10/25/2004 INFINITY WIRELESS E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Tout INFINITY WIRELESS $238 56 10915 D Clips $23856 Pa d Chi5*'679480' "*10/25/2004 ’ IIWGATION MANAGEMENT* E 101-41900-404 RepairsAAamt-Bldgs/Grounds $240 00 14806 Winterize Lawn Sprinkler ToUl IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT $240 00 Paid Chk# 07948“^! iO/25/2004 LMCIT - BERKLEY - PO BOX E 231-45650-361 General Liability Ins $1.087 00 17106 ToUl LMCIT • BERKLEY • PO BOX $1.087 00 Ins-W Metro Drg Tsk Force .SJI ^ 4^ Paid Chk* 079482 10/25/2004 LONO LAKE. CITY OP CITY OF ORONO 10/22A)4 9 05 AM Page 4 *Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-42260^37 Training & Development E 101-42260-437 Training & Development Total LONG LAKE. CITY OF $21.28 20040056 $568.00 20040057 Pi/-'^ - Navarre Fire Foa^ii Duckets-l raining $609.28 • S'> Paid Chk# 079483 10/25/2004 MEDICA G 101-21706 Hospitalizaton/Meuical Ins G 101 -15998 Non-Empioye ,• Health Ins E 101-42110-135 City Bene^ Contribution G 101-21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins G 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins G 101-21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins G 101-21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins Total MEDICA $11,849.63 104306102552 Medica High - 11/2004 $1,175.12 104306102552 Medica High - 1 1/2004 $374 75 104306102552 Medica High - 1 1/2004 $1,760.70 104306122585 Medica Low -1 1/04 $731 11 104306125488 Medica Elect -11/04 $10,090 32 104306125488 Medica Elect -11/04 $731.11 10430613422F Medica Essentials 11/2004 $26,712.74 Paid Chk# 079484 10/25/2004 MEDINA, CITY OF R 101-33490 State Grant-other Total MEDINA. CITY OF $2,686 97 SEP 172004 Aug-Sep/Safe & Sober $2,686.97 Paid Chk# 079485 ......10/25/2004 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER........... G 101-20809 SAC Charges due to MWCC $1,350 00 7/2004 R 101-39610 Miscellaneous Revenue ($135 00) 7/2004 Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER SAC Charges 7/2004 Adm Charge 7/2004 $1,215.00 Paid Chk# 079486" ^ 10/25/2004 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS E 602 49450-383 MWCC-Current Charges $30,797 67 782552 Wastewater Charges • 1 1/2CC4 Tout MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS $30,797 67 >Vid Chk#‘679487 '"‘lC/‘25/2004 “Mn NEAPOUS OX^^^^ COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $21 30 786745 E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $3259 RI06040862 $20.46 RI09040859 Medical Oxygen Cylinders Cylinders $74.35 Paid Chk#'679488 " Yb/25/2004 MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY E 101-42110-142 Unemployment Benefit Payments $526 25 3rdqtrC4 3rd Qlrr 2004-UnempIoy - Carls ToUl MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY $526 25 Paid^Chk# 079489 10/2572004 ‘‘ MN DEPT OF'h ^LTH^ CON FEE ^’ G 601-20802 Due to govts-State ToUl MN DEPT OF HEALTH - CON FEE -09/30/04 3rd qU conn fee's $1.17900 Paid Chk# 079490 ‘ ‘ 10/25/2004 MN DEPT OF REVENUE R 101-34210 General Taxable Sales/Service G 613-20806 Due to Govts-State Sales Tax R 601-39610 Misce'iancous Revenue Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $10 00 9/2004 $1.378 00 9/2004 $32C0 9/2004 Sales Tax 9/20C4 Sates Tax 9/7004 Sales Tax 9/2C04 $1,420 00 Paid Chkir(j7949r ‘ f0/25/2004 MUNlciPAL E 101-41900-319 Other Professional Services $1.921 26 65031 internet ordinance updates ToUl MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION $1.921 26 ChW 07W92 ' 10/25/2004 MUNldPM."EMERCENCY SERVIC^^^ E 101-42260-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $196 00 244273 Total MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES $196 00 ^•55 Chki"079493 “ '10/25/2004 ' NAVARRE HA'r OWARB ' E 601-49400-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip Foam - Navarre Fire $26 61 141837 drain spade CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 10/22/04 9.05 AM Page 5 OCTOBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 601-49400-227 E 101-43000-224 E 101-42110-201 E 613-49830-240 E 101-41900-404 E 101-41900-404 E 101-43000-240 E 602-49450-222 E 601-49400-227 E 101-41900-223 E 601-49400-227 E 613-49830-201 E 602-49450-227 E 613-49830-240 E 602-49450-227 E 602-49450-406 E 602-49450-406 E 101-43000-240 Utility System Maint Supplies Street Maint. Materials/Supply Office supplies Small Toots and Minor Equip Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Small Tools and Minor Equip Vehicle Equipment & Parts Utility System Maint Supplies Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies Utility System Maint Supplies Office supplies Utility System Maint. Supplies Small Tools and Minor Equip Utility System Maint Supplies Repairs/Maint-Swr lines/lifts Repairs/Maint-Swr hnes/lifts Small Tools and Minor Equip Total NAVARRE HARDWARE $19.14141837 marking paint, batteries $10.43 141901 bolts $10 64 142034 packing tape $1595 142117 soap, batteries $34 04 142369 exention cords $2.12 142423 election supplies $15.10 142515 stap’d gun, staples $512 142651 tubing S31.93 142785 pliers $21 30 142785 pnmer $15.91 142787 marking paint, tape $6 99 142900 gloves. Igt bulbs $478142912 sealant $7 21 142919 Flou bulb. nuts, bolts $6 38 ‘42926 marking paint $2494 142995 miscsupplies $4.04 143006 misc supplies $49.16148484 ext cords, key $311 79 I •• • • '•e Paid Chk# 079494 10/2*^/2004 NORTH MEMORIAL CLINIC-OCC HEAL E 101-42260-319 Other Professional Services __$260 00 43010 ToUl NORTH MEMORIAL CLINIC-OCC HEAL Fire Fighter Physlcal-Krahl $260 00 Paid Chk#'079495 10/25/2004 OFFICE DEPOT E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies Total OFFICE DEPOT $293 94 259776242-00 Office Supplies $293.95 259776242-00 Office Supplies (S6 48j 260034125-00 Return $581 41 Paid Chk# 079496 10/25/2004 OLSON, RON E 101-41500-437 Training & Development $82.88 10/2C/04 Total OLSON, RON $82.88 Paid Chk# 079497 ' 10/25/2004 o'R6f^O‘cOMMUNlfy EDUCATION ** ....... E 101-45200-490 Contributions to Civic Org's $2.628 74 Oct8.2004 Total ORONO COMMUNITY EDUCATION " $2,628.74 Paid Chk# 07^98 10/25/2004' OROWSR^^ E 415-48930-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $23.887 28 10/2004 mileage GFOA conf summer rec 2004 Tax Increment 2004-1 Total ORONO SR HOUSING - WIRE ONLY Paid Chk# 079499 ‘*10/25/2004 >EER ENGINEERiNG E 225-45219-510 Land Total PEER ENGINEERING $23,887 28 $1,500 00 12059 Hazard Mat Survey-3422 Lyric $1,500 00 Paid Chk# 079500 ‘ ‘ 10/25/2004 ' PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS'^.......... E 101-42260-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $150 00 1852 Total PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS. Support 9/2004 $150 00 Paid Chk# 079501 10/25/2004 PIONEER E 101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing E 101-41410-340 Cencral Advertising E 101-42400-340 General Advertising E 101-42400-340 General AdverUatng E 101-42400-340 General Advertising $783 75 9/1/04 $47.76 9/11/04 $171 87 9/4/04 171 64 9/4/04 $71.64 9/4/04 Ordinance 16 Public Accuracy Test Applications Notice -Zoning Ordinance Amend Notice -Zoning Ordinance Amend CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 10/22 W 9 05 AM Page? OCTOBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 1 f Tout THE VALUATION GROUP Paid'dhW'079513"* *'l0/25)2db4 WAYZATAj cT ty 'OF ~ E 101-42260-316 Fire Services E 10142260-316 Fire Services E 602494S0-387 Intergovernmental Services Total WAYZATA, CITY OF $2.600.UC $6,477.00 10/18A)4 $6,477.00 10/16/04 $6,759.36 3rdQtr2004 2nd Qtr 2004 Fire Service 3rd Qlr 2004 Fire Service 3rd Qtr 2004 w&s $19.71336 Paid Chk# 079614 10/25/2004 XCEL ENERGY E 10143000-366 E 613-49830-361 E 60249450-361 E 10141900-361 E 10142110-381 E 10143000-381 E 10145200-361 E 10142110-361 E 60149400-361 Street Lighting $1.316 48 Gas & Eieclric $641 67 Gas & Electric $1.354 43 Gas & Electric $1.498.80 Gas & Electric $611 03 Gas & Electric $329 93 Gas & Electric $22 84 Gas & Electric $9.42 Gas & Electric $3,645 90 Tout XCEL ENERGY $9,632 70 10100 Primary Cash $198,120.43 116059677728 Electrical Service 118059677728 Electrical Service 1^8059677726 Electrical Service 118059677728 Electrical Service 118059677728 Electrical Service 118059677728 Electrical Service 118059677728 Electrical Service 118059677728 Electrical Service 118059677728 Electrical Service Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 225 PARK FUND 231 DRUG/FELONY FORFEITURE FUND 234 LURTON PARK 402 MUNICIPAL STAID ST CONSTUCT 406 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVE 415 2001 SENIOR HSG TIF CONST FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 651 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND 10100 Primary Cash $100,691.47 $2,701 24 $1.11400 $2,685 00 $1,*56 00 ^3.420 50 $23,887 28 $9.41990 $41,641 04 $2.88867 ______$8.115.33 $198.120 43 Chtck Number Employee Name 054546 054547 054548 054549 054550 034551 054552 054553 054554 054555 054556 054557 054558 054559 054560 054561 054562 054563 054564 054565 054566 054567 054568 054569 054570 054571 054572 054573 054574 054575 054576 054577 054578 054579 054580 054581 003741 003742 003743 003744 003745 003746 003747 003748 003749 003750 003751 003752 003753 003754 003755 003756 003757 003758 003759 003750 003761 003762 003763 Pay Period DODGE. RACHEL M. LESKtNEN. DENISE M VEE, KATHERINE M. ANDERSON. BRUCE L. BOBZiEN. SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W. ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L FISCHENICH. DAN T. MADSON. ADRIENNE M MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAM R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK. MARKW WHITE. ANTHONY J. GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. MEYER. WILLIAM C OMAN. LYLE E VANG. BRUCE L GREGORY. JAMES D. HANSEN. STEVEN OBRIEN, RANDY L. PALMER. GREGORY A RATHBUN. BARRY J. SKREEN. DALE S AB»" AHAMSON. FRED W. HAMBRO. MARSHALL J. JENSEN. RODNEY W MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E PEICKERT. GARY J POLLEY. MIKE A ROSS. JOHN A SMYTH. KATHERINE R STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD STORK. JOHN T MOORSE. RONALD J SILUS. BARBARA G VEE. LINDA S KUEHN. THOMAS M. OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K ANDERSON. BRUCE L. BOBZItN. SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W BUDIO. STACIE M CORNICK. JAMES L DAY. SUSAN J DEMBOUSKI. JAY C FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K GOOD. STEPHANY R MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. RUSSETH. KYLE M SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. WITTKE. ANTHONY A PHARO. CHRISTOPHER M. BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A CURTIS. MELANIE 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 CITY OF ORONO check register 10/12/04 1:52 PM Page 1 Check Amount Check Date Check Status $1.04263 $867.98 $2309 $511.02 $47.02 $1,506 10 $1.840 98 $1,540.46 $1,508.20 $698 63 $516 11 $1,779 13 $359.48 $476 28 $1.37049 $925 18 $1.42850 $54987 $262.12 $1,323 53 $799.59 $366 44 $42824 $745 18 $1,230.01 $1.31374 $156 42 $141 15 $169.02 $274 68 $36635 $4370 $15360 $37 56 $1,343 1 7 $156 42 $2.33649 $651 11 $1.038 54 $1,328 20 $1,161 81 $1,061 30 $1,13500 $830 00 $2000 $832 32 $1.446 56 $1,304 95 $1.389 56 $1,456 18 $1.994 94 $1,100 00 $1,346 92 $1.51467 $900.00 $1.429 99 $845 01 $562.38 $1.14284 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outsland ng 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13^*2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2C04 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2604 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding 10/13/2004 Outstanding f CITY OF ORONO check register 10/12/04 1:52 PM Page 2 Ch«ck Pay Check Check Number Employee Name Period Amount Date Check Statua 003764 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P.21 $129.00 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003765 OAPPA, GREGORY A.21 $1.81050 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003766 GUNDIACH. JANICE J.21 $1,253.61 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003767 OMAN. LYLE E.21 $1,400.00 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003768 DEBAERE. DONALD L.21 $1,184.25 10/13/2004 OutsUnding 003769 HANSEN. STEVEN 21 $775.00 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003770 OBERAIGNER* SCOTT G.21 $1.056 30 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003771 OBRIEN. RANDY L 21 $550.00 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003772 PALMER. GREGORY A.21 $35000 10/13/2004 Outstanding 003773 P7VTHBUN, BARRY J.21 1200 00 $61.855 47 10/13/2004 Outstanding CITY OF ORONO 10/13/04 7.32 AM Page 1 Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash Paid Chki 079438 10/iy»0d4' FIRST NATIONAL BANK G 101-21701 Federal WHhholding G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding ToUl FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $8.764 56 $4,441.74 $4,441.74 FEDERAL W/H FICA A MEDICARE W/H FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE $17.648 04 Paid ChiaT 079439 * 10/1^004 ICMARETIREMENYTRUST -457 G 101-21705 Other Retirerr»ent $951.62 ToUl ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 467 $951 62 Paid ChK# 079440 10/13/2004 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE O 101-21707 Union Dues >0 00 ToUl LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE ' $0 00 Paid Chk* 079441' 10/13«004 MN'OEPfOF REVE'NU'E G 101-21702 SUte Withholding >3.691 12 ToUl MN DEPT OF REVENUE $3,691.12 Paid ChK# 079442' ' 'llvT3«b04''MN*8f ATE RE tTr EM^ G101-21718 Post Employment Health $296 36 DEFERRED COMP-302030 UNION DUES #40 A #168 STATE TAX W/H post retirement Total MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM $296 38 ■pai3 Chiu'079443 10/13«664 "NATlONWfOE'REtlREMENT'sOLUTION' G 101-21705 Other Retirement $1.902 00 G 101-21705 Other Retirement $126 63 Total NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $2.028 83 ‘PaH*ChW» 079444 ' '10M 3/2004 ’ ORCHARD TRUST cdytRUSTEDCUSt G 101-21705 Other Retirement $3,312.66 ToUl ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $3,312.68 'paid’Chk# 079445 10/13/2004 PUBUC'EMPLOYEES RET^^ G 101-21704 PERA $6,675.93 G 101-21704 PERA $5.20541 ToUl PUBUC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $11,881.34 Paid ChK# 07^6 10/13/2004 UNI tED WAY 0 101-21708 United Way >70 00 USCM-ENTITY 2339 OBRA #2343 MN STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS Total UNITED WAY $70 00 10100 Primary Cash $39.880 01 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 Primary Cash $39,680 01 $39,880.01 atatM rr .• V *INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING OF COiiMrii MCCTIfvJG OCT 2 5 2004 CITY OF CRONO ™ono,9 MMimm cc;r 12 2m October 7, 2004 Karen Orcutt Superintendent N eal J. Lawson A ssistant Superintendent A aron M. Ruhlano Director of learning a A ccountability ORONO Public SCHOOLS District N o. 278 • District Office 685 Old C rystal B ay Road N orth , P.O. Box 46 Long Lake . MN 55356-0046 • Telephone 952-449-8300 Fax 952-449-8399 Dear Public Official; I’d like to take this opportunity to inform you about Orono Schools upcoming operating referendum vote on November 2. Most of Orono’s current levy authority will expire in 2005. If the levy is not renewed, the District will face up to $2.2 million in additional budget cuts. The attached information has been sent to resident’s of our school district. \Vc also have placed this information on our District Web site www orono.k 12.mn.us . The Board of Education and District administration have worked diligently to carefully manage the District budget and have painstakingly made $3,630,311 in budget reductions over the past five years ($699,336 in 2000-01, $829,925 in 2001-02, $1,014,550 in 2002-03, $712,500 in 2003-04 and $374,000 for this year 2004-05). We know you are aware of these budget problems and are working just as diligently in your positions to provide adequately and fairly for your constituents. We obviously believe strongly in the value of education and the need for strong public schools. We appreciate your efforts and wanted to keep you infomied about what is happening in our district this November. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me or one of the board members listed at the bottom of the attached letter. Sincerely, .aren Orcutt. Ed.D. Superintendent of Orono Schools www.orono.kl2.tm.uB AN EQUAL Opportunity Employer r September 30, 2004 Dear Friends & Neighbors: Public Hearing, Oct. 11 at 7 p.m. in the Orono Middle School Auditorium Changes in state law now require schools to get voter approval to renew levy authority. This November, we’re asking you to replace the School District’s existing levy authority with a 10-year referendum authority including a yearly inflationary increase as per state law. Most of Orono’s current levy authority will expire in 2005. If the levy is not renewed, the District will face up to $2.2 million in additional budget cuts. The information in this letter explains the levy question in more detail and outlines the consequences for the School District if the levy authority expires without renewal. In addition to requiring renewal of levies, state law also limits the amount a district can request from its local residents. Because of this cap, even if the referendum levy question is approved, there will likely be additional cuts for the 2005-2006 school year, although not nearly so devastating as the cuts that will be required in 2006-2007 if the levy is not renewed. The board and District administration have worked diligently to carefully manage the District budget and have painstakingly made $3,630,311 in budget reductions over the past five years ($699,336 in 2000-01, $829,925 in 2001-02, $1,014,550 in 2002-03, $712,500 in 2003-04 and $374,(XX) for this year 2004-05). The inflationary increase proposed in the levy question will not eliminate budget reductions, but it will help lower the amount of reductions needed. We have been elected to oversee the finances and policies of this District. We are honored to take that responsibility and are motivated to serve for one basic leason - we believe in the value of a quality education. This referendum is the only opportunity the state allows school districts to raise additional operating revenues through local property taxes. These funds go directly to the school and help meet inflationary costs. Inflation has far exceeded the state’s funding for education in general and specifically to Orono. Orono receives less than the state average in per pupil funding and significantly less than other west metro schools. Please consider this information, visit our Web site at www.orono.k 12.mn.us. attend the Oct. 11 informational meeting, send us an e-mail at levv@orono.kl2.mn.us or give us a call at home or the levy information line at 952-449-8302. Please become informed before you vote on Nov. 2. Sincerely, Orono School Board of Education Jack Veach (Chair) John Malone (Vice Chair) Michele Kunz (Clerk) Dick Lewis (Treasurer) Mike Bash (Director) Martha Van de Ven (Director) 763-479-3203 952-4(M-1230 763-479-1990 952-473-4691 952-473-7920 763-475-0787 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:September 28, 2004 1. What is an operating referendum? An operating referendum is a locally approved property tax that comes directly to our school district for day-to-day school operations (i.e. supplies, utilities and salaries). The ballot language voted on, is for the most part, determined by state law and is based on a per resident student dollar amount. More than 87% of Minnesota school districts depend on operating referendums. 2. Why is the operating referendum necessary? The referendum is to replace the existing authority with a new 10 year referendu.m including a yearly Inflationary increase. The operating referendum authority of $597.07 per resident pupil unit is due to expire in 2005, the remaining authority of $111.61 and $173.27 per resident pupil unit are due to expire in 2010 and 2012 respectively. The Board of Education has chosen to ask to replace all existing authority to simplify the operating referendum process and to have a state established consumer price index (CPI) increase each year. 3. What happens if the Operating Referendum fails? Without this replacement referendum $2.2 millhn would have to be reduced from the District's budget ($1.5 million in 2006-07, $300,000 in 2011-12 and $400,000 in 2013-14). 4. What is the cost of the Referendum? This chart shows the estimated financial impact on homes valued at $100,000 to $1,000,000 for 2005 property tax purposes. For example, the owner of a $300,000 home would pay $19 more a year. Taxable Market Value of Home Cancelled Referendum Authority Proposed Referendum Authority Net Yearly Increase Year of Higfv est Authority $100,• • •-84 $150,000 -125 135 $10 $200,• 111 -167 180 $13 104 $250,•III!-209 225 $16 129 $300,• • •-251 270 $19 155 $400,•nil -335 360 $25 207 $500,•III!-418 450 $32 259 $1.•ifimiiii -836 901 $65 518 *The figures in the table are based on school district taxes for the referendum levy only, and do not irx:lude tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund (“Circuit Breaker ”) program. Many owners of homestead properly will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net effect of the referendum levy for many properly owners. The maximum refund was increased from $510 to $1,500, beginning with taxes payable in 2002. NOTE: Agriculture property will pay taxes f-'r the proposed referendum based only on the value of the house, garage and one acre. Seasonal recreational residential property (i.e., cabins) will pay no taxes for the proposed referendum. Prepared by Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 5. How many local operating referendums are in place now? And for how long? ;; Referendum Issue Date Amount Maturity Date Purpose General Operating Referendum Various $597.07 per resident student 2005 Currently provides approximately $1,500,000 of operating funds per year. General Operating Referendum 11/2/2000 111.61 per resident student 2010 Currently provides approximately $300,000 of operating funds per year General Operating Referendum 11/5/2002 $173.27 per resident student 2012 Currently provides approximately $400,000 of operating funds per year 6. When would the new taxes be collected? The new referendum would begin to affect property taxes payable in 2005. It would begin providing revenue for the 2005*06 school year. 7. What has the district done to control costs? The school district has made $3,630,311 in budget reductions over the past five years. ($699,336 in 2000-01, $829,925 in 2001-02, $1,014,550 in 2002-03, $712,500 in 2003-04 and $374,000 for this year 2004-05) A community based Budget Task Force (19 individuals from the community, teachers, support staff, administration and students) spent several months examining the operating budget of the district and then finally recommending to the Board of Education $1,000,000 of budget reductions or revenue enhancements for the 2002-03 school year. 8. Wilt the referendum eliminate the necessity for any reductions? No, this is only a replacement of referendum revenue with an inflationary increase, (providing approximately $130,000 additional dollars). A deficit is still anticipated. State law dictates a maximum dollar amount (per student) that Districts can place on property taxes, even with the approval of its residents. Orono Schools has been at this maximum for several years, therefore even if resident voters wished to increase their property taxes for school use, the State does not allow it. 9. What are the district’a souroea of revenue? Orono Independent School District #278 Revenue ■ud9« t004-09 It 4% tl.t% lt.0% ^Property Tai ■Slate Aida □ Federal Aida Local 10. Doean ’t the atate take care of the coat of education, taking the burden off the local property tax ayatem? The state ’s general education funding amount per pupil unit has had no increase for three years including this school year 2004-05. The “property tax reform" legislation of 2001 shifted the cost of basic education aid to the state. This basic funding provided by the state, however, advised by Legislators, is not intended to cover all the costs of providing public education. Local residents may have expectations above that basic funding, which they would support by tax dollars. Rep. Alice Seagren, Chair of the Minnesota House K-12 Education Finance Committee, (now Commissioner of Education) described the relationship between tax reform and funding for public schools as follows” (published in the Star Tribune, 11/4/01): "[P] roperty taxes [have become] more purely local taxes,....making the system simpler and more accountable. Local communities will be responsible for decisions about their property taxes and the level of services they expect from their cities, counties and public schools. So. for a community that wants increased funding for its schools, residents have the option of raising that money at the school district level, within limits set by the Legislature." r' 11. How does the district spend its operating funds? General Fund Expenditure per Student ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS $4,500 S4 9T0 $.1500 $3 000 I2 50>3 IT 000 II 500 svooo $500 S :v -./ - n.’ .ik't ' ' *' c i',- ■ ; '. T‘-•s' ■-------—----------------------------------------------—--------------- - ----------------- - • - _ ^ ' J * •■ • 4-» , ^ / _ , . „ 4 >. . ' •____ •. * , A Jn ms*'*! on »nc St«Kj#1 S»*vic®$ A’ ‘nsl'ixi on VotA!«of\* ins^vcton --S- -s.-jll'- il,\ ^. ..J- . '• ■ *■-. .-I, &r nil mil piiiipiiii S&eCiAi E JucAtton Op«r«bonsand M«j;i{(tfWXe t*v4X Tr**>H>on4l*on Ot0«» Ope»»t-og Pfog-am* 12. How do Orono’s administrative costs compare to other districts? 2002-03 Administrative and Support Services for Hennepin County Public Schools per Student (most recent data available from the state) ST. LOUIS PARK HOPKINS BROOKLYN CENTER __r > A •. > •: 'X '. I.3 2,135 iV : •.-» . < *«■ ■ .; ' ' ■ ■»•.AX-L riS^VUBK .AV. 1 2,134 1 2,020 MINNEAPOLIS CZZ i.p r. agrgTOAggMUBtuaga* v y - • -1.968 ^«kr«liML.i 2dM« BLOOMINGTON ri!,-.:;'?.-; J-V EDINA RICHFIFID WAYZATA rUMbmMii.mit 1.682 ■11 ’'' nj im i|rjpKjMfn.J 1 1.574 ! wm'tnrrir; -fMiP-ii". EDEN PRAIRIE ROBBINSDAIF MiNNETONKA WESTONKA OSSEO ORONO g*iiMMawixa.v.a«r >nrT>^*iiviAtUi»A;ac»^ .Ir' - ‘‘ l*i' • ' » 1.489 1,443 I,«jl6 1.3^1 aD 1.224 1.1/5 J 1,083 500 1.000 ot»3e 99 'oi^/9 yo O?oooct O.VKJ1 02 s •Aa.2 G3 f 1,500 2.000 2.500 ] 13. How does Orono ’s revenue compare with other school districts? MINNEAPOLIS ST LOUIS PARK nnOOKLYN CTR MINNETONKA HOPKINS RICHFIELD HOBDINSDALF OSSEO EDINA BLOOMINGTON WESTONKA STATE WAV/AT A FDLN PHAIHit OROUO $0 000 General Fund (state formula including referendum) Revenue 2004*05 per Student Hennepin County Public Schools H $7,396 $7,289 I $7,197 $7,164 S7.134 I $6,923 S6 90S S6.005 ■ $6.8$5 $6,774 ! 1S6.756 $6,592 SO 584 J $0 487 $6 500 $7,000 $7,600 $8,437 $8,000 $8,500 $9,000 14. How does Orono ’s referendum revenue compare to other districts? Referendum per resident pupil (current authority) Fdir .1 St I oiitR I'aiK Minnetonka Hopkifis Way/j?a Orono $;’Q0 $400 $6LX)$600 $1 000 $1 200 400 $1 600 r 15. How is the district accountable and how does our students’ achievement compare with other districts? Orono High school was named one of the top 6 high schools in the state for its math program by the Minnesota Department of Education. Approximately 90% of Orono High School graduates go on to post-secondary schooling Orono Schools graduates were accepted at over 100 post secondary institutions last year, earning more than $2 million in scholarships. 66% of Orono School ’s alumnae post secondary students graduate in four years. Only 50% of the University of Minnesota students graduate in five years or less. 86% of Orono students complete the ACT tests. Orono ’s ACT scores are among the top in MN. o Orono has a strong curriculum that can be measured by our ACT scores. ACT tests are taken by juniors and seniors and used to assess educational knowledge on specific subjects. Colleges use the ACT scores as one tool for admittance. o In 2003: Orono ’s average score: 24.0, MN’s avg.: 22.2, National avg.: 20.9 All Orono schools are accredited through the North Central Association (NCA). 85% of our High School students participate athletics, co-curricular, or fine arts activities. The majority of those students participate in more than one activity. (The majority of funding comes from student fees.) Since the inception of the Minnesota Basic Standards Tests, Orono students have demonstrated some of the highest passing rates in the state. 40% of the graduating class of 2004 took Advanced Placement courses at Orono High School. MN Department of Education ranked Orono lowest in Administrative and Support costs per student in comparison to the 14 Hennepin County school districts. The campus and facilities are well maintained both for school and community use. In fact, the School District is the major provider of community recreational facilities. An independent certified public accounting firm audits the finances of the Orono Schools annually. In addition, a Citizens Financial Advisory Committee, whose membership includes 7 financial professionals, the board of education treasurer and the assistant superintendent for business, reviews the financial information and advises the Board of Education regularly. The School District provides a variety of highly successful self-supporting programs through Community Education. Accountability also extends to every activity in which our students participate. Behavior and skill on the athletic field, community service projects, musical and dramatic presentations are all visible examples of the success of our students, their parents and our schools. 16. How will the ballot question be stated? SCHOOL DISTRICT QUESTION BALLOT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 (ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS) SPECIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 2004 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS To vole, completely fill in Ihe oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: To vote for a question, fill in the oval next to the word "YES" for that question. To vote against a question, fill in the oval next to the word "NO" for that question. SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT QUESTION I REVOCATION OF EXISTING REFERENDUM REVENUE AUTHORIZATION; APPROVAL OF NEW AUTHORIZATION Tlie school board of Independent School District No. 278 (Orono Public Schools) has proposed to revoke its existing referendum revenue authorization of .$881.95 per resident marginal cost pupil unit and to replace that authorization with a new authorization that would increase its general education revenue by up to $1,200 per resident marginal cost pupil unit. The additional revenue will be used to finance school operations. 'Hie property tax fjortion of the additional revenue will require an estimated referendum tax rate of approximately .09009% of the referendum market value of the school district for taxes payable in 2005, the first year the new authorization would be levied, and of approximately .05175% of the referendum market value of the school district for taxes payable in 2014, the first year in which the authorization would reach its maximum amount. The school district's actual referendum revenue authorization for any year shall not exceed the statutory maximum for that year. The proposed new referendum revenue authorization would be applicable for ten years unless otherwise revtiked or reduced as provided by law. o YbS .Shall the school district’s existinc referendum revenue authorization be revoked and the increase in the revenue proposed by the board of NO Independent School District No. 278 be approved? BY VOTING "YES" ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. 17. Why is the ballot worded this way and what does this language actually mean? The ballot language is, for the nfK>st part, prescribed by state law and is based on a per resident student doilar amount. The $1,200 is not the additional taxes; this is the maximum amount per resident student that can be raised in any year through 2014 within the constraints of the state directed inflationary increase cap. The property tax amount is equai to approximately .09009% multiplied by the taxable market value of the property. (Taxable market value is the amount listed on your property tax statement; it is NOT the estimated selling price of your property.) For example, a home with a taxable market value of $300,000 would have the taxes increased by $19 for taxes payable in 2005. 18. When and where will the voting take place? The voting will be conducted at the locations designated by the cities that make up the Orono School District on Tuesday, November 2,2004 from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. Find your polling place at www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/voterinfo/options.jsp 19. How do I vote by absentee ballot? Applications for absentee balloting are available now. Ballots for the General Election will be available on or after October 1. Contact your local City Hall, except for Minnetonka Beach residents, who should call the Hennepin County Elections Division at Hennepin County Government Center (612- 348-5151). 20. How can I get additional information or questions answered? Attend a public information meeting to be held on Monday, October 11, at 7:00 p.m. in the Middle School Auditorium. Call: Jack Veach (Chair) John Malone (Vice Chair) Michele Kunz (Clerk) Dick Lewis (Treasurer) Mike Bash (Director) Martha Van de Ven (Director) Karen Orcutt (Superintendent) Neal Lawson (Asst. Supt.) Nancy Krull (Com. Coord.) 763-479-3203 952-404-1230 763-479-1990 952-473-4691 952-473-7920 763-475-0787 952-449-8305 952-449-8306 952-449-8315 Leave a question or comment on the School Board Hotline at 952-449-8302 or email to Iew@orono.k12.mn.us . Visit the Orono Schools web site at www.orono.k12.mn.us