Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-22-2002 Council Packet
r JUL 9 2 2002 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in .<;heet. ROLL CALL - 6:90 P.M. * 1. Planning Commission Interviews CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Council Meeting of July 8,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS • Debora Halvorson, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandra Smith, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Mark and Pam Palm, 1447 Park Drive - Variances - Resolution Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive - Renewal Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Resolution John R. Jones, 3490 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution Dave and Jodi Ralm, 1385 Rest Point Road - Variances - Resolution Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road - After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 Shadywood Road - Variance • Resolution James Murphy and Sandra Smith, 30 Orono Orchard Road, Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Fred Shearer, 1405 Park Drive - Variances - Resolution Teresa Koch, 2225 Bayview Place - Variances - Resolution Marlys McCarty, 225 Tonka Avenue - Variances - Resolution Phillip and Constance Martin, 1230 Arbor Street - Variances - Resolution Rick and Kristine Sterling, 1300 Vine Place - Variance - Resolution 4.#02-2769 5.#02-2776 6.#02-2786 7.#02-2791 8.#02-2793 9.#02-2796 10.#02-2797 m 11.#02-2798 12.#02-2799 m 13.#02-2800 m 14.#02-2804 15.#02-2809 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 16. North Arm Lane Street Paving Project A. Order Feasibility Report - Resolution B. Accept Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing - Resolution 17. Orono Baseball Association - Lee Carlson Ballfield Expansion Project - Trail I k Li» ‘.r • > • AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 22,2002,6:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 18. Pay Requests • Long Lake Fire Station 19. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3 • Long Lake Fire Station 20. Joint Fire Station Account - Excess Funds 21 . Renewal of Maple Plain Fire Agreement 22. Resignation of Marc Davis, Building Inspector 23. Agreement for Bad Check Program 24. Schedule Work Sessions CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT * 25. LICENSES • 26. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 21102 07/22 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 08/05 - Park Meeting, 7:15 p.m. 08/12 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 08/19 • Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. 08/26 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. } ' 1 I' i ■ Public Attendance Meetlng D atc / - T -C>— Ja C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please ntLOUTTHE infoiuvution requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1.f "b OU V/ '-r f, r7 2. Ccm:lUagUr-l ------t.i U' V mi xCru. j e If: 4, Firfc‘-c)/VD5^ <^795^ 20^ Wm:>6. 7. V-ililLV 8. T^i'iii- -vr- •^^UKif lipjhjk 3 '~n^y l'L'} 0 cj l>^rl^g. P// - 1ft. / ^'Z-ic flj i c p ^ \i'<a'iuyu~ o2-^.79:t 12. 13., 14. 15., K]\OM4VAABtatalratl«« SopfonUFonw • OMiVfORMSNPUlUC.ATT ... J.an .....................................................................................,„*n.Vttii-I«tii«r-wm4— lililUri ..... iiir<iTimHi-fcTW-f~-fd*r lH 1 r~a*~t ' REQUEST FOR COUNat ACTION JUL 9 2 2002 Lll Y urUMONO DATE: July 18,2002 ITEM NO: / Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Planning Commission Candidate Interviews • The Council has received applications from five candidates for positions as Planning Commission Alternate members. The candidate applications, as well as a set of questions used in past interviews, are attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: There is no Council action requested at this time. The Council generally waits until the next Council meeting to make an appointment decision. » I PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT INTERVIEW Criteria Interest in serving on the Planning Commission KndWledge, skills, abilities, and experience Familiarity with the following items; a. The City's updated Community Management Plan b. The City's rural development philosophy c. Protection of Lake Minnetonka d. Highway 12 Support of current Programs/Policies and Philosophy of City Perspective on Council/Planning Commission responsibilities and relationship Perspective on ways to develop or maintain good Planning Commission/applicant/staff relations Perspective on key issues facing the Planning Commission Eiccllcat Good Fair Poor t.<f .a loxuj. Jui»-15-1002 Us4l» APPUCATtON FOR CmiEN ADVISORY COMMISSION TTof ORONO MtwWptf OBfeg Strict JlNmx ^so Kdkr Onii MN 8S3S6 HiBInf ladnll: pjlm M *Cqittllay. MN SS32MQ6S Addrtss_J^^.^^----- PostOfficeWpCode__Olruini j Telephone jjl f 7^^^ Reddent of Orono . 3S.------- —• V**'* (W) Work Experience: £jL X-&S • • m ufii Education: Civic end Volunteer Acr«vi«ee Cpaet and pteaent): Ifipmsa I /Aina Ee/ce‘d 9^28 10^ ZI9 prdi.«.J«r»1r- 3^£*arj - - ‘lot^iiaxiiiiyvst • »!«»«»• so3d axtrHinos 6C:2I Z0K-iZ-Nnr Jun-]S*fII2 Il54l» FrirCm OF OWNO 4isn4l4lll 0 *** ^ «o sarvt on thl« Comml*«lon. •»«s3wb*t;ssra y V««, 1. you, Vl«. *. ^ .«1h.it*—p£«tt,cAt I undoritond ihii „. ,pp01Mm.nt n.oy b. dlteuMod « . PubBe rnoob"#. 7/—rf" o«ti VatunSZ^->!I3rSic«iiopi/Wcfefo^ CB/eO'd 9^28 T0t^ ZT9 S03d axtfHLnos 6E:2T ZBK-/2-tnr ♦nnauii 19524726838 M02 f MIAIOI Wll Jun*24 02 03:05p JOHM ZUGSCHUERT Jttd'K'UOl 0T:5I»* »»o*-ClTV OP OWHO application fob citizen advisory commission P.2 o O CITY of ORONO Municipal ORicM SmtlMOiUl: 2)S0 Mill OT0M, NN SS3S6 lunai Uimu fH. lot If CillUl In. MN ISUIOOU commission Applyl^ --------------- OThmisslon 2lX4StUuA«^'C. Name^^^r* ----. J , ~~2 —~T"^ ^ Lorha uiA/dA ___ Ad«lia*s_—l—i---------------------------------------f7) P«.o«icetaped. ------ T.l.ph«,. --------- 1WI_J^ R»td.n> .t own. S'_ y..». Work Ejcpariance: Udi^'S- nJAifAi./ mUAiL ■ ■ •p,.A. p<-/>yidvn»65 ^ 1-*----- Cf«^^rmM.i-frr, PuhkLp0hufi$iUSS-J- inhruJ A,;^TOTy’X:rv^W ^ 4^ deAJcJlof^^^^hJluj cUstUoUj, Jun 24 02 03:05p JOHM ZUGSCHUERT Jiiit-M-lOa* #T:M*i fr««-ClTY OF OWW ♦IS224IIIII 13524726038 Mil F »}/00} F-Hl p.3 ’h> Ck mal \t\ Orei^o dtr>d fy ^tULck^-fv r'hJi.^ {AMhIcrur fh {/(^y^d ffl locJ ru^Aif\MJbJt' t/ncliA^hAxJ 44yj (n./Kuj. ?u ann f(Y.rr ^T br.^fiA/f A icl cu^4f as If S’f nulotTwh ^ Qyf^aJL inrluiliWj iMns'/Cmuti '^i''lacpft>OOU^^---------------------------------- o^,cy^«u:,».« VAij. T'r La . rLU rCCMH^yf ,^j7a ^k W /'/) bficrmi/ft acJnVe cyt- c&igj^/i ^ ktsVlLi iOi4< ^UhtZ W r>JU^<^A <M. ir\4c^lAUu^ 'f Va,M w>/ic<4 ipolntmant mai «i«mtJr» ^fptunMt commission member** nemo, oddreee end phone number beeeme pubHe informetton. ------• public mcetino {qIi-hIo • Dmi •NOTE; Jun 24 02 03:05p JOHN ZUGSCHUERT 1SS24726B38 STEPHANIE R. ZUGSCHWERT 990 Lona limdm Avtaac Moiakit 55364 (953) 472-4513 SUMMARY lm>ov«iv< MHIc AIWi» Sul^wr^ comimioicMioo PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Minnesota D«Dart«#0* PobUc Safety, St Paul, MinneiolB C.ml»i»i.w/Ugi»bliy. R.h«o.s, Aujot l»6 - Doanbcr 1«» »d oHv. A vbic Service*.p iVW® . T«ifcd. monimri. «d »l»-«d » "S'*'-!-” » H-'i. budget • i*anmi«wu ui u»». . - . ^ I. -;d the legislation, obt^ed nensrtmenf* initiative* during the 1997 and 1992 icssions. including the • lostnunental in legislauw wc^ ^*^pL?^af Criminal Aoordiension building, fifteen new Investigative agents, a STstlJ «*—>™P-> «»1 Ih. emto. »d »-di« fa . —-d. oration programs and supervised criminal extradition LcgUWiw Analy^^^^^ Paul. MinnesoU. January ♦ May 1996 LHflPRflV • w—' 0 9 . Fxp>,«l kgUtattve «»nm»i** -"I “>•'»-• - K"*'—dr-™"-”. '"dW-y. D- -------«r w w Anaiyzwi wiiwwv^waA. -W-. —-- . ^S:SttS^f^«bll'A«»d«l«»».'«.h«'«l!..***'*'«''"P«P“*'i“''^ 1 . Jun 24 02 03:0Sp JOHN ZUGSCHyERT 1SS24726838 * p.s r»ftTw* Sctphaait IL Zvfickwtrt Judlci^Cle^ SeoIepiB CoBIlty District Conrt, Mpls., MinnwHa, October 1993 - January 1996 • Drafted order^ legal memoranda and dccUi«is;coo«ihad and discussed ease diipoaiUoiawiA Judge • Co-managed case load ofapfSOJiiinaiely 110 civil cases MtaBctoto Attorney Genergl ^w-iooi Law Ckrkt Health Division, St. Paul. Minnesota, June 1993 - October 1993 • Researched and analyzed legal issues related to the implemenUUon of the newly enacted Minn««daCare legislation • Wrote legal memoranda, drafted litigation documents and coi^Ued with attorneys on conclusions • Attended various state agency and legislative committee meetings LawCkri November 1991 - May 1992. September 1992 - December 1992 issues• Researched and analyzed various litigation, employment, and busincm legal i • Wrote legal memoranda and drafted Utigation documents for attorneys • Discussed and summarized legal research and conclusions with attorneys EDUCATION William MllcheH College ofUw, St Paul. Minne^ Juris Doctor - January 1993 Admitted to Practice in Minnesota - June 1993 Judicial Intern, Hom»r•blaJauwaM.IloBeoba«B^ United SinlaaDiatektCmwt, Spring 1992 conclusions with Judge, and drafted orders and legal memorandum Lcgislatlvo AdvTKacy Inter*. Lagal Aid - one-year course. 1991-1992 • Assigned to work with a lobbyist representing devciopmcntally disabled; attended meetings, legislative committee hearings and floor debates • Drafted legislation, studied the legisUtive process and participated mother classroom exenaaes Loudo* Program In laterMtkmal Law • Summer 1991 • Studied international law at RegenU College w London, England • • Attended lectures on the English judicial system, attended court at all levels of die judiciary St. OInf College, Northfield, Minnesota Bictaclor of Ark - Economic* - May I9ll Smastcr Abeoad. City of Londoo College - Spring 1987 -.30 f N\ APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION vJ OLt' I % • /"i •* ^ ^ * V ,v.->Gl • t ui- <JfiO,\'o Stnet Address: 2750 Kelley Perk-May Orono, MN 5S3S6 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Mallinf Address: P.O. Box 66 CiysUI Bay, MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission Planning Commission • □ Community Task Force (Name)_________________________ NameTiuLie, Ma.. 'Vdur^in/x^Ar'cl Address IXXO "Ero^^'H's Post Office&ZipCode Oro^o iMA/ Telephone (H) HiS of*?*? Resident of Orono ^_______ (W) l^\ years Work Experience: * \ In ^\aa -cA' 1^^^^ j C)^ ^ lAApI^ 0^^<rwvv»i> » ^ Education: I/7»AVW1 N'?? tro [jjJJU^y^'dd^ CjdAIr^ i<iSi CJU^') Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): . . /3ii ^ r d>fO IAAJuiy^/lhiAinL ^icicJ/ct (J^Axir1------ Tr -------------------^ SgAA/i<jto. r (WujUl^ (W(^fcu? r &l\dUA ^3u/wf(t ^ khji^4f^ ^ S^. ftjivJl, H^r- *i& Tdc|)honc (6U> 47»-7357 • FAX 47»«510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {PleasB be as specif as possible. Use additional sheet H necessary.) h) OA-d^O /XAyJl_____ rS O’UA^ J/Jlr\JL |ft> AAa-^J/LSL. ^ ^ /V1M4 — h> ^pf^AA-t jifA- U>i^.43(r ^xir4S /MH ^ What is your view of the rote of the Commission? 'To tA>^>^AAydjtr>, |X-6otVL-^ <Juu^ AAA-dJflJt^ /t) >6^ CaJa^ tinAAA’C^ . ^aaaajia AAjucJLxJe. ^v>vLtv>^ QyJb^fAAAJAjdlA , {W'l/^AAtiA. J JliAJA/iJa ^ jitt/ . Other Comments: {Use this space to Include any further Information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel Is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. Qa JU kA« HctAAA^cLjf\Ji £ f Slonatuft j %.qo i SiQnatuft Data **NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public Information. 040i«a^ ^Ok^aa^l. ^ LjriAA. , %•.••t,'. 1,0 Pft APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION x:Jt 7:2Z2:'J2D 'jAr. 3 GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices t:' ■.f.Mi.c\ l Y Or Or.OWO WdftlU 27S0 KlUcy Parkway Orono. MN 5S356 Mailing Mdrt $s: P.O. Box 66 ■ Crystal Bay. MN 5S323 0Q66 Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission Bl Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)__________________________ Name J^/r ^ ^ A Ci r'C^ Address O O Jyn SA(yy{r Post Office&ZipCod e Telephone |H) /a /2. ~ ^ ^~ DOJIS’ (W) Resident of Orono /years. Work Experience: 2r¥r^.J~/-> a iic, /^ / CLo/OS/~^eAC.^ iS^ Ayr^, ^ -t >_ 4/. Pri’iyAte S^^^ecro,^'. as Ji^ ^lyc,/ciLti fo^ Education: r^tjL,' /cf ,'ty^ S^OC.r/ ec^A rtey/<y^ Kr / e ^Pi i tJ/rjr% C4. j A5-<*= Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): ____________________________________________________- Telephone (6U) 473-7357 • FAX 4734310 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be es speeff/c as possible. Use additional sheet If necessary.) Te^ .c/ure rAar /Jr /r7<ki>i /*/* r/te ¥-c*re g>/y^r>Ao/1^ fiS /TC’/^ / • . Pack tA& OcArt/nct^/'/'y, / til 'fTt J7r*^4l/ec^are y- /»f-e,//'kr /yt />V What is your view of the rote of the Commission? /) r-ke o/ orAf^ rer__/rkikf -TO AirA’r Qm:/— Other Comments: {Use this space to Include any further Information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel Is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) /•-»? C^jn ^ ^ CttS________O/’CSfCT' fjt ^t/r /ff yf4.C/ 'r/es ar,rc/_____ Yhe/»' c^3 r'O c, co/n^__y/yc./ —tkt. nry^,Tnrx,^rt^____ar?c/' ///----'c/ 1 understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting ••NOTE:Volunteer commIssiM member's name, address and phone number win become public Information. 04dttf4 ^ i i ^ U*.3o APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION P:?.r- yj j;.'; 2 5 iiiJOi 2750 Kelley Pjtfcway Ofono, MN 55356 GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Mening Address: P.O. eoi 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission J^^^nning Comniission ,□ ^mmiyv^ Task Fmce (Na/ne) Post Otfice&ZIpCoda/^i^ Telsphone (H. ,w, Resident of Orono Work Experience: years. Education Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and «resentl/ _Z.jMan^ po^w^ Ai ffoatxi »- 77>g«* 4tO<»<y<^r ^UI^rotHifr ■fary'/nf ««//: ................... - I 1. Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as spei ^ /v^ ^9^fvi _>>4/fi5^* rtZ. ^ ~i ~7I7i. ^ -y J^Jr PC. oipfi0tirniyp^Qtmo fif/jh ^ 25if^ * ^9¥iat is VQur^iewxf the role of the Commission? "V^ -Z- 4^ OPf^^, y^^ i*t^ fliif/i^lai^ t^;M l^'i!'^ tHtfiafy ^ f&sT^^. _______________________ Other Comments: {Use this space to Include any further information you would tike the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are 'ou may aho attach other rpateriais yot^ouldlikp thebpuncj^o consider.) Wt^ A ..fvru^a^ ^ :P /f*r^ /i>nc^^ ^ , ^aitd^ y^n,/ I underst r§ appokan^e (M/- ay be^iscyssed at a public meetii)g. Signaturt //m/ **NOTE: Volunteer commission mernoer's name, address and phone number win become public information. 04ottf.a —--------■ - —----------------------------------------------- 1.^in-•<-jryi 'iSuu I • L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 r .. •• •CTINO ROLL 2 ^ Cut or The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jay Nygard, and Jim Murphy. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffion, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. Coiuicil Member Jim White arrived at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend Items 9,10,10a, 11,12, 12a, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item S was removed from the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of June 24,- 2002 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 24,2002. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—ANDREW MCDER1V10TT, REPRESENTATIVE McDermott stated that the concrete pad, toilet, and screen had been installed in Navarre Park and were getting use. The plumbing for the drinking fountain at Navarre Park has been installed and the concrete pad will be in within the next week. The sidewalk proposal for along County Road 19 would go to the State soon. The neighbors around Hackberry Park had selected green and white for a color scheme. The proceeds of the i i li ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS —ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTA TIVE —Continued upcoming Dog Days of Summer golf tournament will be going to the Parks. He stated that the Parks Commission would like to be involved with the development of the Larson/Sohn property so that all the design elements are done at the same time. He invited Council to attend the upcoming Parks Tour on July 29 ”* at 5:15 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—SANDEE SMITH, RBPRESENTATIVE None. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. Minnetonka Art Center Roxanne Heaton, Minnetonka Art Center Executive Director; Jim Dayton, architect; and Patrick Reagan, architect, were present. Heaton stated that Kurt Woodhouse bought and subdivided a property that included a guest house designed by Frank Gehry. He offered the guesthouse to the Art Center as a gift. She stated the guesthouse is a unique and valuable resource that needs to be preserved and opened to the public. Dayton passed out packets with information about the designer, Frank Gehry, including an article about one of his houses that was demolished in California. Dayton stated that contemporary architecture needs to be preserved and the Art Center’s opportunity to do so has far-reaching impact. Mayor Peterson stated she had met with the Minnetonka Art Center staff regarding the house. She asked GafTron what would be required to locate the house on the Center’s property. Gaffron stated they would need an amendment or CUP for an additional building that would be accessory to a school use, a variance for the setback on the north side, and a variance to allow a small portion of the building to exceed the 30’ height restriction. The major issue facing the project would be its impact on the neighborhood. Heaton stated that the house would mainly be used for small classes and studio space, but they may house visiting artists there as well. Sansevere asked why the Walker Art Center had declined the gift. Heaton stated that they couldn’t easily locate the house in their new construction plans and would need to store it ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 3. Minnetonka Art Center—Continued for some time as Woodhouse wants it moved as soon as possible. Murphy asked if the Art Center is linked to the City’s trail system. Moorse stated it will be once the Dakota Line trail goes through. Sansevere stated they would not make special exceptions for them because the house is not considered art; it would be used as a functioning building and therefore would need to conform. Nygard stated that because the house is a pre-existing structure and a gift, he would not oppose the extra S’ in height. Mayor Peterson stated the Art Center should go forward and get the project on the Plaiming Commission ’s agenda. 4. Barb Sykora, Candidate for State Representative Gabriel Jabbour stated that he personally supports Barb Sykora. She has always been present at Mayor meetings and shown her support for the City’s missions. Barb Sykora stated that she currently represents the southern third of Minnetonka and some of the smaller lake communities. Due to the recent redistricting, if she is reelected, she would represent most of the lake communities. She stated she was eager to learn about the new communities in her territory and that she welcomes feedback and comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 5. ff02-2780 Often Brothers Nursery, 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard—Amendment to PUD Agreement #1 —PUD Amendment and Resolution No. 4829 Weinberger stated that some modifications had been made to the PUD agreement, amendment 2. First, he stated, the amendment would allow the Daisy Diner to continue to operate as a concession stand under certain conditions. They remov^ restrictions on allowed signage, and service will be permitted to individual tables. Also, Class I restaurants will be a permitted use on the property. He stated that the concession stand does not qualify as a Class I restaurant due to not meeting the parking requirements for a restaurant. The Daisy Diner would not be able to expand use, however, a separate Class I restaurant would be allowed on the property provided it met all requirements. Staff recommended Council adopt the revised amendment and resolution. Cliff Otten stated that the new resolution contained changes to items 3 and 8, and that he felt item 3B should be removed because the intent of allowing a restaurant use was to 5. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 M02-2780 Otten Brothers Nursery, 2350 ff^est fyayzata Boulevard—Amendment to PUD Agreement #/—PUD Amendment and Resolution No, 4829 — Continued prevent needing an amendment to the PUD. Weinberger stated that the new resolution allowed a Class I restaurant on the property in addition to the concession stand as accessory to retail. Sansevere asked if the dance studio left, would a restaurant be able to take its place. Weinberger stated that it would, provided it met all the requirements. Otten stated that the difference was between needing a review to install a restaurant and needing a PUD amendment. If restaurants were an allowed use, then there would no longer be a need for a PUD amendment. Murphy asked why they were allowing both a restaurant use and a concession stand. Weinberger stated it was because of the parking requirements. The concession stand would be allowed to remain without any changes to the facility. If, however, Mr. Otten wanted to install a Class I restaurant on the property, he would be allowed to do so provided he met all the requirements. Barrett stated that item 3B could read: the present concession stand use shall be allowed to be expanded to a Class I restaurant so long as it conforms to all requirements, and if not, it would require an amendment to the PUD. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4829 approving Amendment #2 to PUD Agreement No. 1 allowing a concession stand use within the nursery area and adding **Class I Restaurants” as permitted use for Lot 1, with the change to Item 3B stating that the present concession stand use shall be allowed to be expanded to a Class I restaurant so long as it conforms to all requirements, and if not, it would require an amendment to the PUD. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—After-thc-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances Revis Stephenson, applicant; Greg Munson, attorney; and Ron Peterson, wetland scientist, were present. Weinberger stated that the Council had approved a CUP for land alteration on the property in November to create a gradual slope, rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of the applicant’s house. During inspections of the property it was determined that ^e amount of fill placed on the hillside exceeded what was allowed by the CUP. The land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but was < . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6. M02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued beyond the property lines onto two adjacent properties. Staff also identified areas where there is fill that was added within 26’ of the protected wetland. On May 2,2002, staff sent a letter ordering corrections. Due to road restrictions, trucks used to transport the fill were not allowed on Fox Ridge Road. A May 16,2002 deadline was established, and at that time, Mr. Stephenson requested the opportunity to apply for after-the-fact permits rather than correct the problem. Weinberger stated that the issues were that the applicant altered the land in excess of what was allowed by the permits, encroached property lines, and came within 26’ of a wetland area. He presented a cross-section view showing the previous slope of the land, the permitted slope, and the present slope. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the after-the-fact variances. The Planning Commission recommendation included a finding, based on information provided the night of the Planning Commission meeting, that a separate application is required for the adjacent property owners. Staff recommended that the variance to allow encroachment within 26’ of the wetland be denied as no unique situation exists that should require an encroachment into the setback. Also, approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur within 26’ of a wetland without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting. The existing grade was not consistent w i the City’s requirement of a 3:1 slope and should be corrected. The existing grade > extended the back yard by 38’, when the proposed plan was to eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Also, staff requested that Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in, or consent to, the application. Both adjacent property owners consented to the project in writing. Weinberger stated there was concern over erosion and fill washing into the wetland. Stephenson seeded the slope and planted trees at its base in an effort to prevent erosion. Any resolution should include the following conditions: 1. All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of 4-inches of topsoil and seeded with erosion control measures approved by the MCWD and City Engineer. 2. The silt fence shall be relocated to be a minimum of 26’ to the edge of the delineated wetland and any fill within the area be removed, unless a variance is approved. 3. All soils within 26’ of the wetland shall be decompacted following construction activity. 4. The City Engineer shall review and make recommendations on the plan prior to any additional construction activity. • • 5. No portion of the hill shall have less than a 3:1 finished slope. Barrett stated that while he needed to review the new letters from non-adjacent nei^bors. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road-After-the-Faci Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued he fell that the adjacent neighbors did not need to submit applications since the changes to their property were basically committed by trespassing. Stephenson apologized for his ignorance over the entire matter and stated that he understood it was ultimately his responsibility and would accept the Council’s decision. He had a contractor that did not follow City instructions, and he stated that he did not set out to disregard the requirements of the permit. He stated that the topography map supplied by the City was not accurate. Mark Gronberg, an engineer, surveyed the property for him and found the wetland delineation different from what was provided by the City. He stated that overall, the changes he made were an improvement with better drainage and a planted buffer zone. Gronberg told Stephenson that the current slope was graded between 2.1:1 and 2.9:1, and that the slope would compact and lev cl out to the recommended 3:1 over the next year or so. Stephenson stated that he did not seed and plant the slope to influence Council. He informed Weinberger that he was going to do the plantings in order to prevent the fill from washing downhill, and if needed, he would tear out the plantings later. Stephenson passed out photos of the slope. Munson stated that the main goal was to protect the wetland and buffer zone. He asked Council for 2 weeks in order for staff to come out to the property and review the delineations, since they had originally been done in winter with snow on the ground. He stated that Council had the power to grant Mr. Stephenson’s request. Also, that Mr. Galatz’s letter to the City was intended to incite and that it was written after Mr. Stephenson had acknowledged his mistakes and begun working with the City. Petereon stated that he had viewed the property regarding the wetland protection issue. He did notice discrepancies in the delineation that was done in December. He stated delineations could not be accurately made with snow on the ground. The wetland has a partial drainage under the Luce Line at the north end. It was common practice for railroad lines to install culverts under tracks so that every time water goes into the wetland, some goes out via that drain. He stated that the canary grass is non-native and inconsistent with the wetland. The area was a marsh before the drainage was installed. He stated additional time was required to refine the delineation.. Peterson also stated that given the stabilization of the slope, the landscape fabric and plantings installed, the recent rains have not caused any noticeable runoff into the wetland. He felt it would be imprudent to tear it out. He added that the applicant had no intention of mowing the buffer zone or using it as a yard, and there is now a dip at the buffer zone with the wetland being elevated, which makes it more effective. Muqjhy asked Peterson to expand on the discrepancy. Peterson replied that there is upland area designated as wetland, which is shown by the buckthorn and other plants 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson^ 1850 Fox Ridge Road—Afier-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued growing there where sage meadow would have been originally. Murphy asked how much shrinkage had occurred to the wetland. Peterson stated he wasn’t sure at this time. Sansevere stated he was in favor of giving them time to gather information. He asked Stephenson if he had any recourse against his contractor. Stephenson stated he would be pursuing action against the contractor. St^henson stated he did not believe granting his variance to grade in the buffer zone would be precedent setting. He found language in City documents stating that a buffer zone is not wetland and as long as it is restored to perform as a buffer, grading could occur. He stated that Spring Hill Golf Course had been allowed to grade extensively in the buffer zone of a wetland. Mayor Peterson asked if tabling the application would create an issue with the 60-day deadline. Munson stated that if it did, they would grant an extension of the 60-day limit. Eric Galatz, attorney representing Mr. Chafen at 350 Brown Road South, stated that he objected to including changes for adjacent properties without requiring that they also pursue permits for the changes. He claimed that not all residents who should have been notified were. He stated that Stephenson was required to submit a professional survey, and he hadn’t. He claimed all three properties involved should be reviewed. He added that his letter was not intended to incite the Planning Commission. Galatz stated that Stephenson had blatantly and intentionally violated the law, and damaged wetland by running machinery on the wetland side of the silt fence. He urged the Council not to table the application. He stated that Stephenson had been on notice since February and could have stopped the contractor back then. He added that the small trees Stephenson had planted would be easy to uproot. - Toby Dayton of 1895 Fox Ridge Road stated that he was in support of the revised permit. Throughout the process, he and Stephenson had had conversations about the fill and Stephenson had always been communicative and careful to make sure that Dayton approved of his action. He stated he favored allowing the land to remain as it currently is. He took strong issue with Galatz terming Stephenson’s action as blatantly disregarding the law. He stated that the drainage is much improved. He has 3 young children and the previous slope was a hazard. Mayor Peterson stated to Galatz that no amount of trees would stop Council fix>m pursuing appropriate action. She asked if new surveys found discrepancies in the delineation, would the application go back to the Planning Commission? Weinberger stated it would depend on the findings, especially since time was of issue and there was need for a resolution. Barrett stated that the application would only need to return to the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6. U02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances —Continued Planning Commission if the alteration was significantly different from what they understood it to be. Galatz stated that the Council could decide Stephenson start from the wetland and cut the hill back from there. Murphy stated he would feel better if the contractor was there to admit his fault in the mafter. He felt that Stephenson was too knowledgeable and intelligent to not have had My idea what the contractor was doing. Sansevere stated he disagreed since people are inclined to trust hired experts. Dayton stated that he had wimessed the whole process and it was impossible to know how much dirt was going in until after it had been graded. Mayor Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to table the application for after- the-fact CUP and variance for 1850 Fox Ridge Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Council Member White arrived at 8:45, during Item 7. 7. #02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard—Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Morrie Wagner, owner of Monies Automotive Group; Steve Ficktel, architect; and Peter Johnson, attorney, were present. Weinberger stated that WJM Properties had applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to the use of the property located at 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard (formerly Washington Scier.iific). They wanted to locate a wholesale distribution facility primarily serving the retail :>utomotive operations under the Morries Automotive Sales Group. The use would be consistent with the current zoning. The building would be used for auto prep, a body siiup, storage, central parts warehouse, offices, and an indoor sales showroom for fleet sales and leasing. Weinberger stated that parking would be added on the south and west sides and a new service road off of Highway 12 at the front of the building would also be added. New vehicles for sale would be kept at the front of the lots, and vehicles brought in for body work would be parked at the rear lot, within a fence. The outside storage of vehicles required a CUP. A second CUP was required for an “open sales lot” for the leasing and fleet operation. The fleet sales operation would require 40 parking stalls, 15 at the north end of the existing lot, and 25 in the new 45-stall lot to be developed at the north end of the existing 8 r r, .MSAJUa 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 7. #02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 IVayzata Boulevard —Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit—Continued building. Also, a new entrance and 4 large windows would be constructed. Weinberger stated that wholesale, or fleet customers, would fit under the current industrial zoning. Also, staff was supportive of the Planning Commission recommendation. Some changes that had been recommended were to screen the property with the installation of a berm with plantings. Other changes involved lower lighting at a 20 ’ height that would display the front end of the building. Current light poles would be removed and 4 new one's would be evenly installed with no part of the light visible from neighboring property lines. Signage would be limited to a monument sign at the Highway 12 entrance. Johnson passed out information to Council on the site plan changes, demonstrating that they had complied with the Planning Commissions requirements for better screening. Johnson stated that the outdoor storage parking restriction of 250 spaces should refer only to the east, exposed lot, and not to the fenced lot at the rear. Sansevere asked if customers would bring their own cars to the site for repair work. Wagner stated that repair cars would be delivered by staff from the dealerships, and they would have some insurance adjusters visiting the site, but not customers. Also, there would not be a gate at the entrance, so delivery trucks could enter and unload at any hour without backing up traffic on Highway 12. Nygard asked about the daily traffic flow. Johnson stated that there would be 40 full time employees on site, plus trucks and cars being delivered. The site would primarily be used by the dealerships along 394. Nygard stated he does not want Orono to be the center of Morries Automotive Group. Wagner stated that the site would be used by only two dealerships, as the others have adequate room on-site. Mayor Peterson asked if there was a turn lane into the property. Weinberger stated there was not, but there was no median in front of the site. Murphy asked if the landscaping was acceptable to the applicant. Johnson stated it was. Murphy asked if the fleet cars would have signs and banners advertising their sales. Johnson stated that they would be selling to professional corporate buyers, indicating they would not use such on-site advertising as is typical of car dealerships. Weinberger suggested Council consider the hours of operation. Johnson stated that the sales component would operate from 9-9 Monday through Friday, and 9-6 on Saturday. Sandee Smith stated that the Planning Commission felt the hours were too broad for a wholesale operation. Wagner stated that they needed to be flexible to meet the time constraints of their clients. J ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 7. U02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 tVayzata Boulevard —Commercial Site Pian Review and Conditional Use Permit—Continued Moorse asked if the planting islands would contain any over-story trees. Ficktel stated they would only contain evergreens because they needed trees that would not be affected by the exhaust of the cars, and also that would not drop sap, etc. on the cars. Sanseverc moved, and Murphy seconded, to approve the site plan review subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations, with the clarification that parking rntrictions noted in item 2 referred to the east lot only, and directed staff to draft a rnolution for the next City Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. 802-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 Shadywood Road, Variance Gina Kosek was present. Bottenberg stated that the application was to construct nvo decks and a walkway. One deck would be at ground level, and the other off the second story. Currently there are 3 patio doors on the lakeside of the home with no means of exiting the house. The total of the decks would equal approximately 110 s.f. Bottenberg stated that the applicant had bought the property with the intention of remodeling the existing house. After reviewing the foundation and other structural limitations decided to tear down the house and then applied for a variance to allow a deck within the 0-75’ lakeshore. The request was denied at the Planning Commission level. The applicant then submitted building plans. At that time the hardcover complied at approximately 22% in the 75-250’ setback zone, leaving 485 s.f. of hardcover to use. The driveway and some retaining walls were constructed after the house was completed and the certificate of occupancy was issued. The retaining walls were constructed to aid in the change of grade for the driveway. When the applicant constructed retaining walls, she did not know they were considered hardcover. There was also a second driveway on ihe property that has been converted to grass at the instruction of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted to allow the two decks with the following conditions to reduce the amount of hardcover on the property: 1. Remove the south driveway and replace with grass. 2. Remove shed located In 0-75’ setback. 3. Remove all stone borders. 4. Remove all unnecessary boulder walls. Bottenberg stated that Kellogg had visited the site and determined that unnecessary stone wall removal would result in a hardcover reduction of 50 s.f. (.29%). r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 8. 802-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1S7 5 Shadpvood Road, Variance—Continued Staff asked that Council consider allowing a 2’ x 60 ’ sidewalk be constructed fix>m the driveway to the front door. Kosek stated that they did have a hardship for the variance request because while they own a large amount of land, only .82 acre is buildable. She argued that there was no difference between a small lot, and a large lot with a small buildable area. She stated that they had planned the deck location before the doors were installed. At the time that she planned the decks, they were not over the hardcover and deck construction did not require a vimance because it was outside the 0-75 ’ zone. She stated they informed staff that they were moving the location of the patio doors to install the docks. At the time there wasn’t an issue with the patio doors because there was no variance required. Kosek stated that she disagreed with the suggestion she remove the shed from the 0-75 ’ zone because it would not affect the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Their overall hardcover was currently at 14% of the allowed for their total lot. She stated that the garden shed is ugly, but they didn’t want to remove it because it is in the 0-75 ’ zone and they would not be allowed to install a new shed in its place. She is an avid gardener and uses the shed to store her tools. Kosek stated that other residents have been allowed to go over hardcover with a small lot being cited as a hardship. Mayor Peterson stated that everyone is entitled to a minimum house size of 1,500 s.f., which on some lots requires going over the maximum allowed hardcover. Kosek stated that she didn’t see the difference between a small lot and a large lot with a small buildable area. Kosek stated that they would like a paved sidewalk from the driveway to the door, but if they had to choose, would build the deck and use woodchips for the sidewalk. White asked if staff had been made aware of the patio doors and their location before they were installed. Kosek stated that she had informed them of at least the first floor door, since the decks will be stacked one over the other. Sandee Smith stated that the Planning Commission felt the overall hardcover had to be reduced in order to allow the decks, and there had been no talk of a sidewalk at the Planning Commission. Kosek stated that they were unaware they’d overbuilt until April when Lyle Oman called and informed her of ^e situation. She designed the house, and her husband built it. While construction took a year, the driveway and retaining walls were installed quickly to fix problems with the land. Murphy asked why they hadn’t been aware of the issue earlier in the process. Kosek OR3NO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 8. #02-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 Shadpvood Road, Variance—Continued stated that nobody had told them that hardcover was going to be an issue. The size of the house didn’t change, so they thought they still had area to work with. The additions to the driveway and retaining walls happened as needed and did not require building pennits. Smith stated that the driveway is larger than originally shown in the plans, and that at some point the applicant nee^ to be aware of what they’re doing. Sansevere stated that because they built the house themselves, and were not trusting outside experts, they had more responsibility to inform themselves and become knowledgeable. Kosek stated that at the time of constmction they were at 22% hardcover. The drive addition and retaining walls pushed them over. They didn’t think that retaining walls would count as hardcover, and they have about 400 s.f in the walls alone. Kosek added that she felt having to remove the gardening shed was punishment because it would not affect the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone, and they were still under the total hardcover allowed for the entire lot. Weinberger stated that she would be allowed to have a lock box on the property in the 0-75’ zone, size 4’ x 5 ’ x 4’ high. White moved, and Murphy seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution allowing construction of the decks as requested conditional upon removal of the gardening shed and all unnecessary’ retaining walls; in addition to the decks, the applicant would be allowed to pave a 2’ x 60’ sidewalk from the driveway to the front door and to place a 4’ X 5 ’ X 4* lockbox in the 0-75’ setback zone. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. Extend Telecommunications Tower Moratorium—Ordinance No. 220,2"^ Series Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 220, Second Series, extending an interim moratorium on the granting of building permits, land subdivisions, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances, or other authority relating to the siting of wireless communications facilities and structures in all zoning districts in the City of Orono. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated that they should spot-check cigarette venders again to see if they are complying with the legal age and carding minors. Sansevere stated he had received a letter from Dana Wells regarding the Orono Lane issue. Moorse stated that the residents were told not to install a dock before the house is constructed, but they are currently running electrical cable through the yard and it upset the neighbors. Gaflron stated they would prefer the residents not do yard work before ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT —Continued construction of the house, but they’ve complied with City requirements. Sansevere stated he’d received a complaint about a neighbor leasing out 3 dock spaces. He asked if the City should remain passive on the issue, or get more assertive. Nygard suggested they follow up on such complaints on a case-by-case basis and follow ^e LMCD rules. Gaflron stated that the Orono code prohibits slip rental, and the City only pursues such matters following a complaint. White stated that it would be too costly to pursue such offenses. Sansevere suggested staff send a letter to the Mound firefighters regarding Orono ’s desire and intentions for a neighborhood station. Nygard asked about the house by Fletcher Channel. Moorse stated it would cost about $550,000 and that Gabriel Jabbour was checking into it. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *10. Easement Orono Orchard Road, Long Lake Creek Culvert Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of $4,000 to Edmund Rydell, 135 Orono Orchard Road North, for easements for the Long Lake Creek Culvert on Orono Orchard Road from the Storm Water Utility Fund year 2002 budget with the appropriate budget adjustment approved to reflect the expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *10a. No Parking Sandy Beach Neighborhood —Resolution No. 4830 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4830 authorizing installation and maintenance of **No Parking Vehicles with Trailers —^Tow Away Zone ” signs on the City streets in the Sandy Beach Neighborhood. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *11. Pay Requests—Long Lake Fire Station Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of $9,149.41 to BKV Group, and $254.38 to the Laker and Pioneer, to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. « ; I; i L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 *12. Appointment of Ron Hendricks to Full-Time Police Officer Position Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the appointment of Ron Hendricks to a full-time Police Officer position effective July 9,2002, and to place him into the Police Officer pay schedule based on his hours worked as a part-time PoUce Officer. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *12a. Interviews for Planning Commission Alternates Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to schedule interviews to fill the Planning Commission Alternate positions. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.A I 1. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *13. LICENSES SPECIAL EVENTS 1. Applicant: Tim Jaynes Event: Location: Date: Time: Corporate Party with Live Music 1121 Elmwood Avenue July 27,2002 11:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve all licenses. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *14. BILLS Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. — ft « ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 15. Kevitt Excavating Moorse stated that the item was related to the accidently sealed well. They had withheld the money from the demolition company, Kevitt Excavating. The City negotiated with Kevitt Excavating that they would put $2,500 toward the settlement over the well. The City had retained $5,000, so now had to pay $2,500 to Kevitt Excavating. Sansevere asked if there was a miscommunication. Moorse stated that there was fault on both sides. The excavators didn’t understand where the well was, and so they went out and found the well next to the house to fill without first checking if it was the right well. Mayor Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve final payment to Kevitt Excavating in the amount of $2,500. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 16. Land Donation by Mike and Monica Young Moorse stated that he received a call two weeks ago from property owners who own the property at the northwest comer of Old Crystal Bay Road and Watertown Road. They want to sell the house on a 2 acre lot, and donate the southern 2.5 acres to the City. The southerly 2.5 acres is mostly wetland, though there is some dry. The City already has a conservation easement over the land, so it is protected whether the City owns it or not. There is only a very small drainage area that flows to this parcel. The only possible use would be to use the parcel as mitigation for filling wetland area somewhere else. Also, there is a portion that freezes and gets used as an ice rink. Moorse stated that typically the City does not own wetland areas. Gaffron stated that the City does not want to own wetlands. He stated that if it appeals to the Council, staff would find out if it is suitable for wetland mitigation before accepting the offer. Moorse stated that the Youngs would probably end up selling the entire 4.5 acre parcel together as one lot. Murphy moved, and Nygard seconded, to direct staff to thank the Youngs for their offer, but to decline the donation. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. J 4000 Q 3«Sr"g| 3^ 2M0 p Orono, Minnesota t}ering Index Map tL*Cr ;3Q AUSX.I \fOBOh h»i north ecviita* tc»r. 7«»ff0 7C»C.«at 10, Mi AM §.!•§• M. ».••• ar«ie.itt9 HM. I7.»M i«% I«.ltf9 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 22,2002,6:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items arc considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under tlie Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items arc available in the Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL-6:30 P.M. * I. Planning Commission bterviews CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTF.S * 3. RcgularCouncilMcctingof JuIyS, 2002 JUL 9 2 200? CUT ur uHO..^ PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debora Ilalvorson, Representative PL/INNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandra Smith. Representative I PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT • 4. //02-2769 Mark and Pam Palm, 1447 Park Drive - Variances - Resolution • 5. //02-2776 Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive - Renewal Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Resolution • 6. /^02-2786 John R. Jones. 3490 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution 7. ^02-2791 Dave and Jodi Rahit, 1385 Rest Point Road • Variances - Resolution 8. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road - Aner-thc Facl Conditional Use Permit and Variances 9. #02-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution 10. #02-2797 James Murphy and Sandra Smith. 30 Orono Orchard Road, Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 11. #02-2798 Fred Shearer. 1405 Park Drive - Variances - Resolution 12. #02-2799 Teresa Koch, 2225 Bayview Place - Variances • Resolution 1 3. #02-2800 Marl>'S McCarty, 225 Tonka Avenue - Variances - Resolution 14. #02-2804 Phillip and Constance Martin, 1230 Arbor Street - Variances - Resolution 15. #02-2809 Rick and Kristine Sterling, 1300 Vine Place - Variance - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 16. North Arm Lane Street Paving Project A. Order Feasibility Report - Resolution B. Accept Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing - Resolution 17. Orono Baseball Association - Lee Carlson Ballficld Expansion Project - Trail AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 22, 2002,6*30 P.M ORONO COUNCIL CIL\MBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 18. Pay Requests - Long Lake Fire Station 19. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3 - Long Lake Fire Station 20. Joint Fire Station Account - Excess Funds 21 . Renewal of Maple Plain Fire Agrccmait 22. Resignation of Marc Davis. Building Inspector 23. Agreement for Bad Cheek Program 24. Schedule Work Sessions CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT • 25. LICENSES ^ 26. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND E%T:NTS Complete Date: Deadline: 5/20/02 8/12/02 JUL 9 2 2002 CUV ur unUMO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 17,2002 ITEM NO.: t-f Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2769 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive Variances Lbt of Exhibits A B C D E Site Plan - With Hardcover Removals Elevation Views Resolution Planning Commission Recommendation Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Application Review The Palms have requested variances to allow a 5’ side yard setback to construct a 22 ’ X 34’ detached garage to replace an existing garage that is in poor condition. Variances are also being requested to allow alteration of hardcover over 25% and 30% in the 75-250 ’ and 250-500 ’ setbacks. The Palms have revised their variance request meeting the conditions and recommendation set forth by the Planning Commission. I. Hardcover Variance (Section 10.22, Snbdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)) 75-250 ’ setback To permit 3,435 s.f. of hardcover (34.1%) where 25% is allowed. This amount assumes removal of all non-conforming landscaping plastic cover totaling 1,055 s.f. The total existing hardcover is 4,537 s.f. (45.1%). The reduction is due to construction of a smaller garage than w hat exists and removal of areas of landscaping plastic. 250-500 ’ setback To permit 1,447 s.f. of hardcover (45.9%) where 30% is allowed. The total existing hardcover is 1,705 s.f. (54%). The reduction is due to construction of a smaller garage than what exists and removal of a portion of the existing driveway. Total Reduction of Hardcover on the property is 1.360 s.f. ^ £ #02*2769 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive Page 2 of 3__________________ Setback Variance (Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F)) The garage requires a variance to permit the garage to be located S’ off the side property line where 10 ’ is required. The property owner has agreed to resize the garage to allow a side-loading garage. The current garage is also side loading. The topography of the lot lends itself better to a side loading garage rather than a garage that faces towards the street. A garage facing the street would require additional fill to be brought to the property to level the approach since the garage is located at a lower elevation than the street. The turn in the driveway allows any water to flow down the driveway and into the yard between the garage and the house. A driveway that is oriented directly down to a street facing garage is common in Orono, but in this case the topography would have to be significantly altered to redirect water and to avoid unsafe winter driving conditions. Planning Commission Discussion/Recomniendation By a vote of 7 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application to approve variances to lot area, lot width, and hardcover. The existing garage is a one level building of S40 s.f. (approximately 24 ’ X 24 ’) with an attached lean to structure 2 1’ X I4.S’. The total size of the garage and lean-to is 900 s.f. The initial request was to construct a building 35’ X 24 ’ (840 s.f.). The Commission had provided direction to the applicants to reduce the size of the building to not exceed 730 s.f., and to build the structure with a minimum setback to the property line of S’. Mr. Palm has reduced the size of the garage to 22 ’ X 34’ (748 s.f.). The garage is also proposed to be relocated to meet the S’ setback as recommended by the Planning Commission. The design is to have a three-stall garage with some second story' storage space that would be accessed by an interior stairway. The total height of the garage from the ground level to the peak of the roof would 20 ’. The roof style chosen is to architecturally match the house, including having dormer windows on the building. Stiff Recommendation Staff recommends the application for variances to permit alterations to 7S-2S0 ’ setback, 2S0-S00 ’ setback and side yard setback be approved allowing a garage 22 ’ X 34’ to be located S’ from the adjacent side property line. The orientation of the garage takes advantage of the site topography and the overall size of the garage is being reduced as compared to the existing building. Background Notes/Likesbore Lot Determination According to Hennepin County plat maps and the survey submitted with the application there is a portion of Forest Lane (undeveloped) located between this property and the lakeshore. It is assumed that this portion of the Forest Lane will be combined with the applicant’s property at some time in the future. It has served as the lakeshore access for this lot. Other lots in the neighborhood have had Forest Lane vacated and a few lots have combined that portion of ii #02-2769 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive Page 3 of3 property with the residential site. Staff is considering this lot a lakeshore lot for setback purposes even though the legal description and property records do not include the vacated portion of the road. This is an important distinction for this property because a non-lakeshore lot would not permit an accessory building to be located closer to the street than the house. The vacation of the road should be recorded and joined with this property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the variances listed on pages I and 2 of the Council memo. ,‘V-iV mi 1: i Council Exhibit A \ I ■ lir iuii «:%*». I Council Exhibitilxhibit 3 6?rW(7 r— |l 7X9 9ff I I lt»’7 flifli/i fit friHh Council Exhibit a A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L); AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (F) FILE NO. 02-2769 WHEREAS, Mark Palm and Pamela Palm, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1447 Park Drive within the City of Orono (hereitiafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 8, Block 15, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant revised the application and submitted a new site plan on July 17, 2002 requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 3,435 s.f. (34.1%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback where 4,537 s.f (45.1%) exists and 2,512.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed; to permit 1,447 s.f (45.86%) hardcover in the 250-500 ’ lakeshore setback where 1,705 s.f (54%) exists and 946.5 s.f (30%) is allowed, and variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F) to permit a 5’ setback where I O' is required for construction of a new 22’ X 34 ’ detached garage to replace and existing detached garage; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 20,2002 and was continued to June, 17,2002 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 #02-2769. Page 1 of 6 .1 —— ...1 2. The property is located in the LR-1B, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where I acre is the minimiun lot size and 140 feet is the minimum lot width. - 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A. I'he lot was platted prior to current zoning standards. B. This property does have a number of factors to consider that make construction of a new garage that conforms in location dittlcult. The topography of the lot does not make placing a new garage on the property that has an adequate turning radius and provides proper drainage. A side loading garage will leave a relatively flat area to maneuver vehicles and allow drainage from the street to bypass the buildings and house. C. The total distance beUveen the new garage and the existing retaining wall will be 22 ’. A garage meeting the required setback would only leave 1T which is not adequate for safe backing of vehicles. D. A garage with direct access to the street would require fill to be brought in to raise the ground elevation and create a flat approach in front of the garage. It would not be feasible to have the driveway continue to slope down to the garage as winter conditions may cause a vehicle to slide into the building. Additionally, the driveway design needs to be done to ensure that any water would be diverted away from the building. E. According to I lennepin County plat maps and the sur\ ey submitted w ith the application, there is a portion of Forest Lane (undeveloped) located between this property and the lakeshore. It is assumed that this portion of the Forest Lane will be combined with the applicant’s property at some time in the future. It has ser\’cd as the lakeshore access for this lot. Other lots in the neighborhood have had Forest Lane vacated and a few lots have combined that portion of property with the residential site. For current zoning purposes this lot is being considered a lakeshore lot for setback purposes even though the legal desrription and property records do not include the vacated portion of the road. This is an important distinction for this property because a non- lakeshore lot would not permit an accessory building to be located closer to the street than the house. Page 2 of6 4. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely afTect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 3.435 s.f. (34.1%) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback where 4,537 s.f. (45.1%) exists and 2,512.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed; to permit 1,447 s.f. (45.86%) hardcover in the 250-500’ lakeshore setback where 1,705 s.f. (54%) exists and 946.5 s.f. (30%) is allowed, and variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F) to permit a 5’ setback where 10 ’ is required for construction of a new 22’ X 34’ detached garage to replace and existing detached garage, subject to the following conditions: I.The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit A. 2.Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building pennit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances w ill expire on that date (July 22,2003). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 ■ r,...- I i 4.The undersigned owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicants STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ________ , 200 ____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 1 i i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN • r • On this day of .20. personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation witness a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ,20 personalty appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affuination witness ., a credible and who e.xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page S of 6 ! 1 Exhibit A \ lake » kke\ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARK & PAMELA PALM OF LOT 8. BLOCK 15. SAGA HILL REVISED ICNNEPN COUNTY. WNNESOTA Page 6 of6 Yrmi J Council Exhibit D CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay* MN 55323 PHONE:(952) 249-4600 FAX:(952) 249-4616 ZONING FILE #UW/oy NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; June 24,2002 TO:Mark Palm 1447 Park Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION:_Variance ___Conditional Use Permit ___Subdivision Other DATEOFMEETING: June 17,2002 VOTE; 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted X Approval subject to conditions noted below __Denial for reasons noted below __Tabled for reasons noted below No action required NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The Planning Commission recommended approval of your application subject to the conditions that you move the garage 5’ from the side property line and do not construct a garage greater than 750 s.f. The approvals assume a side loading garage with the same driveway configuration as currently exists. On March 26,20021 had mailed a letter to you stating the application is incomplete. Although, the application has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, the application is still incomplete per the information provided in that letter. 1 have attached a copy of the letter to you. Prior to any review of the proposal by the City Council please provide the survey and revised hardcover calculations to indicate the all proposed changes on the property. Once all the information is received you will be placed on the next available City Council Agenda. If you have any questions please contact the Zoning Department at (952) 249-4600. 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. //• .A L '/'CCD imz HARDC0VERi:^CULAllOiN WUKKbl^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 7S-250* 25 EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House • _____________ Length X X X B. Garage C.‘ Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 30 X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _ _ X Lcnfth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A :_____________ + B . Council Exhibit £: Wldih S.F. S.F-. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.' IZG S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. t *4 t S.F. -5S S.F. ^70^ X100 37oS S.F. S.F. S.F. Width 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. X 100 - A B • S.F." A “ S.F. B “■ » i \ • « wr- < i HARDCOVER CALCULAnyiSWUKKaillls.bl SETBACK ZOiVE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ nS^) 250-500’ 7/a/ov 500-1000’ FVISTING HARDCONTR IN ZONE A. House •_____________ Lcnjih i • .X X X Widih B. Garage C; Driveway f X X \r/Ac.c3 0. Sidewalk 4-0 /f?-X X z. E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X fieo C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- <^37 B /aS>£c>X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONX A. House _____________ Lcnj’J)Widih X X X Ba Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X % • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ 0 ./Oi?SO X 100 - //dig S.F. r?p S.F. a 2(2>S.F. • as S 7*S.F. • 1. S.F. S.F. a '* •S.F.' tAG S.F. a S.F. 4^0 S.F. a S.F. <<.z S.F. a z. '4-S.F. a tSo iF. Z7S « S.F. 46S 7 t S.F.• S.F. a 4‘S,7i f. S.F. • • • S.F. n £.Cf S.F. a Z 7 S.F. 350 S.F. < S.F. a S.F. a /6,G 3G4>S.F. a 30 __S.F. S.F. a S.F. 5^4 a cT/ ^ <,S.F.)| a /f^O S.F./ .7-5- 3%S.F. ^44io S.F.'* /0030 S.F. A B B J 1/e/oz 1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 gVISnXG HARDCQ\TR IN ZONE HARDCOVER CALCULAllUiN WURKSH^AT 7S-250 ’500-1000 ’ A. House •X % •Length Width X X X B. Oarage ■ C; Driveway X X D. Sidewalk T (X X £“t *o,^ E. Pado/Deck floe4L X X H A3 2-f il /.ry /4 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- nos ^ B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lcnfih Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X V « F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A /^7 + B X 100 - L,ui n-p I ■hfriw‘d4riffiha-f iiT^ m S.F. S.F. • «S S.P. • S3 S.F. • SI* S.F. 6/-?S.F. n ‘31&S.F.'" H,S.F. «• S.F. ts S.F. 8 dpZ S.F.«< Z.I S.F. B S.F. SB iF. • S.F.• /70S • S.F.A• 3lSS S.F.B S S4..04^% S.F. • • • S.F. . B S.F.i B S.F. f 4tS SB £>7*1 S.F. B ns S.F. S.F. S S.F. Z3 S.F. B «>Z S.F.- 8 . £/ S.F. • B •S.Fj » B S.F. *• 1 •• S.F. 144>'7-• S.F."A S.P.B B I a » -m tk . ! Ak tfei ■' Ht I -n . JUL 9 2 2002 Cut Ut-UMONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; July 17,2002 ITEM NO.: DepartmcDt Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:i/02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Renewal Variances and Conditional Use Permit List of Exhibits: A Resolution B 2000 Approved Site Plan C June 6,2002 Staff Report Application Review On June 26, 2000 the City of Orono adopted Resolution No. 4485 approving variances and conditional use permit for the Hennepin County Highway Maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. Hennepin County has used the facility since at least 1962, when the propert>’ was located in a commercial zoning district. The property was later rezoned to residential. Since the rezoning the property has been allowed to continue operation as a legal non-conforming use. The salt and sand storage building required variances to permit the building to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory building on a property of 6.65 acres. 1 he Municipal Code only permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building on the property, and an aggregate of 4,800 square feet for all accessory buildings. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet plus a 10' overhang for an extended roof for each storage bay. The variances and CUP permits construction of a 7,200 s.f. salt and sand storage building on the property and permits construction of a stonnwater management pond on the site for treatment of sediment runoff on the property. Due to anticipated costs with construction, the County delayed the project. Hennepin County is now ready to begin construction in August with an anticipated completion date of October, 2002. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 1 to approve the renewal variances and conditional use permit subject to the conditions of approval as noted in the year 2000 approval. Additionally, the Planning Commission added to the recommendation that all runoff from the site shall flow to the new stormwater pond; such pond shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the building; and all wetlands on the site shall be freed of any debris or materials. It was the minority position of the Planning Commission that additional improvements to the property may be an expansion of a non-conforming use. In Resolution No. 4485, Council had concluded that the new shed would actually reduce the level of activity at the site during nighttime snow events, and was not an expansion of the use. 1 Council Exhibit A A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19-21 FILE NO. 02-2776 WHEREAS, Hennepin County (hereinafter the "applicant") is owner of the property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows (hereinafter the ’‘property*’): “Exhibit A”; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15,2002 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a renewal application to the City of Orono requesting the following approvals: 1.Renewal of a variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OllWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148.835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56,coverage Subdivision 16(E)(2)) Renewal of a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessorj' structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessor> buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) Page 1 of 7 1 . u 1 3. Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). Minnesota: 2. 3. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 'fhis application was reviewed as Zoning Tile #02-2776. The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962. the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this lacdity Irom County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended approval of the renewal application subject to the follow ing conditions: A. The pond shall be installed prior to any occupancy of the sall/sand storage building. U. All runoff from the site shall be directed to the pond for treatment. C..All debris and material located in the wetlands on the property shall be removed prior to occupancy of the building. D. All conditions of Resolution No. 4485, as adopted by the City Council on June 26,2000, shall be conditions of the renewal application. County Staff has indicated the proposed building would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annuall) and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. During a significant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mi.x are required Page 2 of 7 1 because they have limited indoor storage. With an enclosed building, they could stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours. .5. The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do net apply generally to other property in this zoning disuict; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for land alteration for pond construction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed lc\ cl of use of the property w ill be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon or ^ or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit construction of an accessorv' building on property that is devoted to a non-conforming use; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit hardcover alteration in the 500'-1000’ lakeshore setback in excess of 35%; Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (C) to permit a 60’ X 120' (7.200 s.f) accessoiy building to be constructed on the property, where a building 2,400 s.f. is allowed; and for aconditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21 topermitland alteration for construction of a stormwater management pond. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Pag$ 3 of 7 1 . The building is constructed per the site plans provided by Hennepin County. 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any land alteration activities, and shall not be removed until such time Staff authorizes removal. 3. The fill removed from ponding areas shall be placed in the locations and to the grades as shown on the site plans on file with the City of Orono. 4. All land alteration shall be subject to final approval by the City Engineer. 5. The pond shall be installed prior to any occupincy of the salt/sand storage building. 6. All runoff from the site shall be directed to the pond for treatment. 7. All debris and material located in the wetlands on the property shall be removed prior to occupancy of the building. 8. All conditions of Resolution No. 4485, as adopted by the City Council on June 26, 2000, shall be conditions of the renewal application, 9. The use of the hn'lding shall be limited to storage of the salt/sand product. 10. The three lots that exist on the property shall be combined into one tax parcel. 1 1 . Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owirer, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council’s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 22,2003). 12. 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. 13. 1 he undersigned applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of? Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Authorised Representative of Hennepin County STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _______ ________ , 200____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of7 STATE OF MnsiNESOTA COUNTY 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. ____^whose identity 1 proved on the oath/affirmation, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public 4 Page 6 of 7 i Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS; • ^ Ki '2 Tfoct 1 - ToiT«f« ftoperty par CoilWoaf* of TWe 369670 Tht East 50 fast of the West 200 feet of the South 2||Lof that part of ^Govern^ Township 117, bnLiiSariM^of^whlch^trMt^ Judicial Landmarks Governnent Su'*vey thereof All of Tract 1 la aubiect to periaanent easements for and 1656002 (County Highway Piat) street purposes as per Torrens Documents 13775< Area Qf Tract 1 “ 11,632 Square Feet (0.267 Acres). Tract 2 - Tooofii Pfoparly per OerWtooto onwe 360670 ------------------------ ■ . , . BioeJc 9 That part of Governnent Lot 8. Section 17, *11* ,02”?2f|?*-ection^of a*line drawn parallel EM5 Subject to a private driveway or street easement over the westerly 100 feet of Tract 2 Area of Tract 2 - 243. 101 Square Feet (5.5S1 Acres) Tract 3 - Abstract Property pef Dooinwit No. 8845782TfOnt^* AmiTOCs tTwpmy i^w« tancc Great No?thSrn flailSay right of way pgp Oc.. Page 7 of7 June Z(0,ZOOO Appi LAKESHORE OFFSET 500^ LINE r-i x-l '\\ —ry •'»■*«-rj =22A' / *^==^ ' :' / • : ‘1 ' J ' 0* M* so* T»* 100* • • ••• ^ • ^ • —^ jll ^ *>. J/—>V^- . ..^.:—^ —sMair.:i OMIVE--------IHC5M-1S>-ft*V-CI :tonka :?s“" LAKESHORE OFFSET 250' Council Exhibit TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Membe Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:June 6,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Renewal Variances and Conditional Use Permit l.ist of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Application Resolution No. 4485 June 26,2000 Approved Site Plan Plat Map New Site Plan - View 1 New Site Plan - View 2 Building Plans Property Owners Notification List Application Hennepin County has applied to the City of Orono to renew variances to permit construction of a 7,200 square foot, three bay salt and sand storage building on the property and to renew a conditional use permit to permit construction of a stormwater management pond on the property. Modifications to Plan The revised site plan has relocated the building closer to the property lines than previously ^proved. The 2000 approved site plan has the storage building 50’ from the north property line and 125’ from the east property line. The new site plan shows the building 27 ’ from the north property line and 67 ’ to the east property line. The required setback to the rear property line for the building is 30 ’. The 27 ’ setback requires a variance. Approval of the site plan as a renewal will require the site plan to be amended to meet the previously approved setbacks. The new building location would not reduce hardcover as previously approved. #02-2776 Hennepin Countjf 3SS0 Shoreline Drive Page 1 of 3 Background On June 26, 2000 the City of Orono adopted Resolution No. 4485 approving the variances and conditional use permit for the Hennepin County Highway Maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The salt and sand storage building required variances to permit the building to e.xceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory building on a property of 6.65 acres. The Municipal Code only permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building on the property, and an aggregate of 4,800 square feet for all accessory buildings. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet plus a 10’ overhang for an extended roof for each storage bay. Initially, the City of Orono was concerned that the construction of such a facility on the property may expand the operation of the site. County staff has indicated the proposed building would actually have less impact on the surrounding residential properties because the number of salt and sand deliveries to the site would be reduced by approximately 60 trips armually. During a signifleant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required because of the limited indoor storage currently provided. With the enclosed building they can stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours. Existing use of Property: The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since that time the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility primarily being County Road 15 be^veen Mound and Highway 12 and County Road 19 from Orono to £.xcelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels off boats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lai e Minnetonka. The LMCD has used the property for storage of 4 milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property' line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landings are full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow pj^ing only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter roaid maintenance facility operation. tf02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Page 2 of3 L„ Tbb application requires the foilowing approvab: 1.Renewal of a variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138.188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, SuMivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) 2.Renewal of a variance to pennit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feetX 120 feet in size. 7.200 square feet. The same section ofthe ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan, the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) 3.Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for the land alteration on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and required MCWD board approval. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property owner that the wetland will be subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the renewal application subject to the conditions as noted in Resolution No. 4485 and requires the building to meet the setbacks as approved in 2000. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve. 2. To deny. 3. Table. 4. Other Action. iy02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Page 3 of 3 -Ii-20fl2 02:0Sw FfCfl-ClTY OF COO ♦3S22434SI6 T-8IS P C:»/:i7 F-321 Application # 02.-^77(^ Date Received CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) i/^enewal Variance Fee $150.00_ (no change from ori^nal application) Variance for non-confomung structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid PROPERTY INF0R>UTI0N ». T) Site Addrcss___i8SO —'r I* t/c Date Property Acquued---------^------------^— ------------------------ I (do) als® 0^ adjacent parteli of land. Present use of proper: residential Zoning District: L k-/ other (specify) applicant Name Address:. ------------ Phone (home)_ Phone (\^iOrk)_ _ City:.Zin: OWNER (if different Uian applicant) Name _ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:.__City..Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: — Estimated Construaion Cost $, (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front ___ Side i^Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakcshorc Other (specify). Cvuurili-cd^ VTXfTTCTTAT PP/^PITHTY CONDlTlOr^ condiUons ptevotiilg compliance with Zoning Code requiremenis:. (attach additional sheets if necessary) ♦S522494616 93H 6 P.03 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .4455_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22. SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERiMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19-21 FILE NO. 2555 WHEREAS, Hennepin County (hereinafter the "applicant") is owner of a property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows (hereinafter the "property"): "Exhibit A" ; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on January 19, 2000 and April 17, 2000 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a land use application to the City of Orono requesting the following approvals: 1.A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970's. hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non conforming use. (Section 10.25) 2.Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 fool setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) Page 1 of 8 B . 4. ■... m • . 'hi f- I- f JiA mk vilCr , GITYof ORONO ¥RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 8 5 ice to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.6S acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate _of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. Accordmg to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) 4. Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2555. The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-coribrming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. 3.The Plaiming Commission reviewed this application and recommended denial of the Zoning Code Amendment to the LR-IC District based on the following: A. The Comprehensive Plan has guided the property for residential use. The proposed expanded use is much more intense than what the property is cunently used for. Page 2 of 8 J L CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 44^1NO. 4. 5. 6. 7. There was concern continued use of the site impacts the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. C.The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial to residential in the early 1970s. Approving a Code Amendment to permit this type of use in the LR-IC district would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non-conforming status. D.The proposed height of the building was 42* requiring a variance. The building would have been 22* uller than the existing principal building. E.Other sites in the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other locations that may be feasible. County Staffhas indicated the proposed building would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. During a significant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mir are required because they have limited indoor storage. With an enclosed building, they could stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours. The proposed building has been reduced in height from 42 ’ to 20 ’ and the building has been redesigned to not require a fully enclosed building but rather three storage bays for the salt/sand product. Elevation views, provided by Hennepin County, indicate the build'mgs would only have minimal impact on adjacent properties to Ae north The 42' building proposal would have blocked views from a small area in Spring Park across the railroad tracks. The storage bays would provide protection for the salt and sand product. Much of the salt and sand has been stored outdoors and could become part of the runoff from the site towards Lake Minnetonka. The facility is located within the 1000 ’ Shoreland area of the lake. Page 3 of 8 ii CITY of ORONO 10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 6; -•NO. ^ stormwater management pond has been proposed to treat stormwater before leaving the site. Water drains towards the south side of the property and enters a culvert that carries the water directly to the lake. A management pond will treat much of the water before leaving the site. ■9. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminate the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a storm sewer pipe and are routed .to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Without indoor storage the County is required to make deliveries on a 24 hour schedule during snowfall events. The Council finds that the conditions existing on tliis property are peculiar to it and 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 properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 12. The City Council fii.ds that granting a conditional use permit for land alteration for pond construction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in k*. eping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 1 Page 4 of 8 \m CITY of ORONO II RESOLUTION O^ THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 44 8 5 . City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit construction of an accessory building on property that is devoted to a non-conforming use; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit hardcover alteration in the 500'- 1000 ’ lakeshore setback in excess of 35%; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to permit a 60' X 120 ’ (7,200 s.f.) accessory building to be constructed on the property, where a building 2,400 s.f. is allowed; and for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21 to permit land alteration for construction of a stormwater management pond. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The building is constructed per the site plans provided by Hennepin County. 2.Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any land alteration activities, and shall not be removed until such time Staff authorizes removal. 3.The fill removed from ponding areas shall be placed in the locations and to the grades as shown on the site plans on file with the City of Orono. 4. 5. All land alteration shall be subject to final approval by the City Engineer. The use of the building shall be limited to storage of the salt/sand product. 6. 7. The three lots that exist on the property shall be combined into one tax parcel. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner , but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council ’s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (June 26, 2001). Page 5 of 8 1 CITY of ORONO \hSWiXi RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO___4 4 8 5 iolation 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. 9.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of itself, its 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 this 26th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, May Propgjty Owners Cp. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. MARYANN JOHNSON MOTAKyPUKlC mmcsota Notary Publw / v OBrmMao Ci^lrw jm. J1.3008 Page 6 of 8 CITY of ORONO i: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 8 5 I: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^ th . I day cH N Public within and for said County, personally appeared k. ^ A , 20_££_, before me a Notary known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same as her ftee act and deed. MARY ANN JOHNSON NoniirmMje*iMaorA IlkOaiiiMMloNiln si. IM Notary Pi^c' ^ ^ ;i li STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of.,20___, before me a Notary Public within and for said Coun^, personally appeared known to me to be the person described in a^ who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed. Notary Public Page 7 of 8 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: • If H I t • t$■ *• w Tract 1 •Toirera noparty per Certtfloerttt or Dtte S6M70 i-r • -t-i v*r ,./.I-* The East SO feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 of that part of Governfflent Lot 8. Secticn l TOMnahio 117. Range 23. lying East of the East line of *Streater‘8 Spring Park Addition . Hennepin County. Minnesota, the boundaries of Mhich tract are aarked by Judicial Landmarks placed at the Northwest and Northeast corners thereof, and by Judicial Landmarks pieced on the west line of sale tract 33.01 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof and on the East line of aald tract 33.01 fe North of the Southeast corner thereof, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15147. According to the Government Su'*vey ♦thereof. All of Tract 1 la sub and 16S6002 (County H ect to permanent easements for street purposes as per Torrens Documents 137: ghway Plat) Area of Tract 1 “ 11.632 Square Feet (0.267 Acres). Tract 2 •Torrans FYoperty per Cectlffcoto of Tttte 369670 the^boundarles*of*whlch tract^are'*oarked*by°Judlclal Landmarks placed at the fouf* and the South line of which tract la further marked by Judicial Landmarks placed thereon 50.02 fe and 100.04 feet East of the Southwest corner of said tract, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15.4/. According to the Government Survey thereof and according to the recorded plat thereof. Subject to a private driveway or street ease.ment over the westerly 100 feet of Tract 2. Area of Tract 2 “ 243. 101 Square Feet (5.SBI Acres) Tract 3 • Abetrod Roperty per Doounent No. 8845782 That pert of Government Lot 8. Section 17. Township 117. Range 23 °100 feet Easterly of the Easterly line of ‘Streater s Spring Park theMinnesota, and lying North of the southerly 233 feet of said Government Lot 8. and South of t Great Northern Railway right of way. Sublect to an easement for street purposes over Tract 3. North of wav.50 feet Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway right of i c'-.j-sr.ts 33283.^7 and 29e57P0 Page 8 of 8 L.. June ZU.ZOOO n i**$ I 3 <»i* / (i») 1 •1 fi • fi »s .s .J PIJ (»)(Jt)w PH 1 8MiJILlia-IL J Ml rsx- rffeli i- * "^ ■! P5) **** ••*•l<o>»« A ^ir • •—^ ?' • sis . ^«; 4/v^.v^_yi=t mkifoir •••!••Lm1■ ; ■ xSIJZ \ \ '. .1 ^RLs^Noeeo, \ . % :«■«> \ \ \ m I 0^-:P-??(r> \ .' /••• ••• . ^ M 'S ' I fl' I /?r '^Ss - ■** *" *i!r^<;* ^ „,rT ^ / T I »i 0 I V./• . ‘ ^.' • #- ^ «*•. H 'I Ul I / I I I L 956*0 \ \I \\ NC. RETAINING WALL % \ \ I \ I NORTH ELEVATION Scale : 1 10*-O' cone footing for size and design see structural cone, wal surfaces cone, footing see structural 9 1 for wan panel t A) face design see sheet A3 (B) (C) firishetfgntis contractor, see site plan poured cone, retaining^ wan. w/weephotes, for details see structural draintile poured cone, footing, see structural €0 mil CPUM membrane w/ l.S" ballast .precast cone, roof deck, slope- from front to rear 1/8" per ft fin. grade varies, contractor to provide ^ ki erosion control as ragged see site plan rain leader & spbsh block coarse granular fill preca ltd b y/ base slopx one. par els o w bitur lindus weaii )g course b; floor e! iv.: 944.33 lindus weari i| ana substrxi frim rear tp 30* - 0" e by contn ctor. front 1/8 owner. per foot, BBSBSS ypical I •I. I I • ^ open *9 t • a r-** perforated, corrugated polyethylene drainpipe w/filter sock poured cone foundation, for size and reinforcement see structural BUILDING CROSS SECTION 5V Scale : 1" • 10'-O' . ----. .. perforated corrugated polyethylene drainpipe, place pipe w/holes facing downward; slope drain to sump, iee sump location on site plan for brick pattern design see detals on sheet A3, color to be determined by architect, , . provide continuous moisture 1ZO * 0 / barrier on exterior side roo^v^rhang downspout, fasten to wan at top, middle A bottom, cone, splashblock HUH MTi H/tS/ii HENNEPIN COUNTY PtOPEIITY XNPOitUTlQN SYSIEH PROfCHTY ONNEHS LIST HEPOHT NO. PI4SS4I1 PAGE S BATCH 550 PtOP ABON ONNEB NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM 17 17-117-2S SS MM •salt NORTHERN AYE ROOER ALLAN BUEHL ROGER ALLAN BUEHL BBli NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK m BSSBA 17 17-117-23 S3 ••!• •salt NORTHERN AVE HAROLD R ROKESH ETAL HAROLD R KORESCH Sai4 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARR m sssaa 17 17-117-23 S3 •3042 NORTHERN AVE ,R R TXSCHLER • R J TrSCHLER ERIC R TISCH^ER S042 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 55304 PROP ADDR ONMR NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AOn 17 17-117-23 S3 OOia •3052 NORTHERN AVE KEITH J EMRY KEITH EMRY 3052 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 55304 ••1417 17-117-23 S3 •3077 PARK LA BANKERS TRUST CO OF CALIF UILLIAN A ANDERSON 3077 PARK U SPRING PARK HN 55304 17 17-117-23 33 ••20 •3042 NORTHERN AVE OAN R STRUCK JAN R STRUCK S042 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 55304 PROP ADDR ORNER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/ADOR 17 17-117-23 33 4422 •3041 PARK U A N NOUO ONE FARINHA ANGEU N HOUO 5240 NINNEHAHA AVE HPLS HN 55417 17 17-117-23 S3 ttSO •3414 SHORELIM DR DOUGLAS C OAHBLE DOUGLAS OAHBLE 2443 HOUNTAIN VIER DR ESCONDIDO CA 42427 17 17-117-23 S3 ttSV •3424 SHORELIM DR CLARK R OITHAN CLARK R OLTNAN S424 SHORELIM DR SPRING PARK HN . 55304 PROP ADDR ORMR NAM TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 85 tMt •8^2. SJIOfcELINE 08 JOHN i^sm JOIM^ KASl 2tHi CASCO MAVZATA ci FASTER XOPqiNT RD 17 17-117-23 33 ttAS •S444 DEL OTERO AVE J H BABATZ ETAL JOHN HENRY BABATZ 3444 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK HN 55304 17 17-117-23 33 4444 •3424 DEL OTERO AVE CATHY JO TURMR CATHY JO TURMR 5537 BARTLETT BLVD HOUND HN 55344 d. 0 PROP ADDR OUMR NAM TAXPAYER NAM/ADOR lOv•3^ HlCNAlL R UlCkSOI niCHAEIJ^^RlCXSOI S4S4JMC0nCR0 AVI SPRKNO PARK NIC 1 17-117-23 33 4447 DEL OTJUNT^VE ritKSON [RICKSON AVE 55304 IMS ^ 117-23 S3 4441 •3444 '^NORTMRN ISTElTHONAS THOHAS 3444 SPR iVE NSEN ET AL CHRISTENSEN E CHRIST _ o^lua N ni • MNlfMRN AVE. ING PARK HN H304 17 17-117-23 S3 4444 43414 NORTMRN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOOt 4HTNDNV POLLOCK^040 4 4^0^40 4 4 OPw 8414 NORTMRN AVE SPRING PARR HN 55304 PROP ADDR ONMR NAM TAXPAYER NAM/ABOR 17 17-117-23 33 4445 43440 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOOC ANTHONY POLLOCK 3414 NORTMRN AVE SPRING PARK HN 55304 17 17-117-23 S3 4444 •3444 NORTMRN AVE GERALD ROLAND NANSEN GERALD R HANSEN DON 152 tPRlNB PARK HN SBS04 17 17-117-23 S3 4447 •2250 HA2ELDEU AVE ROBIN L SMRHAN ROBIN L SMRNAN 2250 NAZELBELL AVE BPRINB PARK HN BBS04 I RUN DATE iA/IS/ii HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHAHON SYSTEN PROPERTY OMNERS LIST •ATCN 550 REPORT NO. PXASSAil PARE i PROP AODR ONNER NANI TAXPAYER NANE/ADM PROP ADDR ONNER mm TAXPAYER NANE/ADM PROP ADM ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADM PROP ADM ONNER mm TAXPAYER NANE/ADM PROP ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADM PROP ADM ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADM t NASON 17 17-117-2S SS ••07 •SB72 NORTHERN AVE NMEEN P OENJECERDES. NOREEN P DENJEOERDES S072 NORTHERN AVE SPRXNO PARK HN SSSOA 17 I7-117-2S SS •••• •S07A NORTHERN AVE ROGER DALE ROGER DALE , 8074 NORTHERlI AVE SPRING PARR NN S5S04 17 17-117-2S SS OOTA •224S HAZELDELL AVE P A GARTON t N K OARTON P A DARTM i N R GARTON 224S HAZELDELL AVE SPRING PARR NH S5S04 17 17-117-23 SS 01S7 •SG22 NORTHERN AVE N A SCHNELXNO ET AL ELXZAGETH N SCHNELXNO P 0 GOX 01 S022 NORTHERN AVE SPRXNO PARR HN S5S00 17 17-117-2S SS OISO •S0S2 NORTHERN AVE KEITH D TRASK KEITH D TRASK S0S2 NORTHERN AVE SPRXNO PARK HN BSS04 •224VK!«AZELDELL AVE DpUelAS>>SXPPEL Muous j nmi 2241 NAZELDEL^>m SPRINO PARK HN NiSSOO • 17 17-117-2S SS 4142 17 17-117-2S SS E14S •SnE DEL OTERO AVE •SE14 DEL OTERO AVE RICHARD S LXGERANTE ZACHARY S SHANSON (NRICHARD S LXGERANTE ZACHARY S SHANSON SnS DEL OTERO AVE S914 DEL OTERO AVE ciSPRXNO PARK HN SSSG4 SPRXNO PARR HN SSSG4 17 17-117-2S SS 0144 •S414 DEL OTERO AVE J A PRXTZ INS JENSEN JAHES PRITZ 0 HENOY JENSEN Sno DEL OTERO AVE SPRXNO PARK HN 5SS04 17 17-117-2S SS 0145 •S410 DEL OTERO AVE GREGORY A DAVIS 6RECMY A DAVIS S910 DEL OTERO AVE SPRXNO PARK HN 55S04 17 17-117-2S SS OlAA •S4E0 SHORELINE M S H i P R OSHERA STEVEN V • PAHELA R OSHERA 340E SHORELINE M SPRXNO PARR HN 55S04 \ 4 0 17 17-117-2S SS 0147 •S402 SHORELINE DR O A RLXTZKA t V V RLXTZKA G A I V V RLXTZKA SM2 SHORELINE M SPRING PARK HN SSS04 17 17-117-2S SS 0140 •S9R4 SHMELXNE OR VINCENT K GURNHART VINCENT R GURNHART •S4 NAPLE CREST M HN SBS44 17 17-117-2S SS OlAf •S444 SHORELINE M DONALD L LANOON DONALD L LANOON S9G4 SHORELINE M SPRXNO PARR NN, 5SSG4 17 17-117-2S SS OlSf •2242 NAPLETON AVE THOHAS PREMXCR GROUELETTE THOHAS PREMXCR GROUELETTE 2242 HAPLETM AVE SPRXNO PARK HN ISSG4 17 17-117-2S S4 ••21 •S0I2 NMTHEM AVE LOIS A TOHNER LOIS A TOHNER SORE NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN ISS04 SO 17-117-2S SS •••2 •SiOO SHORELINE M CO OP mm HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTN NARCXA HILDA N/C 417 STH ST N GS20 SS401 a. mm DATE M/ES/tt HENNCriN COUNTY PROfElltV IHFOlWATXON SYSTEM PtOPEETY ONNEtS LIST iEPONT NO. PXASSAii PACE 7 OATCN BSO POOP ADDO ONNEl NAME TAXPAYEt NANE/AOM Si I7-I17-2S SS ifis tSiii SNOtCLXNE DO COUNTY OP NENNEPXN ONONO SHOP C/O NENN CO - P.S. DIO sot NASNXNOTON AVE S HOPOXNS fOi SS34S Si 17-1X7-2S S5 iifi •Siii SNOOELXNE DO E J I N J HELD EDOAOD J i NAOSNA J HELD Sift SNOOELXNE DO NAYZATA NN BBSn Si X7-XX7-2S SS fits •Siii SNOOELXNE DO DAVXD UNDENOCEEO DAVXD UNOENOqCEO Siii SNOOfLXkE DO NAYZATA NN BBSOl POOP ADDO ONNEO MANE TAXPAYEO NANE/ADOO Si 17*117*2S SS iili •Sifi SNOOELXNE DO JOHN C CNENONETN JO JOHN C CNENONETN lliiS KXNOSiOOOUON TO S COTTAOE OOOVE NN SSili Si 17-117-2S SS iii7 •Siii SNOOELXNE DO JANET N OLSON JANET N OLSON Siii SNOOELXNE DO NAYZATA NN S5S01 Si X7-U7-2S Si ii02 •S7ii NOOTNEON AVE LEO J SLECNTA ETAL LEO J SLECNTA S7ii NOOTNEON AVE NAYZATA NN B5SY1 POOP ADDO ONNEO NAME TAXPAYEO NANE/ADDO Si X7-117-2S Si OMS •S77i SNOOELXNE DO NAOY SONNS NATTNEN SONNS IMI AVOCET LA NOUND NN SSSii Si 17-1X7-2S Si ilii iS79i SNOOELXNE DO CXTY OP OOONO CITY OP OOONO ATTN DONALD J NOOOSE P 0 DOX ii COYSTAL DAY NN 55S2S S^S}7-1X7-2S Si fits •S7i>v SNOOELXNEM :CcTONKA VENTUOtrXl TCKVAVOllUhES LLC TTOr^ANClVAVf S 0770 EDXNA NN S<iES O' Ci POOP ADDO ONNEO NAME TAXPAYEO NANE/ADDO 30^7-117-23 Si^^i iS7iiXSNOOELlflE DO TONKA VEigyOES LLC TONKA VENTtlKS LLC 77iiPfNANCE m S 0770 EDXNA NN SSi^ JOwl7-117-2SJJi •••7 •OiSO^ ADOOCSS UNASSXCNED TONKA VOICES LLC TMtA^VENhlOES LL?: VTii POANCE >yE S 0770 EDXNA NN SSi^ 3ivl7-117-2S SV^tD iS7ik. SNOOELXNE DO TONKA WENTUOtS LLC TIMKOrVEimiOES LLC 7740 POANC e S^VE S OHi EDXNA NN SMSS a POOP ADDO ONNEO NANE TAXPAYEO NANE/ADDO li^^-llT-ESJMriiii oS ADDOESS UNASSXCNED Si •••Si TONKA VENT^S LLC TONKA-VENTMtES LLC mi POANCf AVE S 077A tiks NN SSiS^ Si 17-117-2S Si iOSO •S7ii NOOTNEON AVE N T CAOL i J K JANES N T CAOL i J K JANES S7ii NOOTNEON AVE NAYZATA NN SSSVl Si 17-117-2S Si OiSl •S740 NOOTNEON AVE J 0 QUAN i J E QUAN JONN 0 OUAN S74i NOOTNEON AVE NAYZATA NN SSSil Si 17-117-23 Si 0052 •••Si ADDOESS PENOXNO NCLEOD CNTY OfO 00 AUTNOOXTY Si 17-117-2S Si OOiS •••Si ADDOESS nmjm LAKE NTKA NOODS ASSOC Si 17-117-23 Si OiOS •••Si ADDOESS PENDXNO LAKE NTKA NOODS ASSOC LAKE NTKA NOODS ASSOC C/O P 0 DOX iTSSS PLYNQUTN NN SS447 d k mm BATE M/tS/tt NCNNCfXH COUNTY EiOfCtTY INPOffHATXON SVSTCN mOfetTV ONNCRS LIST tCPOiT NO. PZASMOl PAK i MTCN S5i ONNiR NANC TAXPAVEt NANE/ABINI 5A 17-117-2S S4 •••§ •••SO AOMESS UNASSXCNEO TBNEA VENTUNES LLC TONKA VENTURES UC 774A PRANCE AVE S R77R EDINA NN fS4SS J7-117-25 a: •••SlK^ ADMESV" UNASSX6NED NC LEOrtN^EO RAILROAD AUTN NORTN HXLCSST PEROUS PALLS HN TAXPAYER NAHi/ADDR SO 2R-U7-ES 22 •••! •SS2S SHORELINE DR C N SHUN S S i SHITN CORTLAND SHZTN S SUSAN SHXTH 8S2S SHORELINR DR SPRINO PARR HN 5SS04 sa 20-117-2S 22 •••2 •SSSS SHORELZNE DR J I S DEDELL JAHES DAVID DEDELL . SfSS SHORELINE OR SPRINO PARK HN 5SS04 PROP ADDS ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SS 20-U7-2S 22 •••A •SOTS SHORELINE DR R D JENSEN ETAL J I S RAUSCHENDORPER SifS SHORELINE DR NAYZATA HN BSSfl SO 20-117-2S 22 •••$ •SYU SHORELINE DR Etc KRUOER KONRAD CHRISTOPHER KRUOER ASSl NANITOU RD TONKA SAY HN B5SS1 PROP AODR OVNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 2E-117-2S 22 •••7 •S04S SHORELINE DR PAUL H LARSON PAUL V LARSON S077 SHORELINR DR UAYZATA NN SSSfi SO 2S-117-2S 22 •••• •2A0S DUNVOODY AVE •RENT D VALTON ET AL ORENT D • JULIE S VALTON 2A0B DUNVOODY AVE ORONO HN SSS91 OVNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL DATCH 5SD ••••4 38 20 117 23 22 0010 2435 DUNWOODY AVE MARION 0 BEISE TRUSTEE JAMES C BEISE 2435 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 sJS 38 20 117 23 22 0012 2437 OUHMOOOY AVE MARION 0 BEISE TRUSTEE MARION 0 BEISE 2437 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 . 'w SO 24-117-2S 21 OOIO •2420 DUNVOODY AVE CALVARY HEHORXAL CHURCH CALVARY HENORZAL CHURCH 2424 DUNVOODY AVE VAY2ATA HN US91 SO 20-117-2S 22 OOSS •S905 SHORELZNE DR RICHARD ADOLPH CARLSON RICHARD A CARLSON S905 SHORELINE DR NAVARRE HN SSSY2 S8 2S-117-2S 22 •••• •S077 SHORELINE DR T H OREOORY t T A OREOORY T N OREOORY S T A S077 SHORELZNE DR NAYZATA HN SSSYl (\ <1 SO 2S-117-2S 22 •••• •2425 DUNVOODY AVE V P VITHERS • L A SAHNA VZLLZAH P VITHERS 2425 DUNVOODY AVE VAYZATA HN 55S91 ! 38 20 117 23 22 0011 2445 DUNWOODY AVE A B NELSON ETAL ALVIN B NELSON 2445 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 >^3 iiA *■ -s . > i. . /. iUN UTt M/IS/it MTOI SSt NENNEPn COIMTV ftOfttTY INFOMAnQil SVSTDf PROfCtTV ONNCtS LIST tEPQST m. mu4n PAW f , 9 1 Cftnrv THAT THE PACTS RCPtCSflfTEO AW AN ACCUtATC AND TtUC WfWSENTATlON OP INPORHATION AS XT APfCAtS THIS DATE ON TNE WCOWS OP TNE NENNEPIN COUNTY DEPAtTMDIT OP OP NY ENOULEOW AND DEiXEP DATE PAtTNENT OP PtOWETY TAXATION, TO TNE DEST F. /T ¥ ao Complete Date: 60 Day Deadliae: 4/17/02 8/15/02 JUL ? 2 2002 request for council action Cl 1 y ur UHONO DATE: July 17,2002 ITEM NO.: (f Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Variances List of Exhibits A Breakdown of Hardcover (per Staff Recommendation) B C D E F Resolution Site Plan Elevation Views Floor Plans Planning Commission Minutes (May 20,2002) Application Review from the property. The following variances are required: 1.Lot Area: To permit construction of a new house on a 10,048 s.f. (0.23 acre) lot where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) is required. I.ot Width: To permit new construction on a lot 50’ in width where 100 ’ is required.4. 3.Hardcover: To permit total hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to e.xceed 25%. Total proposed hardcover is per the staff recommendation is 2,285 s.f. (33.9%). Planning Commission Recom mendation By a vote of 7 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended upprova! of the application to airove variances to lot area, lot width, and hardcover, subject to the following conditions: 1.The eaves and overhangs not encroach closer than 8.5’ to the side property lines. ’I i 0 #02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Pj|ye2of2 ------------- 2.Final elevations shall be shown on the final site plan to be submitted with the Building Permit application. Staff Recommendatioil Staff recommends approval of the variances per the revised plans, submitted on July 15, 2002. The revised plans were received the day of the Planning Commission meeting. After further review of the site plan staff has modified the recommendation which differs slightly from the Planning Commission recommendation. The site plan does not show a sidewalk to connect the driveway to the west side entrance of the house. To not increase hardcover afld allow a sidewalk, staff is recommending the paved width of the driveway be reduced to 20 ’ and that hardcover would then be “traded’’ for a 2 ’ X 30 ’ sidewalk to connect the driveway to the west-side entrance of the house. fy/iy 20 ’ for the maximum driveway width? Section 6.05, Subdivsion 9 of the Orono Municipal Code states “residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line.” 20 ’ is the maximum width the driveway can be from the edge of pavement at Birch Lane to the property line. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the variances listed on page I of the Council memo. The resolution approves only a 20 ’ wide driveway and further approves the 60 s.f. sidewalk to the west-side entrance. '1 i r Council Exhibit B A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10J5, SUBDIVISION 6 (B); AND SUBDIVISION 16 (L) 2 FILE NO. 02-2786 WHEREAS, Johnathon R. Jones, (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3490 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 3, Baldur Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant revised the application and submitted a new plan on July 15,2002 requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section I0.S6, Subdivision 16 (L) 2 to permit hardcover greater than 2S% in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback where 1,687 s.f. (25%) is allowed, and variances to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit redevelopment of the property less than the minimum lot size and lot width for the zoning district; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 20,2002 and was continued to June, 17,2002 and July 15,2002, 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 #02-2786. Page I of 6 .. irrful.-.i I ii II I 11 III I luufc mi ■ I ihMufhii II ill 11 .i 2. 3. 4. 5. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential Zoning District where '/z acre is the minimum lot size and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. The property is 10,048 s.f. (0.23 acre) in area and is 50 ’ in width. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the follow ing findings and hardships: A. 1 he lot was platted prior to current zoning standards. B. The property has been developed as a residential site. Hennepin County tax records estimate a construction year of 1900. C. The property is scr\cd by sanitary sewer. D. Redevelopment the property as residential is consistent with the zoning district and with the development of the surrounding properties. E. The lot has demonstrated a suitable building site. F.The amount of hardcover proposed is the minimum amount of hardcover required to seiA C a house w ith a 1.500 s.f. foundation and provide a suitable drive wav. The City has approved a number of variances to lot area and width for the lots in the general area since most lots are non-conforming. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely afl'ect 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 necessar)’ to preser\ e a substantial property right of the applicants; and w ould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS* ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 2 to permit 2,285 s.f. (33.9%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 1,687.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and approves variances to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on a property with a lot size of 10,048 s.f. (0.23 acre) where '/j acre is required and with a lot width of 50’ where a 100’ width is required, subject to the following conditions: 1.Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. Final plans include providing a new survey indicating all existing and proposed grade levels as well as all proposed site changes. 2.The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit A. 3.Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 22,2003). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned owner has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of6 f Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicants STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 200 ____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 ■5-v:. ■ . 1 is j STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN . On this day of .. 20. personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation witness ,a credible and who executed the foregoing instrui.ient, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of ( Exhibit A Page 6 of 6 Council Exhibit ^cdOi • •• ••• -• Council Exhibit D 1 I \i\l M . g||iMnwi^ yo^mieq ! i I ^i! A i•.; H : mr :;IIJ!1!1J1JII;ijff .* ■; ■ ’ i rr:^ i'jlirnti|iiKliiiiy" nBiiiiHiimm inim i I Lyii t I i i Cn- f i rr 4- L i.i—tit * f' i!*i' ►i-T * III •STtl f’■■’ 1 J* I ^rl n r4K^ cJ^ } s i,~tW Ucdh S^ofe, iy' •X)~(t 1 , 1 i -------^ 1> h o\ 0.h \(0 J ‘t'V' '-p : - i*''' BuU-Pfc| vSPc:hP4s ¥ r> •ir1^ \i i \‘ Oe n M *n ri ()* '>T -v^i P II f i~ 0_ ti-c" 0 1^'-C Sio". iti-t"_____^r^^zzzi -----------------------------------------------------,1 Council Exhibit F MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM>HSSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02-2769 MARK AND PAIVIELA PALM, Continued) Rahn noted that if the garage is turned it still barely fits the setback requirements. He suggested building a similar garage of no more than 750 s.f. which then could be granted S’ setback variances. He maintained that many design options seem to be available. Again, Rahn stated that he could support five- foot setbacks if the mass of the building was not enlarged. Hawn indicated she would not approve the requested setback variance and suggested Mr. Palm design something that meets the standards of the Commission as put forth, and returns with that for approval. She asked hirr if the matter should be tabled at this time. Palm pointed out that several suggestions are simply too expensive and what the Commission has suggested is no larger than the current 24’x30 ’ structure. He indicated he would work with reducing the proposed garage to 750 s.f. and move to at least 5 feet from the property line. Hawo moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #02-2769, Mark and Pamela Palm, 1447 Park Drive, at the applicants request in order to allow them time to redesign the garage plan. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #02-2786 JOHN R. JO.NES, 3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARI ANCES 7:41 - 8:28 p.m. John R. Jones and Charlotte Lipa, Applicants, were present. Weinberger explained that the applicant had submitted the application on April 17,2002, for variances to permit redevelopment of the property. Since that time, the applicant has worked towards reducing the number of variances and setback encroachments. Weinberger pointed out that revised plans submitted to the City of Orono on May 16th still do require variances, but have gone a long way towards reducing vanances. The revi. .*d plans have proposed a single house with a 1st level tuck under style garage with access to Birch Lane. Weinberger stated that the layout is consistent with the development of the neighborhood and the required variances now include: Lot Area, Lot Width, Hardcover, and Building Height. While Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the first three variances, the building height permit to permit a full three story on the house is inconsistent to the zoning code. Weinberger stated that the zoning code allows a maximum building height of 30 ’ or 2 1/2 stories, whichever is less, and not three stories. The 2 1/2 story height restriction allows for a typical 2 story house with an attic above, not typically used for living space. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNHSSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN JONES, Continued) Since this lot is only 3-4’ above the lake elevation, there cannot be a basement. The building height miance is being requested to allow for additional living space. Weinberger pointed out that the entire building does not exceed 30’ in overall height. Weinberger continued that staff recommends denial of the application based on the variance requested for building height. He stated that granting of a variance to height would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance, would set a precedent for other lots with similar characteristics by allowing a three story house, and no hardship has been demonstrated to allow* a third level in the house. Weinberger added that staff would be willing to support a scenario of a building that would be constructed within the site plan and not exceeding 2 1/2 stories based on six factors he identified in his report. Mr. Jones stated that he has made an effort to meet every setback requirement and is unclear what constitutes a 2 1/2 story building. He asked for a clear definition of a 2 1/2 story building and how it has bearing on his plans since he has met the 30’ height requirement. There were no public comments. Rahn felt the plan shows a three story home. Mr. Jones maintained that the lower third level is mostly taken up by tuck under garage with one room. He asked once again for definition of the half story. He believed that his ph.ns could be designed around this concept if he could be clear what encompassed the half story. Rahn stated that his vision of a half story is the attic space of a home with knee vails allowing only approximately half of the floor area of a second story. Kluth reiterated that the Commission does not have issue with the height itself, but ti e third story. Mr. Jones asked for clarification in reference to the half story, questioning if what is allowed constitutes S0% of the floor area of a first or second floor. Gaffron handed out a general definition, from the Illustrated Book of Dex elopment Definitions, which defines the half story concept as floor area that is at least 40% of other floor level areas. He noted the City has not formally adopted a definition of’half story’. Kluth stated a basement would not be considered a half story, however, an attic is considered a half story. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM>HSSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (1102-2786 JOHN JONTS, Continued) Mr. Jones once again asked for clarification on this point. He asked, if the Commission could agree that 40% of the third level, or half story, was less than the defined five feet, could he take that back to his architect to complete his plans and move his application forward for approval. Betsy Nusbaum, 3480 North Shore Drive, neighboring property owner, stated that if the Commission took the time to look around the lake area, they would clearly see that many homes have a usable third story, or half story. She asked the Commission to determine what it will take in order for them to work with Mr. Jones so that he can meet both the height and story requirements. Mr. Jones asked for further definition of a basement or walkout. Gaffron pointed out that a walkout basement is defined as such, rather than as a story, if 50% or more of its walls are covered by dirt, and not built up artificially from existing grade. The measurement is taken from the pre-existing grade of the property. Ms. Nusbaum maintained that there seems to be too much c^y area and not enough definition. She pointed out that many lots on the lake are and will be non conforming no matter what you do; however, people need to be able to work with what they have. Approximately five years ago, she stated that her family went through the same process that Mr. Jones is having to endure. At that time, she had hoped improvement in the process would have occurred in order for people to avoid having to repeat the same steps over and over again. She asked whether there are no more definitions available to the public than there were five years ago. Hawn questioned whether it would be possible to permit certain exceptions, after determining certain circumstances exist, which would allow for certain things. Kluth commented that this could be precedent setting, since this case docs not follow the letter of the zoning code. Hawn voiced her concern over the mass that might exist by allowing three story castles to overrun the area. Mr. Jones maintained that while what he proposes is by no means a castle, they have tried to stay within the zoning code and even worked in a tuck under garage which uses up much of their valuable space. Rahn stated that the Commission is obviously having a difficult time giving Mr. Jones guidance on this matter. TThe Commission views this building as a three story dwelling which they cannot support. PAGE 9 II s : MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNHSSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN JONES, Continued) Mr. Jones stated that he could go back to the architect and have a two level home designed, with living space on the third or half story hipped roof level, if the Commission could support that. He reiterated the need to have confirmation that if he could design a house with approximately 40% of the area S feet high or less that the design would be acceptable. Hawn asked the Commissioners their opinion if the home were designed to the exact specifications as in the definition, would that be acceptable. Weinberger questioned whether the City wants to encourage people to finish the half story area off as usable living space. Hawn questioned why that mattered if it was finished or not. Bremer had no problem or issue with allowing people to use this space and believed many already do. Hawn asked Mr. Jones if he were comfortable with this definition. Mr. Jones stated that he found this definition acceptable. Gaffron reiterated that this will operate as a functional definition for the half story, relative to a 2 1/2 story home, if everyone concurred. Weinberger felt he could accept this working definition and was comfortable with the discussion that led up io it. Once Mr. Jones returns to his architect, he can come back for approval on June 17,2002, and finally present to Council on June 24,2002, if all is approved. This schedule will only delay the project by two weeks. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #02-2786, John R. Jones, 3490 North Shore Drive, at the applicant’s request for purposes of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #02-2790 GRETCHEN SHAW, 1750 SHADVWOOD ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT RENEWAL VARIANCES 8:29 - 8:33 p.m. Weinberger explained that the applicant requested an after-the-fact renewal of variances previously approved on April 12,1999. The variances of 1999 allowed the property owners to add a second story addition to the house located within 75’ of the lakeshore and permitted the addition of an attached garage. The property currently does not contain a garage. PAGE 10 Complete Date: 7/1/02 Application Deadline: S/31/02 JUL ? 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 17,2002 ITEM NO -7 Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:/^02-279IDavid and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Variances List of Exhibits A Site Plan/Hardcover Removals B Resolution C Planning Report Application Summary The property owners have applied for variances to permit construction of a 24’ X 24’ attached garage. The garage addition includes an enclosed walkway that is intended to attach the proposed garage to the house. The new additions require variances to permit new structure and hardcover within 75 ’ of the lakeshore and additional hardcover within the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback. The garage is proposed to have a second story “bonus room” including adding two dormer w indows on the north side of the e.xisting roof. A detached garage was constructed in 1998 that is proposed to remain on the property. Variances Requested: I. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd 2 16 (L): To permit hardcover as follows: Total Existing Hardcover = 2.61 1 s.f. which is greater than the 2,371 s.f that was approved with the 1998 variance. Proposed = 3.477 s.f. 0-75 ’ Setback Existing = 1,316 s.f. (19.5%) Proposed = 1,314 s.f. (19.5%) 75-250 ’ SetKick E.\isting= 1.295 s.f. (16%) Proposed = 2,003 s.f. (25.3%) #02*2791 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Page 2 of 3 ______________ 2.Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit new structure to be constructed within 75’ of the lakeshore. The new structure would be an enclosed walkway between the existing house and garage. Previous Variance Appiications for Rahn: #2248 M997) - Variances were approved to permit additions to the existing cabin 5.3 ’ to the property line. The variances also allowed an increase to the hardcover of 71 1 s.f. within 75’ of the lake. The entire cabin and additions are located within the 75’ setback. Two primary factors considered were the existing location of the cabin was entirely within the 75’ lakeshore setback, and there was a finding made at that time that a large portion of the center of the property was within the floodplain. The approval motion on July 14, 1997 had the requirement that no additional hardcover ever be allowed in the 0-75’ setback and the amount of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area shall be subtracted from any hardcover allowed in the 75-250’ setback. #2390 11998 1 - Variances were approved allowing additional hardcover on the property to construct a 20’ X 20’ detached garage at street level. The variance approval was to allow a total of 2,371.75 s.f. of hardcover on the property. It was the majority opinion of the Council that the issue of a garage addition should have been considered in 1997. 25% of the 75-250’ lakeshore setback is equal to 1,978.25 s.f. The variance approved total hardcover of 29.9% of the 75-250’ setback. In October, 1998 (after final review of the variance applications) Jim Hafner, District Technician for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, visited the site and made a finding that the area on the property below the 931.5 ’ elevation was, in fact, not directly connected to the 100 year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. This distinction is important because further development of the property was restricted because it was thought that there was a floodplain on the property. While the City of Orono would prefer to have any future development on the higher ground, devc' 'pment would not be restricted from the low area on the property that is not part of the 100 year floodplain. City staff had requested Mr. Rahn complete a new survey to measure the entire area on his and neighboring properties to determine if the entire low area on the property was not directly connected to the lake floodplain. The survey completed by Mark S. Gronberg, Gronberg & Ass^., Inc. dated 7-1-02, demonstrates the 931.5 ’ contour (low area on the property) is not part of the 100 year floodplain. Planning Commission Recommendation By a vote of 7 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application to approve variances to hardcover and lakeshore setback, subject to the following conditions: I.The driveway to the existing garage shall be removed, except a 4 ’ approach shall be allowed to remain at the garage entrance. The stairwell and concrete walk to the house shall be removed. 1 i I #02-2791 David and Jodi Rahn I38S Rest Point Road Page 3 of 3 ______________ 3.The Planning Commission has determined this property is fully developed. Any further requests to add any hardcover or structure to the property will not be looked upon favorably by the City. 4.Final elevations shall be shown on the final site plan/survcy to be submitted with the Building Permit application. Staff Recommeadatlon Because the intent of prior approvals in 1997 and 1998 was to approve only limited hardcover on the site, it should be noted that the current proposal is a net increase in overall hardcover of 866 s.f. over that which exists, and 1106 s.f. over that which was allowed by previous approvals. If the 0-7S' hardcover is attributed to the 75-250' zone allotment as those prior approvals intended, this application is essentially an increase from 2371 s.f. or 30.0 % of the 75-250' zone, to 3317 s.f. or 41.9% after the removals recommended by Planning Commission, where only 25% is normally allowed. Remember that this house was virtually a total rebuild in 1997. Applicant noted that the current garage approved by variances in 1998 creates an unsafe winter access to his residence due to the steep walkways and long distance from the house. Planning Commission and staff agree that an attached garage is a reasonable solution to this problem. However, for reasons unclear to staff. Planning Commission did not require that the existing detached garage be removed in order to keep hardcover on the site at a minimal level. It is staffs position that even though the proposal results in total lot coverage just under 15%, the hardcover increases are excessive. Staff recommends approval of the variances for the new additions per Planning Commission’s recommendation, but given the history of this property, questions whether there is a valid hardship for allowing the existing 400 s.f. garage and 80 s.f of apron to remain. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to for one of the following; I. Adopt the attached resolution (reflecting Planning Commission recommendation); OR 2. Amend the resolution to require removal of the existing detached garage and apron. ! r Council Exhibit —III i r Council Exhibit B A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L); AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 FILE NO. 02-2791 WHEREAS, David Rahn and Jodi Rahn, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1385 Rest Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legdiy described as follows: Attached “Exhibit A” (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an application requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 1,314 s.f.( 19.5%) hardcover in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback, where 1,316 s.f. (19.5%) exists, and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 2,003 s.f. (25.3%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, where 1.295 s.f. (16%) exists and 1,978 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and variances to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit an addition to the existing house 70' from the lakeshore w here a 75’ setback is required; additions to the existing residence include a 24’ X 24’ attached garage and enclosed walkway; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2791 . 2. The property is located in the LR-1B, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning Page I of7 1 H t i : I * J I 3. 4. District where I acre is the minimum lot size and 140 feet is the minimum lot width. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of? to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A. The lot was platted prior to current zoning standards. B.Continued use of the property as residential is consistent with the zoning district and with the development of the surrounding properties. C.The City of Orono had approved variances in 1997 and 1998 to allow complete remodeling and additions to the existing cabin on the property, and approved variances to permit construction of the existing detached garage. D.The restrictions placed on the existing garage has created a very unsafe situation as vehicles backing out of the driveway are blinded from view to oncoming tralTic. Rest Point Road is a very narrow road that has a steep hill immediately west of Rahn’s driveway. E.In October, 1998 (after final review of the 1997 and 1998 variance applications) Jim Hafner, District Technician for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, visited the site and made a finding that the area on the property below the 931.5’ elevation was, in fact, not directly connected to the 100 year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Prior to that the area was believed to be protected and development had occurred around that portion of the property. F.The driveway access to the existing garage would be removed to eliminate a second driveway access to the property. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances w ill not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 7 V ____ r S. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare .of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 1,314 s.f. (19.5%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback, where 1,316 s.f. (19.5%) e.xists, and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 2,003 s.f (25.3%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback, where 1,295 s.f (16%) exists and 1,978 s.f (25%) is allowed: and variances to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit an addition to the existing house 70' from the lakeshore where a 75' setback is required; additions to the existing residence include a 24' X 24' attached garage and enclosed walkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. Final plans include providing a new survey indicating all existing and proposed grade levels as well as all proposed site changes. 2. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit B, including removal of all hardcover as noted on the site plan. 3. Final hardcover for this property is approved at 1,314 s.f within the 0-75' lakeshore setback and 2,003 s.f for the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback. It is the intent of this Council that any request adding hardcover or converting non-structural hardcover to structural hardcover would not be looked upon favorably. 4. Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 22, 2003). 5. Violation ofor non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. I'he undersigned owTiers have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this Page 3 of? resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. AITEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicants STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 ____________, 200 ____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20. personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose idcntit) I proved on the oath/afTirmation witness .a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY 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 whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation witness .a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/shc/they executed the same as his/her/lheir free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of? Exhibit A lES:LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PR____ Southerly of the folowing-deecribed iS S<^eoelerly Bne of soldLot 15, distant 75 feet j^theoeterly from the Southeost- ,®^ *®^** *-®^ 23; thence Northwesteriy to the ^ut^oeterly conwr of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly » #j I Page 6 of 7 i r Exhibit B h Page 7 of? -.1 } d Council ExhibitShit ^ Complete Date: Deadline: 7/1/02 8/31/02 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:July II, 2002 SUBJECT:#02*2791 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Variances List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R Application Plat Map Letter of Application Site Photo Proposed Building Elevation Views Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Site Topography Property Owners Notification List MCWD Letter (Jim Hafner- 1998) Planning Commission Minutes (June 16,1997) City Council Minutes (June 23,1997) City Council Minutes (June 14,1997) Resolution No. 3926 (1997 Approval) Planning Commission Minutes (July 20,1998) City Council Minutes (July 27,1998) City Council Minutes (August 24,1998) Resolution No. 4144 (1998 Approval) Proposed Site Survey Application Summary: The propert>' owners have applied for variances to permit construction of a 24’ X 24’ attached garage and walkway that would connect the new garage to the e.xisting house. The new additions require variances to permit new structure and hardcover within 75’ of the lakeshore. The garage is proposed to have a second stoiy “bonus room" including adding two dormer windows on the north side of the e.xisting roof. A garage was constructed in 1998 that is proposed to remain on the property. If the 1998 garage remains on the property the total lot coverage would exceed 15% of the lot area. To accommodate all the new hardcover a sidewalk between the existing garage and house would be i02-279l David and Jodi Rohn 1315 Rest Point Road Page I of5 I MiCTlli ifea, M nniTim r removed along with the driveway access to the garage. Previous Variance Applications for Rahn: #2248 H997) - Variances were approved to permit additions to die existing cabin 5.3 ’ to the property line. The variances also allowed an increase to the hardcover of 71 1 s.f within 75’ of the lake. The entire cabin and additions are located within the 75’ setback. Two primary factors considered were the existing location of the cabin was entirely within the 75’ lakeshore setback, and there was a finding made at that time that a large portion of the center of the property was within the floodplain. The approval motion on July 14,1997 had the requirement that no additional hardcover ever be allowed in the 0*75 ’ setback and the amount of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area shall be subtracted from any hardcover allowed in the 75-250’ setback. #2390(19981 - Variances were approved allowing additional hardcover on the property to construct a 20’ X 20’ detached garage at street level. The variance approval was to allow a total of 2,371.75 s.f. of hardcover on the property. It was the majority opinion of the Council that the issue of a garage addition should have bMn considered in 1997. 25% of the 75-250’ lakeshore setback is equal to 1,978.25 s.f. The variance approved total hardcover of 29.9% of the 75-250’ setback. In October, 1998 (after final review of the variance applications) Jim Hafner, District Technician for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, visited the site and made a finding that the area on the property below the 931.5 ’ elevation was, in fact, not directly connected to the 100 year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. While the City of Orono would prefer to have any future development on the higher ground, development would not be restricted from the low area on the property that is not part of the 1 00 year floodplain. City staffhad requested Mr. Rahn complete a new survey to measure the entire area on his and neighboring properties to determine if the entire low area on the property was not directly- connected to the lake floodplain. The sur\ey completed by Mark S. Gronberg, Gronberg & Assoc., Inc. dated 7-1-02, demonstrates the 931.5 ’ contour (low area on the property) is not part of the 100 year floodplain. «02-279l DwidMdIodlUm 1315 Rest Mm Roid Pifc2or5 Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section I0.S6, Subd 2 16 (L): Additional hardcover on the property in excess of 25% of the 75-250 ’ Setback. Total Existing Hardcover = 2.611 s.f. which is greater than the 2,371 s.f. that was approved with the 1998 variance. Proposed = 3.477 s.f. 0-75 ’ Setback Existing = 1,316 s.f.( 19.5%) Proposed =1,314 s.f. (19.5%) 75-250 ’ Setback Existing = 1,295 s.f. (16%) Proposed = 2,163 s.f. (27%) 2.Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit new structure to be constructed within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The new structure would be an enclosed walkway between the existing house and garage. 3.Lot Coverage by Structure is proposed at a level of2,334.2 s.f. This total includes all decks, the existing house, existing garage, and proposed additions. Based on the calculations provided by the applicant the total lot coverage by structure would be 15.9%. To get the total coverage down to a level to not exceed 15% the total structure required to be removed is 134 s.f. The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding the status of existing structural lot coverage. Applicants Statement of Hardship Applicant’s Statement of Hardship is attached as Exhibit A. To summarize, Mr. Rahn has stated the restrictions placed on the garage has created a very unsafe situation as vehicles backing out of the driveway are blinded from view to oncoming traffic. Rest Point Road is a very narrow road that has a steep hill immediately west of Rahn’s driveway. Review Staff has determined the total lot coverage by structure is over 15% which is too much structure on the property.' The total structure should be reduced. Mr. Rahn has stated he believes the actual structure is less due to some removals that would be required to make room for a walkwuy betw een the house and new garage. The primary issue to discuss is the previous actions by the Council in 1997 and 1998 that established parameters for new construction on the property. Two conditions on the site have changed since the 1997 and 1998 variance approvals that may have had some impact on what was approved at that time. 1) The area located in the “bowl” on the M3-279I [tavidindiodiiUhn 1315 Rest Point R(Md Pigc3or5 property was detemiined to not be part of the 1 00 year floodplain for Lake Minnetonka, and 2) there was some discussion in the minutes related to the total allowed lot coverage by structure being 1 ,500 s.f. This lot is allowed 2,199 s.f. of structure. (Lot Size of 14.663 s.f. X .15) = 2.199 s.f. Other Approvals in the Rest Point Road Neighborhood 1354 Rest Point Road (1999) - Received afler-the-fact variances to permit a 195 s.f. deck on the property. 1366 Rest Point Road (2000) - Received variances for an addition of a sun porch. The approval was subject to an equal replacement of existing hardcover. 1386 Rest Point Road (2002) - Variances were approved to permit construction of a residential addition up to 15% of the lot area of the property. Such approval required an equal removal of existing hardcover on the property. 1392 Rest Point Road (1995) - Variances were approved for residential additions equaling 19.9% structural lot coverage and approved variances to allow additional hardcover on the property. Total hardcover on the property is equal to 31.4% of the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone where 25% is allowed. 1405 Rest Point Road (2000) - Variances were approved that allowed new construction of a house on the property up to 15% of the lot area. The house was constructed 34 ’ from the lakeshore due to the general shape of the lot and the location of a City operated lift station. Total hardcover on the property is equal to 76.9% of the lot area in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback zone, (this lot has only 3,731 s.f. in the 75-250’ setback). Staff Recomnendhtion: Staff recommends the proposed lot coverage be limited to 15% of the lot area. Staff agrees the existing garage is not the safest access to the property. Planning Commission should also review the previous actions by the Council. Meeting minutes and Resolutions are attached for your review. Discussion Items: 1 . Planning Commission should consider conditions and discussion regarding two previous variance approvals for Rahn. 2. Does the Planning Commission agree that the existing garage access is not the best location for a driveway on the property? 3. Does the determination that the area below the 931.5 ’ elevation is not part of the 100 year flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka change how the Planning Commission considers new development on this property? 4. Does this property have a valid hardship to allow further development? *02-279 1 David and Jodi Rilin 13S5 Rest Point Road pj^e 4 of 5 L S. If a new garage is allowed t<^ constructed on the property should the garage (labeled shed on the survey) be removed from the property? Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Odier action. •02-2791 DtvidwdlodilUliii 1315 Rot PotainoMl Pife5or5 A / CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confoiming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application Date Received 5»1Q-PZ. Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORNUTION . /o , i ^ / Site Address ro«klT Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 07~/i7-»‘Z^ 3~3 0^11 licatmn if Date Propei^fc^cquiied______ vn the ^acent parcels of land. U'^idential other Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date I I (do) I Also own .(month/year) Present use of property Zoning District: ^ fS other (specify). APPLICANT s. J t Name Phone (home) Address: ^ City: <r>ro^o Phone (work) ^^*7 3 Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ Estimated Cons^ction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ^ Vuesenoe requcsi UI wiou. <— v x. Jf i f Por/^ey (ys) O"^ (attach additional sheets it necessary)<<gy^ ' VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual proper^ conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 5Ce?^- ^ ________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #27 Q- Jn County Taxpayer Service»;i:^gi^M^nt M. OH- ^ V\ I adL Parcel Information Parc«l ID 0711723330011^i i House Number 1388 StTMt Nam* REST POINTiRD^^]^ •52sr*^*§grsss:issjLT^^ To: Orono Staff, Planning Commissioners, Mayor and City Council This variance application is to construct an attached, 24x24 garage to the east side of our existing home. It will meet all setbacks and be under the allowed structural coverage of 1 S%. The current detached garage was built in 1998. The r straints applied to this garage have m;>de it both impractical and unsafe. We cunently back out onto a one lane street, in the middle of a steep incline. We are completely blinded to on coming traffic by a 7' tall fence to the north. These conditions have caused many near misses, and will undoubtably cause an accident someday. An even more dangerous component of the current garage however, is the full flight of exterior stairs. Our lot rises in elevation as it nears the street, requiring the stairs. We have had many minor incidents on these stairs involving friends and family members. Most recently, my Mother-in-Law fell down the stairs while visiting us on Easter Sunday. An ambulance was called and we feel fortunate that she wasn’t more seriously injured than she was. There have been times over the past winters that we have had to just "close" the stairway because of ice and snow. This then leave us only the street as a path of travel to our home. The proposed garage will resolve these safely issues. It will also resolve another problem, space. Our current home has no basement due to the water table. This causes much of our 940 square foot first floor to be used up by uiility/storage rooms. The second floor is mostly bedrooms. Included in this request is to have a "bonus room" above the proposed attached garage and add two dormers on the north side of the e.xisting roof. The current walkway between the house and existing garage will be removed along with the stairway and approximately one half of the current asphalt driveway. It is my understanding that the only variance required for this project will be for "hardcover". WTren visiting the site, you will see that the lot is "soupbowl" shaped. This will allow the majority of the runoff to dissipate throughout the low lying sandy soils and severely lesson the impact of additional hardcover. It is my hope, that because of the unique elevation of this lot, a..d the necessity to resolve the safety issues, that this application will be considered in a fair and reasonable manner. Sincerely, Dave Rahn 952-472-5796 Home Days 612-508-7803 Cell E-mail drahn1?ci.minnetonka.mn.us O <1 • i A*’*/ n y • I r > N /1 <%: iV V : ^ i* fe. "im i«IMi P?1^■r'J ■ Wm^m ■^dr. P'-r* lSfl5.?K»r?5?51 . £fl •^ITC-A - 'A* /l^o i^Ldit^/. 7*^ ^ 'T'^ ' V'< ‘ * .* rtr^ > m /• V '0»‘. ^M ’ ¥ ' - ^ »v.«** ,.r. . ,:j^tc E^ 1 ► HA. vCOVERCALCUL SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) d-75’(is-isvj ORK EET 2S0-S00*SOO-1000*FI ryiSTlNG HAR A. House \U IN ZONE Ltofth Width B. Garate C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Uoderiain By Plastic G. Od^ A X X X X X X X X X X X X 12^ IL Clcf f vzlTZ. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL »OPERTY AREA IN ZONE _____ ♦ B >3 + B X 100 X 100 PROPOS>-*n hardco ver in ZONE A. House X X X Width *2.0B. Garage C- Driveway JO- - ^ ^ >Mfw %b. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Uoderiain , By Plastic C. Other / TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PR0PER1Y AREA IN ZONE _ ■Z.U3 * B 7>/? 'tJ^/ V ■?»77 9o 3vy-? 7fV3 X 100 V<co •7Z. 3o Z//^- 7y/Z SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. Sf. S.F. Sf. S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. S.F. SJ. SJ. A SJ. B X Z<pz. ^ X zv •Z Vo X Soo /ro X 3i:»sea X - X X « X X • X X (lorwts "7Z- __ S.F. T-J I SJ. SI. SI. SI. S.F. SJ. •• S.F. ‘ SI. % S.F. S.F. SI. SI SI. SI. S.F. A S.F. B % 99 % Yy ) HA >COVE SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLK ONE) ULATIONWORK ^ET 75-2S0'ItsO-SOO’SOO-1000'fl :i ki I iw UtiiVi A.House £fjh^ B.Gange C.Driveway D.SMcwaOc R IN ZONE Lmgdi -I-X X X Width X X X X E Jtati«/Deck _ Oftf _JV«-A _ F. Lar.dsc«pe _ ImdcrUin _ By Plaadc __ X X X X X O. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B /T7^o ________ + B PROPOSF.n HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ^2^. ? Len4.*h 5? Wi«h ^ B. Garage X X X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. -IMzi/Dcck n X X X Xs. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ixit/.x ♦ B xr7<^D X 100 X too X 100 • •SJ. ■I SJ. m </%S.F. m ST. m SF. m i SF. m SF. m Jfi SF. m SF. m 72_SF. m — SF. m SF. m S.F. m •SF. •SF. iZiLx,SF.A m SF.B m /T-V? m ’% m ^4.Z.S.F. m IZK S.F. m SF.i B 7.3 SF.X B 1 1C/1•f • f• B S.F.N• B SF. m SF. m SF. ^ 2-rv m 72 SF. m no SF.r V- m SF. •m SF.C>.-' B S.F. •SF. /iZ./V.'Z-SF.A SF.B •/<y.vz:% . •(• $ • I Y''lon RUN DATE t5/El/A2 DATCH 5AA PROf ADDR OMNER NANI TAXPAYER HAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NANI TAXPAYER PROP ADDR OWNER NANI TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAItt/ADDR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SY3TEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. Pl%S54tl PACE 17 36 67-117-23 32 6662 tlSAi REST POINT LA J H HOUTNAN I K J HOUTNAN J N HOUTNAN I X J HOUTNAN 13^6 REST POINT LA NOUND HN 553M 36 67-117-23 32 6637 6137S REST POINT RO N i i L K CERLICHER HXCHAEL i I LYNNE CERLICHER 137S REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55364 36 67-117-23 32 6636 61373 REST POINT RO K E ANDERSON 6 A K KRANER KIRK ANDERSON 1373 REST POINT RD NOUND NN 55364 36 67-117-23 32 6634 61356 REST POINT RO LAS CRARILL LARRY A SHARON CRARILL 1356 REST POINT RD NOUND HN 55364 36 67-117-23 32 6661 61371 REST POINT LA KENNETH tf A RENEE C ECCERT KENNETH W A RENEE 6 ECCERT 1371 REST POINT LA HOUMI HN 55364 3A 67-117-23 33 6662 61466 REST POINT RO LILLIAN D WILLIANS LILLIAN D WILLIANS 1466 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55364 rH Q 36 67-117-23 33 6664 61346 REST POINT RD L K JOHNSON A C R JOHNSON LYLE K JOHNSON 2737 IRVINC AVE SO NPLS HN 55466 36 67-117-23 33 6665 61346 REST POINT RD PAN WALSH PATRICK J WALSH 1346 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55364 36 67-117-23 33 6666 61366 REST POINT RO J T NYCARD A K N NYCARD J T NYCARD A K N NYCAIOI 1366 REST POINT RO HOUND HN 55364 36 67-117-23 33 6667 61366 REST POINT RD C J LARSEN A S R LARSEN STEPHANIE R A CRECC J LARSEN 1366 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55364 36 67-117-23 33 6611 61365 REST POINT RD D W A J L RAHN DAVID W A JODI L RAHN 1365 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55364 36 67-117-23 33 6612 61374 REST POINT RO C R RLOOH A T A RLOOH CEORCE R A THERESA A RLOOH 1374 REST '*OINT RO HOUND HN 55364 36 67-117-23 33 6613 61465 REST POINT RD C CAVEIOCR A R CAVENOER C CAVENOER A R.CAVENOER 1465 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55364 TOTAL RATCH 566 66613 ) I Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. IS & 19, Navarre KSail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9^ Phone: (612)471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0662 Efflaa: adminOminnehahacreek.0^ Web Site: www.minnehahacreek.org Board of fttanagers Pamela Q. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monic.‘ jross Thomas W.LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid 0 flu itQCfid MPV OBfMifl «HhI30%PMIi Minnehaha Creek r- 1 Watershed District Improving Quality ofWater, Quality of Life October 28,1998 Mr. David Rahn 138S Rest Point Road Orono, MN 55323 GCI ’ s '998 RE: Floodplain Boundary Dear Mr. Rahn: On Friday October 23,1998 you and I met on your property on Lake Minnetonka to discuss a low area in your yard below elevation 931.5. As you know, land below the •931.5 elevation and landward of the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of929.4 falls within the 100 year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. The floodplain is defined as the ateas adjoining a watercourse or water basin which may have been or hereafter may be covered by a 100 year regional flood. The characteristics of your lot and adjoining lots may present special circumstances for the low area in your yard. I observed an area of high ground that ran parallel with the lakeshore and extended across your lot as well as the adjoining lots on both sides of your lot. This berm area is approximately 20 to 25 feet in width and separates the tow area behind your house from the lake. The presence of mature trees on top of the berm indicates it has existed for many years. There does not appear to be any direct connection between your low area and the lake cither on your lot or through adjacent lots. You showed me a site survey plan of your lot that was developed prior to construction of the e.xisting house and show s a spot elevation on the berm of932.0. You further indicated that no alteration of the berm took place during the construction of the existing house. Based on the information you provided and on my observations of site characteristics, it is my opinion that the low area in your yard is not adjoining the lake and therefore not directly connected to the 100 year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Please call me at 471-6282 if you have any questions. Sincerely, District Technician Lyle Oman, City of Oronoc: 1 I minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD ON JUNE 16,1997 J (#8 - #2247 Wayne Holmes - Conlinued) max submitted to staff prior to constructton. The applicant asked if a separate permt was required for the retaining walls. Gaf&on said it would be part of the building permit approval. • « Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2248-DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 BEST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE- PUBUC HEARING 8:40-9:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Appficant was present. Van Zomeiwi reported that tha application is a proposal for construrfon of an an cabin to square off the residence and restore an exismg deck and screen The 3 acre property is located m the one acre aotnng district. The stm^e “ “ the 0-75' setback. A hardcover variance is required to increase the Imdcovw ftom 9% to 19%. Lot area and lakeshore setback variances are requir^. A condiuonal u»jj^trot for land alteration is required for any alteration or excavation in the flood plm and ^5 setback from the shoreline. Van Zomeren reviewed the topography of the prop^ noting that the shoreline contour is at the 924.9 ’elevation. The 93(y contour loUows the lakeshore: the 932' contour traverses the property, so the middle portion of the lot is considered to be in the flood plain. The concern is where the 931.5' elevation is located. The applicant said he has lived on Wildhurst Trail since 1975. He noted that the five other homes west of this property is evenly setback as proposed for tlus residence. There were no public comments. Stoddard mquired what the Watershed District's comments were. Rahn said the Watershed did not require any mitigation for the entry, deck, and screen porch as there are on post footings. Stoddard suggested relocating the structure to lessen the v^ances required Rahn said his history as a contractor and buDding oflScial relates to his desire to restore the cabin with the addition to square h off and has not coimdered relocation; more flood plain mitigation would be required, and its present location b the high^ot on me property. He would like to maintain the character of the property He noted that m order to move the structure behind the 75' setback would require use of a holding area m that setback. Stoddard noted that mitigation can occur ebewhere. • MO* ' minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16,1997 (#9 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) to grt . good .ens* future garage would be out/de the ^ ^ ® ‘'”**«‘*«* he.«d.d.35.«,b«,. Sr!rS'.‘Z!^±'“ *v ^ “"“*= Roi" Mid the stn.ctu« would be lo«tt«l ^ WM infonned that the appUcant plana on residing in this residence She asked if h, had co^dered a two-story design rather than expw.4 out. JSS' Ws^dX Smilh said she had a problem supporting a plan with doubling hardcover in the 0-75' and asked for less impact in this setback. Rahn said the current house is 600 s f. and the prop<^ IS at a minimum at 1.300 gross floor area. He noted the residence next door is at a coverage and was buUt in 1983 which has the same standards as curr^y exists He noted a lot hne rearrangement in 1961 deemed the property buildable. ^ There were no public comments at this time. Lmdquirt noted Aat buildable propei ies are allowed 15% structural coverage and the propose IS at 1328 s.f. Concern was voiced with the structure location in the 0-75' but Lindquist noted there is no other location in which the structure can be located. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2248 fora conditional use permit for iMd alteration for setback in the flood plain, hardcover at 19% lakeshore setback as existing, and side setback if necessary. ’ S(&oed« io^ if, side setback is required even though no changes are made due to tte ongin^ vmraM requued for the property. If necessary, a side yard setback variance would be included in the abov'e motion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. . MINUTES or THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEtri’ING HELD ON J UNE 23» 1997 <M0) «2247 WAYNE HOLMES, 1390 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3919 GafiBron reported ^at tbe application is a request for nde setback and ade street yard setback variances fi>r construction of a detached accessory storage building. The buil^g as inhiaDy proposed woiild be located 2.S* from the .unimproved dedicated ri^t-bf-uraiy ‘ known as Pwest Avenue. The ri^t-of-way is wooded and low land. It is a potential access for Kgbwood Park. Staff and Planiung Comnusuon agreed that the 2.S* setback was inadequate. i___ G jfEron said the appBcant has agreed to mamUtin a 10* setback ty angling the building ahdYemovii\g 2* from one ride. This would allow the large oak tree to be saved but nught result in the loss of lilac bushes. Gafiron said the 10' setback is typical of normri setbacks. There Is a IS* setback requirement for buildings of tlus size^ but he feels a 5* vaiiaxice'b appropriate in order not to impact the tree. Additional grading or retaimqg wril would be reqinied to eliminate any imp^ The api^cant has proposed buOdbag a retaining wall. GafGron said the Planning Comnusrion and Staff recommend approval of theam^edplan. . Goetten asked bow far the building would be from the oak tree. Mrs. Holmes srid thqr have reduced the building by 2’ to increase tiie separatiotL GafiBron indicated that the tree would be 10-12* from the buBdiag. Jri)bour asked if there was any reason to maintain the 60' right-of-way. GafiBron said there are no plans to improve the road, but h could be a potential park access in the future. Goetten asked that the applicants be considerate of the tree. Mr. Holmes said they will work around the root ^stem. Mrs. Holmes noted that the building is a pole bam and would be constructed on a floating riab. This should eliminate any problem for the oak tree. Tbe applicant voiced satisfaction with the resolution as presented. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3919. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. • ^ * * • . .(#ri) #2248 DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE ^ ' Mr. Rahn was present. ^ ^ < ■. . .. I-a* 'r’j MINUTES OF THE REGUIAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MJEOTNO HEmON JUNE 23,1997 (^11 • #2248 David and Jodi Rehn • Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the .3 acre property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District. The proposal is to add structure to an existing cabin located whhin the 0>75* setback. The second story would require a variance to the side yard setback which exists and b proposed at 5.3' and KV is required. Lakeshore setback variance is required. Average lak^hore setback b not an issue as the structure b located behind that line. A conditional use permit is required for land alteration in the 0-75' setback. Van Zomeren reviewed the topogrrqihy of the property. The 932' devation line "wanders" on the property. The existing structure is located at the high point of the property. The flood plain is located behind the structure requiring a CUP for any alt. ration. m m ^ The proposal b to square off the structure which encroaches the 0-75' setback. T ne hardcover in that setback would increase fiom 9% to 19%. Van Zomeren indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the side setback and hardcover variances noting that improvements are limited to an area behind the existing lakeside setback and an additional half-story. They also recommended approval of the CUP for land alteration. Goetten asked the applicant if he had considered moving the addition to the rear of the structure in order to get out of the 0-75' setback. Rahn said he met with the Watershed IMstrict. He said his design was an attempt to gain a favorable response from the Council. He indicated that moving the structure back would result in building in the 931.5' elevation which is the flood plain. The plan as presented would not require mitigation of the flood plain as the additions would be built on posts. Rahn said the plan is an attempt to restore the existing structure. He thou^t the Council would be less receptive to a plan involving alteration of the flood plain. Goetten said her concern is with doubling the hardcover in the 0-75' setback with any new construction if there are other alternatives to consider. Rahn indicated that only one-third of the new hardcover is livable space; the remainder is decking. He said he tried to keep the structure compact and only squared the structure off. The screen porch and decking is only 8' wide. Goetten asked if Rahn discussed adding to the rear of the structure with the Watershed. Rahn said he did. Ilemet with Jim Hafiier of the Watershed District. He said this recommendation is possible but would occur in the lower area of the lot and require major alteration of the flood pl^. Rahn said the home is located siniilarly on the lot wdth other homes in the neighborhood and b the only ummproyed ate. I MINUTES OF Xm REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ilELl> ON JUNE 23,1997 (#11 - #2248 Daviii and Jodi Rahn - Continued) J^bour asked ^ut mitisation of the flood plain. Rahn said he would have to dio the sods and switch with the soils where the cabin currently sits. Jabbour * precedent of allowing structure m front of the 75* setback RsRbIio located on the hill at the back of the lot. Rahn also noted there is City sewer to the the 0-75’ setback and the flood plain.zones. G^« ud she could not support the application that adds to stiucture in the *-75' ^fOoetteninfomiedRahnthaihmm hooies that simply cannot be added onto. She suggested Rahn add ^nirtnr#a but understood he said he could not n.i»i.«. PnWm,.^i place but urtKdd require extensiv^SSg h I™ eh^tiitg ftede.to. Ooetten said the lot is only 1/3 acre in the on“acre Rahn is asking for too much structure proposed in the 0-75' setback. * Jabbour suggested Rahn add the structure upward. Van Zomeren noted that all buildable lots are allowed a 1500 s f footorint <ShA ad. a Je Council would prefer the appUcant move the structure back into theT J v Zomeren asked for CouncU direction on these matterr ^ dte ,500 s.f. .Led bSt nrth‘Lrr„JT2::^^^^ Rahn addrwscd the idea of two stories. He indicated the present olan is for « i m structure. While the rear ofthe structure is 30' the side ^ look of what he called a "double-decker bus" if H p ..fr i ** Ooetten susgested the applicant speak with Staff regarding other options. MINUTES OF THE BEGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL - MEi/riNGHELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#11 - #2248 David end Jodi Rehn - Continued) Rehn said the only other option is to place the structure in the middle of the flood plain which would require mitigation. He reiterated that no mivigation would be required in squaring off the structure. Jabbour asked the Council for thw opinion. Goetten said ^e would not approve additional hardcover in the 0-75* setback. Jabbour noted the applicant had suggested efimination of the decks which would decrease -the hardcover from 1320 s.f. to 1018 s.f. Rahn said he has sold his other home and his family plans on living here year around. He also indicated that he will be planning on adding a garage in the future. • Jabbour and Goetten both informed Rahn that structure in the flood plain is less of an issue than structure in the 0-75* setback. Rahn said his dream is to restore the cabin and suggested diroinating the deck and maintaining the screen porch as plarmed. Goetten was informed (hat the 8*x 12' is to be located on the north side of the structure. Jabbour said there is 60 s.f of existing deck and 252 s.f total of decking. Eliminatirtg this decking and maintaming the screen porch would result in 1068 s.f of structure. The structure woirid be increased from 540 s.f to 840 s.f with a 132 s.f perch. Jabbour indicated that he is only considering this option because the structure is minimal m size noting 1500 s.f is tK>rm^y allowed. The option would also maintain the structure out of the flood plain and would be serviced with sewer. Jabbour said this situation creates a true hardship. Jabbour moved to approve Application #2248 based on the hardships and reasoning as stated with the remo^ of decks as proposed by the applicant in order to facilitate the applicatioa The motion failed due to lack of a second. Goetten said she could not vote in favor of the motion and noted that the application .could be heard in front of a full Council. Rahn indicated that the guidelines have not changed since 1983 when the adjacent property was pemutted 29% hardcover. Jabbour said he recognized the City made a mista!<e at that time. Rahn indicated that time is of the essence in providing a home for his family. Gtjetten said she would be willing to table the appheation to the meeting of July 14: Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2248. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. »HNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEEllNG HEItl) ON JUNE 1997 (#1 ] - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) To move the structure behind the 75‘ setback would cause unbelievable land*!heraS^^’ 1““°'''’' ™ProvOTcnt of properfes Me by Me. Rahn indicated that the Vplicanoo IS a case ot hardship and would be made clear if the site was viewed He tteflodd”^^^ * 'lot >>“t did not want to do so in Jaipur noted,that movement of the structure into the flood plain minhl also encoumae d^ase to run toward the lake instead of .nay from it. Jabteur saidfe agr^ ^ GoelM regarj^g keeping structure out of the 0-75' setback, this property is a •—u.i case that would require digging up of the 0-75’ setback and a coiuStioSal use peMt.^ ^t and Ooetten indicated that they would visit the property prior to the review of July Van Zommo asked if the plan should come back before the Council as it currently stands. Ooetten said yes and including detailed minutes from this meeting. ^ Ooetten moved. Flint seconded, to adopt Reso'ution No. 3920 granttag a variance for sepuc system lakeshore setback for 2245 Freruih Lake Road. Vote: Ayes 3 NaysO. acre lot is located in the RR-IB two-acre Zoning District. Van Zoraereo indicated the cwCTt garage location and unusual topography of the property. The addition will not be visible from My neighboring properties. The Plaiming CoiSsion recommended approval of the rear yard vanance for 35* and 38* setbacks where 5tr is required MlNirrES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 (#4 - #2246 Donald Cuirier, Jr. - Continued) Currier mformed FKnt that the antenna could not be nested or rused in the location required due to the trees. He noted Ac survey shows the trees plotted Aat are affected by the antenna and the tree cover then drawn in. Jabbour noted that the ability to have a nested antenna is more visibly attractive than an antenna that must be fiiDy extended at all times. Currier said trees would still have to be removed to allow for the fully extended antenna. Jabbour was informed that the neighbor in whose yard the antenna would fall. If it would topple, gave Ins approval. Flint questioned why the antenna cannot be moved 15’ further along the sme line noting the sur\ ey does noi indicate frees in that area. Currier said the free cover is located there fftid would result in the loss of a lotus tree. Jabbour was informed that the horizontal width is a 34* maximum with a 20* long boom. Flint was told that the antenna ‘is directional motorized by a rotor. In answer to the question of how dose the nei^bot*s structures are to the north property line, Moorse said a letter indicates that the area is ungroomed without any structures. Kdley questioned what would happen if that property owner wanted to build a garage in that location. Currier said the neighbor told him he could put the antenna on the property I'me if he wanted to. Goetten reported that if the neighboring property was sold, the antenna could create problems for the new owner. Kdlty suggested a call option be placed on the antenna if that were to occur. Barrett indicated that tins would be difficult to CTiforce. Peterson was informed that there were a couple other antennas in the City and no problems have been reported. The only other retractable antenna that was on a property in the City was remov^ when the resident moved. Jabbour said he feels the retractable antenna is a great idea. Currier indicated he would like to maintain the trees to lessen the visual impact. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3925 per the Planmng Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Flint. (#5) #224S DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARlAhICE RESOLUTION NO. 3926 David Rahn was present. L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1397 (U5 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application was reviewed at the June 23 Council meetiqg for the variance and CUP to restore and build an addition to an enstipg residence located in the 0-75 ’ setback. A 5.3' ride yard setback would require a variance from the l(f requirement. A lakeshore setback variance is required as well as a 0-75' hardcover variance for 19% hardcover, currently existing at 9%, where none is allowed. The CUP is required to alter land located in the 0-75' setback. The topograpl^ b such that the structure could partially be in the flood plain. Jriibour noted that it b necessary to see the topogra).hy and elevation of the property, van Zomeren agreed that the main issue b the topography of the lot and low elevation. Van Zomeren reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval as noted in the staff memo.• • Peterson, who along with KcU qt was not present at the 6/23 meeting, asked FKnt tus opinion of the application. She indicated she had a understanding of the thoughts C'^ labour and Goettea Goetten said Flinfs opinion is rimilar to her own. Jabbour noted tiiat it had been determined that the application should receive a full Council decision. Peterson brought attention to the discussion regarding the flood plain mitigation. Goetten indicated that riie felt the residence could be moved back on the property. Jabbour responded that a move would eliminate a sediment pond that helps the lake and be a burden to find a new legion for good stormwater management for the property owner and Watershed District. Jabbour acknowledged the importance of the 0-75' setb^k but Wt this was a good example of where an exception could be made. Rahn also indicated that the roof line allows for water directed away from the lake. He also noted that the poim was sandy and water ponds in the low lying area, Kellty was informed that the applicant is the current owner of the property. Rahn said he reviewed the ordinawe and referenced Section 10.55 regarding flood plair. management. It encourages providing storage for runoff and elevating the building rite. He said the code also allows for the average lakeshore setback. Peterson said the Coundl historically does not approve structure in the 0-75' setback but noted the extenuating circumstances mvolved in thb application. Goetten said the lot b very small and substandard. She agreed that h would be expensive to move the reridence out of the 0-75' setback, but said she has never voted for new hardcover in that setback. The applicant responded that the hnd is highest by the lake and then slopes downward. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CnrY COUNCIL ' MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 (#5 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Kdl^ a^ed for clarification on the hardcover calculations of an bcrcase firom 9% to 19% in the 0-75* setback. He was informed that the calculations do not include a driveway or potential garaj$e. There is currently no hardcover in the 75-250' setback and the hardcover noted is the house footprint only. Kelley said a driveway and garage are inevitable and would need to know the calculations for them and what amount would be added in the 0-75' where h leads to the home. Jabbour noted that the application ts to 25% in the 75-250' setbadc. Kelley questioned what percentage would be in the flood plain. Rahn said the garage would not be below the 931.5' elevation and no variance would be required for a garage. Van Zomeren agreed that no variance would be reqmred. Kelley said he has never turned down an application for a two-car garage noting the necessity for garages in this area but felt the calculations should be included. He questioned a ridewalk leading to the residence. Peterson questioned the need for the calculation unce h is not included in the proposal. Rahn indicated that he b allowed 1500 s.f of structure outside the 0-75' and as much as 2200 s/. with the size of the lot. Jabbour asked the applicant how he plans on walking to the house. The applicant questioned whether a walkway b .'red. Rahn said he has no intention of putting in a sid .' walk. Jabbour indicated that Ou .. .^ .ddeventualfy be needed. Rahn said he uses the grass area now and the decking and entry are included in the calculations. He current^ parks on the clearing on top of the hillside and there is no establbhed driveway. Goetten questioned why the residence cannot be pulled back. Rahn said the residence would then be located in the flood plain. He said he has space for 1900 s.f in the 75-250^ setback. Kelley asked Staff if 25% hardcover allowed for the 75-250' setback includes land in the flood plain. He was informed by Goffron and Van Zomeren that it did. Jabbour noted the structure could be a slab on grade without a foundation. Jabbour said he would make hb approval contingent on no additional variances allowed in the future and ai^ further improvements adhetiitg to standards in the zoning code. GaG&on questioned with hardcover shown in the 0-75', whether this amount should be subtracted firom that allowed dsewhere. He felt h should be. Jabbour cited an exanqrle where tins has been done in the past. GafiBron indicated that with 2000 s.f total allowed, it would leave 1000 s.f for any future improvements. Jabbour said that was a good idea. Rahn agreed to conqrly with tUs request MINUTES OF THE HEGULAR ORONO OTY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 (#5 • #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Conrinued) Jatbour moved, Peterson seconded, to t^ove Resolution No. 3926 with the additional laqguqge added that no additional hardcover ever be allowed in the 0-75* setback and the anoount of hardcover in the 0-75* setback be subtracted from the hardcover allowed b the 75-2S0^ setback. No additional hardcover would be allowed b^ond that guidelbe. Vote! Ayes 3, Nays 2, Kelley, Goetten. Goetten bdicated that the mtiinance does not allow for ai^ hardcover b the 0-75* setback. Jabbour said the applicant would be allowed the hardcover as proposed b the application for the 0-75* setback and no more. (#Q #2252 WARREN AND CHRISTINE BIEUCE, 2565 DUNWOODY AVENUE - variance - RESOLUTION NO. 3927 Warren ^d Christine Bielke were present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for two variances, average lakeshore setback and hardcover, to add 6^ and 4* to portions of the residence to enlarge the garage to three stalls. A portion of the garage is ahead of the average hkeshore setirack but not as for ahead as the further point of the structure. The property had bem previously approved for a roanmum of 35.6% hardcover b the 75-250* setback. The Planimg Commistion recommended approval of the application with the 35.6% of hardcover b the 75-250* setback. Goetten noted that the property has had other variances approved b the past. She questioned the amount of plastic removed under landscapbg. Van 2fomeren b<ficated that the applicant had removed plastic prbr to makbg applicatimi and before the survey was completed as they were aware that the prior owner was to have removed that plastic as part of a previous ^plication approval Mrs. Ke^e reported that their blent is to replace non-structure cement driveway and kennel with structure. There would be no net change. The hardcover would be reduced b general on the property. Goetten asked Van Zomeren to update the hardcover calculations for the file. Mrs. Bidke bdicated that the surv^ was correct b its calculations. Kdley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3927. Vote: Ayes 4 Nays 0, Abstain, 1, Jabbour. (Agenda item #7 follows Mayor/Council Report Item #3 was continued at this m • • » 1 « •6775013 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 9 g ft_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 Ar«D A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.55 AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 10 FILE NO. 2248 WHEREAS, David Rahn and Jodi Rahn (hereinafter the "applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1385 Rest Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 23. and all that part of Lots IS and 22. and adjacent vacated alley. Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of the following- described line: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot IS, distant 7S feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on a line forming an angle of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Easterly line of said Lot 22, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and there ending (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances from Municipal Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow additional structure to be added to an existing residence. Variances for side yard setback to allow a soutli side yard setback of 5.3' where 10' is required, hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed, and lakeshore setback to allow the addition to encroach into the 75' setback the same distance as the existing residence are required. A conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75' setback and floodplain is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2248. Page 1 of 4 ' S3 l?a CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 2R 2. *3. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where the minimum lot area requirement is one acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 16, 1997 and recommended unanimous approval of the propo.sed variances and cor.cliiional use permit based upon the following unique findings and hardships: a.The zoning lot does not meet minimum lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. b. The existing structure conforms to the average lakeshore setback but does not meet the 75' lakeshore setback. c.The topography of the zoning lot is within the floodplain in the middle of the zoning lot. d. The Zoning Code allows 15% lot coverage. c. The existing hardcover in the 0-75' setback is 609.25 sq. ft. (9%). 4. The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonsu-able hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow land alteration in the 0-75' setback and floodplain will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding propjerty values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^9 26 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances for hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed, to allow a side yard variance for the second story to be located 5.3* from the south property line where 5.3* is existing and 10 is required, and to allow a lakeshoie setback at the same distance from the shoreline as the existing residence where 75' is required per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; and grants a conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75’ setback and floodplain per Section 10.56, Subdivision 10 and Section 10.55 to permit an addition to an existing structure located within the lakeshore setback on a zoning lot that includes floodplain, subject to the following conditions: 1.No new hardcover shall be allowed in the 0-75' setback. Further, any new hardcover in the 75-250' setback shall be reduced by the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback. 2.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 14, 1998). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. f. • ^ ’^'.Mopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of July, 1997. '■C'' ATTEST:. :.%> / frothy M. '^4. 'OJPjL, ui,City Clerk GabrieNabbour. Mayor Property Owcer(s) Page 3 of 4 • * **•• • • • . GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 2 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of July, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. LINDA S.VEE NOTARY RUfiLlC-MlNNESOtA HENNEPIN COUNTY K „ My Cemmissicn Implies Jan. 31.2000 {}ly\QJl Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of J<-i /y_____________, 1997 . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared UnL:rl ,/m/. known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed me foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^>«■ ✓ ^ ^ y IINOAS.VEE I mit! MyConimisjionE)«iftJJan.31.2CCO Notaty Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 9^ day of s.Ju./y , 1^99 7 . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personallyappeared Jad/ kkhh. iriarru^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (tliey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY WeilC4«NMMlA « ‘ ...„rs£SJS2?».wo I J, L/i NiSsS?" tiv camniision EwiW HI* <1 m * > b—*e**"' Notary Public Page 4 of 4 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20.1990 (92309 Daniel Kluth, continued) becoming more common. Hawn remarked the ordinance needs to be addressed regarding guest structures before a decision can be made on this application. Hawn noted the Planning Commission and City Council has previously informed people that the plumbing has to be removed in several cases where a new structure was being proposed to prevent that accessory building from becoming a dwelling unit. Kluth stated the structure will not be used as a dwelling unit. Hawn commented once plumbing is installed, the structure could be used as a dwelling unit in the future which Is difTicult for the City to enforce. Hawn stated the City Council should have an opportunity to review the ordinance before a dedsion is made on this application. McMillan noted a shower could be installed in the unit without the City knowing about It. Lindquist suggested tabling the application until the ordinance could be reviewed. Chair Smith asked If the building was considered a garage with no plumbing, would any variances be required. Weinberger stated no variances would be needed if the structure was constructed without plumbing There were no public comments. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission will either deny the application or table It until the ordinance is reviewed. Lindquist suggested the plumbing could be roughed in and not installed. Kluth Inquired whether his application could be heard after the ordinance was reviewed later this evening. Lindquist commented the City Council needs to approve the ordinance after it is reviewed by the Planning Commission, and suggested the Applicant proceed with the construction of the structure without the plumbing. Kluth inquired what would happen if the application is tabled. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant would need to agree to a 60 day extension, noting the present ordinance does not adequately address this issue. McMillan requested Staff prepare a report regarding the septic system. Kluth agreed to the extension. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2369. for property located at 2801 Fox Street, with the understanding the Application will be extended an additional €0 days as of August 22,1998. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (910) 92390 DAVID RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 7:56 p.m. - 8:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page? A/ ORONO PANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,1998 (92390 David Rahn, continued) Mr. Rahn was present. lakeslior, Mtback vwre gr,nt«l In 1S97 io change a cabin ’’'"f •"<1 permit was also granted to allow for land alteration Iri m?o.7?«a..K® 1*"“' ^ use located below the flood plain elevation Van Zon^iSn Staff did not make a recommendation regarding this application. uSSHSSSSS feet. Later in the meeting the hardawer waTreduL^^ «* ^ «J«are feet Of hardcover is allowed undeySmctu^i '®®‘ seated 652 square garage without a driveway Hardcover Is limited. Rahn stated he would conTrud a There were no public comments. residenS!*^ChaTr sSth^ri^^^ about?he'^’eed for converted a cabin into aproperty. correct hardcover numbers regarding this fSre^°^*by"thi pfanJing cSJmis“ *^® City Council meeting SSrSSlo^ "‘® »’®''® of hardcover remaining before .nS^ScTnrcScreM^ V" "" •" <>$e peimll for land allcralion aobiact to and a condilional [ha 0.75 ’ setback, with any new ha«cov.7ln S ">• i" hardcover in the 0-75* zone. Van Zomeren stated the ow-^Sreduced by the amount of to the amount allowed In the 75-250 ’ zone * hardcover for this property is restricted Chair Smith noted the two zones were combined into one. McMillan commented setbacks need to be maintained. *• made by the City^ounln Selhw th^rMSStfon^^^ *'’® ‘*«oision should be . proposal is outside the recommendations of the CitJ cJu^c! remarked the current Pages ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,199t (#2390 David Rahn, continued) Chair Smith suggested the appiication may need to be revised because the garage cannot be accessed without a driveway, noting the Applicant has 657 square feel of available hardcover remaining. Chair Smith stated the Applicant knew the restrictions of the lot when the Drooertv was purchased. r k / y^Zomeren stated the Applicant is allowed to go closer to Rest Point Road to stay out of the Chair Smith stated City Staff is willing to assist the Applicant, and inquired whether he would like the matter tabled to allow him to submit revised plans. Rahn stated he would like the matter to be put before the City Council. Chair Smith noted the City Council has the option to approve or deny the application. Rahn Inquired whether the property being located in the floodplain would be considered a hardship. Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission applies the codes as uniformly as possible to ail properti6S, noting some properties are not able to accommodate all the wishes of the property owner but have to stay within what is acceptable for the neighborhood and City, Berg noted the Planning Commission is becoming more restrictive on hardcover in an attempt to comply with the ordinances. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2390 as proposed for property located at 1385 Rest Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2392 THOMAS BERSCHEID, 1365 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 8:28 p.m. -8:35 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Berscheid was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on a through lot and a variance from lot setback requirements for an accessory structure. A conditional use permit is required for accessory buildings located on through lots in R Zoning Districts. Bersche: J stated he is interested in constructing a loft above the garage with plumbing, and inquired whether it is permitted under the ordinances. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit will be required for a guest house. Chair Smith stated the Applicant would need to apply for a conditional use permit. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission cannot approve a conditional use permit to install plumbing In an accessory stmcture at tonight’s meeting. There were no public comments. Weinberger noted the proposed structure meets the lot requirements. Page 9 i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,1998 (02392 Thomas Berscheid. continued) SloddanJ noted the accessory structure cannot exceert the (xtnclpal structure In height. Beheld stated the proposed structure Is 20 feet In height, which wouid not exceed the principal • conditional useparmlt to construct a detached garage on property l«.i,d «i JM .ra'ntln, the^rnSitl'Jf ”* »*M p*“.“ CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES. SrOS pan. - The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr, and Mrs. Kail were present. 20 hfoo dSarhflfJilL® proposing to remove an existing carport and construct a20 by 20 detached garage. Vanances are required for side yard setback to allow thp naranaa tn Iso^SOff Slot ^ for hardcover being requLd In the >roperty, also provides access to the oa?no1,“ltL^hL'’:ir^^^^^^^ "’'0 '™"' »'«'• property ond er«d agarage where the existing carport is. Chair Smith inquired whether the existing garage on the adiacenl lakashnra nmnaH.. • by the Kails, could be added onto. “ aojaceni lakeshore property, which is owned “/p."*" :rt a ^g'l^r Mrt. k“ "" McMillan noted the properties are not combined. Ji'taSSrf" " "" '«“■ Sp' v'OPt' Bke to do McMillan stated she would be In favor 01 a oversiaed one-car garage to replace what Is currently there, “r the’g"iSr"“^ * "" O' “>• ^operty which reduces possibl. shea «?aSi hSfla'ri'’,'^ “ “rs. and ln,ulr«t whether they could construct a' Page 10 4j ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING minutes for JULY 27,1998 (#13) #2390 DAVID RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD. VARIANCES Mr. Rahn was present. Van Zomeren repotted that the application was for a hardcover variance to allow construction of a garage in the 75.250* setback area with a retaining wall and driveway turnaround. Previous variance were granted to convert a cabin into a year round residence. The previous resolution would* allow 657 s.f. of hardcover based on subtracting the amount of hardcover in the 0-75* zone from that allowed in the 75*250' zone. Planning Commission recommended denial, and the applicant requested the application be brought to Council. Mr. Rahn noted that it is difficult to build a two-car garage with driveway under 657 s.f. He asked for guidance as to what might be considered. He confirmed that no variance would be needed if he did not exceed 657 s.f of hardcover. Mr. Rahn presented a revised plan that reduced the garage to 24' x 24' and made some eliminations to reduce the hardcover to 31% or 2,453 s.f Jabbour reviewed the history of the property. The initial Council approval was related to to an existing structure. During the construction, much of the e.xisting structure was removed, and a fallen tree damaged the remaining portion. The Council then reviewed the project again and set a limit of 657 s.f of hardcover in the 75*250' zone. Rahn agreed that discussions had taken place about a garage. Rahn noted that in the Council minutes with the previous approvals, 1,000 s.f was discussed. His problem is building an accessory building large enough to park two cars. He stated that if he would be limited to 657 s.f., he would have to build an accessory storage building with no cars inside. Jabbour noted that each lot has limitations that the property owner must work with. Goetten commented that she had voted against the previous variance request knowing that a garage would be requested at some future time. Rahn distributed revised plans to the Council showing reductions in hardcover. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING minutes for JULY 27,1998 (*#8) #2381 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF JAMES JOHNSON AND CHARLES LARSON, 4300 WATERTOWN ROAD AND 4285 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4129 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4129 granting a conditional use permit to permit the construction of berms at 4300 Watertown Road and 4285 Sixth Avenue North. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2382 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF TIM OTTEN, 425 TURNHAM ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4130 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4130 granting a conditional use permit to permit alteration of the rear yard at 425 Tumbam Road per staff recommendation, subject to septic site testing. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#10) #2386 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF KATHERINE COLGROVE 4260 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. * 4131 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4131 granting a conditional use permit to permit land alteration at 4260 Sixth Avenue North. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#11) #2381 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BOB GEHRMAN 4300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PER^^T - RESOLUTION NO. 4132 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4132 granting a conditional use permit to permit land alteration at 4300 Sixth Avenue North. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#12) #2385 STEPHANIE KROEGER, 3465 CRYSTAL PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4133 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4133 granting variances to permit construction of a detached garage requiring side yard setback, rear yard setback and hardcover variances for the property located at 3465 Crystal Place. Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 0. * 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 27,1998 (m) U2390 DA yiD RAHN» 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - eoM itued Kelley stated that a two car garage is reasonable for Minnesota, and would be in favor of a garage at 24' x 24', minimal driveway and sidewalk. He noted that he also voted against the original variances but would have approved some type of garage at that time. Goetten cautioned Council to be careful in future applications when garage plans are not part of thelhilial proposal, especially on lakeshore lots where hardcover is an issue. Van Zomeren commented that 38% of tiie year-to-date building permits require some type of variance. • Jabbour suggested the revised plan be referred back to Planning Commission for their review, and indicated at least two Council members were sympathetic to some type of revised plan. Kelley requested that a letter be sent to the applicant extending the application for 60 days. Flint stated that he was not sympathetic to the applicant's request, and felt the applicant should abide by the parameters established in the previous resolution approvals. He felt the minutes clearly reflected Council's intention. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to refer Application #2390 requesting a hardcover variance to construct a garage for David Rahn at 1385 Rest Point Road back to the Planning Commission at the applicant's request. A letter extending the application for an additional 60 days will be sent to the applicant. The applicant was in agreement. Moorse suggested the applicant meet with staff prior to the Plaiming Commission meeting to develop the best solution to present to the Planning Commission. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. (*#14) #2392 THOMAS BERSCHEID, 1365 REST POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4134 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4134 granting a conditional use permit to permit construction of an accessory structure on a through lot for the property located at 1365 Rest Point Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 27,1998 ^SoSn «•« BAVSIDE road . VARIANCES - i^oldtionno ^^m '®‘'* - variances . lot line where 30 Ayes 5, Nays 0.is required for the property located at 1060 Brown Road North. Vote: MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT him. idenuiyu.* ,U Jb. Z.i"r"sa'-'ins woodhm .na off“ s,r r z",i:' r*""*"* ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETINO MINUTES FOR AUGUST 24,1998 ? (#5) #2390 DAVID RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4144 David Rahn was present. Van Zomeren stated the City Council has reviewed this application at its July 27,1998 meeting and referred the application back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The t’lanning Commission recommended a 22* x 22* garage with sidewalk and driveway as presented at its August 17.1998 meeting by a four to two vote. Van Zomeren stated total hardcover would be 2,482.75 square feet or 31.3 percent, noting the amount of hardcover in the 0-75* zone be credited against the hardcover in the 75**250’ setback. Rahn stated the.Planning Commission reduced the garage by two feet, noting he had requested a 22* X 24* garage, which is a reduction of 44 square feet. Rahn questioned the accuracy of the hardcover figures. Van Zomeren remarked the hardcover was miscalculated on this application and should be 2,532 square feet instead of the 2,482.75 square feet, because of the size of the garage apron shown. Kelley questioned whether there might be a need for retaining walls along the slope of the driveway. Goetten suggested a contractor be contacted to look at the property. Rah I stated if any retaining wall is necessary, it would be along the south side of the driveway, and would possibly require a foot and a half high retaining wall, noting he was a contractor for 15 years. Mayor Jabbour stated he has serious problems with this application in that the Applicant was informed at the time the residence was constructed that his future hardcover was limited. Jabbour expressed concerns that citizens in the future might construct their residences to the maximum hardcover limits and come back before the City Council at a later time and request additional hardcover for a garage because It has been stated that all people in Minnesota deserve a garage. Rahn stated it was not his intent to mislead the City Council about his plans for a future garage, noting that his plans all along called for a garage to be built in the future. Rahn commented his hardcover was not reduced by subtracting the amount in the 0-75* from the 75*-250* area until the last comment at the last City Council meeting before the Resolution was passed, and he was led to believe he had 1,000 square feet of available hardcover after the residence was constructed. Mayor Jabbour stated he was entitled to 25 percent hardcover. Rahn remarked he understands the City Council's position, but is in need of storage space, noting the proposed garage is smaller than the minimum standards for an average garage in Minnesota. Rahn stated his other option would be to construct a buildind pad and build a 20' x 20* storage building. Van Zomeren stated the accessory structure cannot exceed the height of the prindpal structure. Rahn commented ne could construct it vtfithout a sidewalk to reduce hardcover. Pages ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 24,1998 (#2390 David Rahn, Continued) the City Council should be relayed to the Planning Commission. m ST SSwi'S!*'» «« •0««l to the test time In the MiyorJabbour suggested the Applicant build what he can without a variance. tX°|f^«lte tSStS.'’'*“ '» "O'* «lth Cit, long driveway. 16* feet wide, Mayor Jabbour inquired what he could construct to r >t the hardcover criteria. ad,"i,rr.Z'tn^T^l3ewT^^ »*'»»'■ '«! 'ora gemS;"“"'"'’ "apresentetive. stated he has the option of redocing «to a ^^cojstruct 22°^^^^^^ Mayor Jabbour stated he would vote against the application. ■”“-a' «as ih the resolution to a Kelley stated yes. S.1ia«SmS“lTo;'5 u" m "::r « -» «"■« ">a «a«Mlon Kelley suggested removing the square feet o( the shed to be removed from the total hardcover. ti “““ -a "..OS.. Rahn stated he would be willing to reduce the 3 loot apron at the back of the garage down to I foot. Page 6 i . r I m t-I inMVi If Ti ■ 1 1 1 I fT^i 111 ---------------------—VI. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 24.1998 (42390 David Rahn, Continued) which would reduce it by 38 square feet, or remove it altogether. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Application 42390,1385 Rest Point Road, to allow construction of a 22’ x 22* garage with walkway, driveway, and apron. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Goetten, Jabbour, and Flint opposed. Mayor Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Application 42390,1385 Rest Point Road, to allow construction of a 20' x 20’ garage, one foot apron, 215 feet of driveway, and 282 square feet of sidewalk for a total of 769 square feet of additional hardcover. NO VOTE TAKEN. Van Zomeren stated in order to comply with the 25 percent. 105 square feel still needs to be reduced. Moorse' tated the driveway could be narrowed to 20 feet wide. Rahn asked the City Council for clarirication. Mayor Jabbour staled he could construct a 20’ x 20* garage, a 20* wide driveway, one foot apron, and the sidewalk as drawn in the application. Mayor Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4144 approving Application 42390,1385 Rest Point Road, to allow construction of a 20’ x 20’ garage. 20’ wide driveway, one foot apron, and sidewalk as drawn in the application. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Goetten and Flint opposed. (#6) 42391 EVAN ANDERSON, 1260 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4145 Mr. and Mrs. Anderson were present. Weinberger slated this application is requesting an after-the-fact variance for hardcover to allow a patio to remain in the 0-75* distance from the lake. The patio Is replacing a deck that was removed in the same location. Variances to hardcover are also needed in the 75*-250* lakeshore setback to allow for the patio and the reconstruction of an old garage. This property is located in the LR-1B zoning district and consists of .27 acre. Planning Commission recommended approval of after-the-fact variances to allow 18.5 percent hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback and the 75*-250* setback to remain at 55.3% hardcover, construction of a 22* by 22* garage which would increase structural coverage to 17.3 percent, and approval of a side yard adjacent to street setback to allow construction of a garage five feel from the lot line, and approval of a CUP to allow the replacement of retaining walls after-the-fact. Mrs. Anderson staled the drawing is inaccurate in that one retaining wall is actually a sidewalk. Mr. Anderson stated the retaining walls were reconstructed but of concrete, noting what currently exists is less than what was there previously. Mrs. Anderson commented part of the reason for the design of the driveway was to allow the water runoff to run down Lake Street, noting their property is the main watershed area for the whole Page 7 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING minutes for AUGUST 24,1998 (#2391 Evan Anderson, Continued) neighborhood. Mr. And.r«,n r.n.,rl«d ha,, .xp.rt.ncd Ms of water dteinaj. proh,.ma In ,h. p,„. Goelten inquired whether vegetation could be utilized to aid in drainage. 5SiaThr.te?a’^S,5rtr,hT.SS'M«^^^^^ »"■< •- 0'^‘way ■Mayor Jabbour commented Lake Street has problems with water drainage. Kelley stated he is in favor of the application. «60Spru„ p„„_ ^ fees, and adopt Resolution #4145. VOTE:' Aye! 5,*|SJs 0!"’^^***'°" ***""'* PMm“” boulevard . CONDITIONAL USE Mr. Oberhauser. Representative of Wayzata Country Club, was present. application has been ^viewed byTh?PiS^^ This application. Expansion of the three pond areas recommended approval of the submitted and reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission^ ^ engmeenng work has been Mr. Oberhauser had no comment. 200 Wayzata Bou^evart?per*Sta"frs reco^ Country Club, report, and adopt Resolution #4146. VOTE: Ayes 8,*Na*yro.'"*‘* (#8) #2402 GLENN SAUER. 4104 HIGHWOOD ROAD. VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4147 Mrs. Sauer was present. M » S“ S’f •>» '«»■»'>"««»«to 178 square foot storage shed will be removed subiect loathe na^ spring. An existing remain at 48.4 percent in the 75-250* where 25 oercrent hardcover will variance to allow an accessory structure located^closer to « variance. A needed as well as a variance to allow encroachment of a Principal structure is also new garage would be built in the same locatfon Ts "he The line whoro ton is rMnimri ® S6vcn foot from ihn fmnt iai Mrs. Sauer had no comment. Page 8 'T TRANSFER ENTERED 6984334 . > ^:^E«NOOUMTY TAXPAYM KRVKCI „ «„ CITY of ORONO ^RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL uTv . 4 144NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (1)&(2) FILE #2390 WHEREAS, Jodi Rahn and David Rahn (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1385 Rest Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 23, and all that part of Lots 15 and 22, and adjacent vacated alley, Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of the following-described line: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 15, distant 75 feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on a line forming an angle of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Easterly line of said Lot 22, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and there ending (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Miruiesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Plarming Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on July 20 and August 17, 1998, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportimity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1)&(2) to permit constmction of a two story 20'x20' (400 sq. ft.) garage. Variances are required for street yard setback to allow' the garage to be located 17.1' from Rest Point Road per the plan in Exhibit B. Variances for hardcover in the 75-250' setback to allow an additional 1,051 sq. ft. of hardcover for a 20'x20' two story garage, 350 sq. ft. for a driveway, 19 sq. ft. for a garage apron and 282 sq. ft. for a 3'x94' sidewalk. Page 1 of5 -------------------------- Q.... CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 1 4 >1 Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2390. The property is located in the LR-IB, Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .33 acres or 14,663 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 17, 1998 and recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 2. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. B. The subject lot does not meet lot width or lot area requirements. This property is allowed to have 1,978.25 sq. ft. (25%) of the total lot area in the 75-250' setback in hardcover. The City Council determined per Resolution No. 3926 that the total amount of Iwdcover to be located within the 75-250' setback shall be reduced by the amount of e.xisting hardcover (1,320.75 sq. ft.) in the 0-75' setback. C. A portion of the yard between the house and the street is located in a flood plain area. fhe City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property ir> 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. Page 2 of 5 ‘lit ■<•»'?*m^s CITYof ORONO mm.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 144 6. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1)&(2) to permit a 20’x20' garage to be located 17.1 ’ from Rest Point Road and to allow an additional 1,051 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback where 1,978.25 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed and 2,373.75 (29.9%) is proposed. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1 The existing shed in the south side yard shall be removed upon completion of the garage. 2.No fill shall be placed in the flood plain area and the sidewalk shall be installed at the original grade. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not wth the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 24, 1999). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be pumshable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 1 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. d 1 A4______ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of August, 1998. • . • • V • • • ^ " /‘Ml-. property 0\vner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of August, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 0 { X/i/ytLou' Notary/Public L/ I Page 4 of S H- GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4144_____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day ______, 19 93 . tefore me a Notary Public nty,per^iallvappearedwithinand for said County, persori&llv appeared Oy-JU ’PdujlU'Ld known to me to be the person(s) described in ud who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed r*i .. ^JAMELGByUR N0Mirrauc4 leMmoouNiY M»CcmniisiiMl6»IWlJ«.St.»00 N^wy Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 > V .Aa >5^ exhibit 6 l&l-OMftS n|m» 6 Page 5A of S . irtff < RESOLUTION # 4 144 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO ) ) ) ) ) If Linda S. Vec, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on August 24 100« and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this August ______, 19 98 ■ 2Sth _day of Linda S. Vee, City Clerk ••• • .t?SEAL) • • • • •' • • I*.. • ^ • 4 > cy ix> a* a/ y ^1? • N cn fO *. •a* CO tr • • > •« .V rj,*•• '.O # % Certificate of survey for David Rahn in Lots 15,22 & 23, and vacated alley Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Park Hennepin County, Minnesota | : p«r- Su<rv«^«ir 7-h02 / ^ 7s' LEGAL DESCRPTION OF PREMSES: Lot 23, and dl thot port of LoU 15 end 22« and odjocont vocotod oloy, SubdMoion of Lot 14, Root Point Portg LoAo linnotoriia lying Southorty of tho folowing-dotcfbod Ino; Doolfwdng A o point on tho Southoaotortv Ino of ooid Lot IsTciotont 75 foot Northoootorty from tho Soiithooot- orty comor of odd Lot 23; thoneo NortiMOOtorly to tho Southoootorly comor of odd Lot 22; thoneo Norihwootorly lArmotonlia, ond thoro ondng. Ttdo omvoy btondi to ohow tho boondorioo of tho doterbod pfoporty. ond tho locotion of on oxitting houoo* ond ihod thorooa and tho propoood locotion of o propoood gorogo. It dooo not purport to ihow any othor Improvomonto or oncroochmonto. (9313): Spot olovotion o : Iron morkor found o : Iron morkor oot Boorlngs ihown oro boood upon on onumod datura GRONBKRC k ISSOCUTES^ nctlTirM M aner mi pipoai kf *i * oOo 99 Ml ofr- • 4lr lidMai CM ujmw od lod Sowior wdo d Hit SIdf d liroeMl* 'MIOnittiflIMI mmwiwm 952-473-4141 MndiSk S droiMn Hnnt$olo*t<<kdot Mxnbor 177S5 "T5Cf“ 1--30' DATC 7/01/02 JOl NO. 02-255 Ito , Complete Date: 6/10/02 60 Day Deadliae: 8/9/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION taccriMG JUL ? 2 2002 CITY Oh OHO nO DATE: July 18.2002 ITEM NO.: 5 Departmeat Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Adminiitnitor Reviewed:Afeada Seetkm: 2U>ning Item DescriptioB:#02-2793 Revis Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance List of Exhibits A B C D E F Review Side Elevation - Cross Section 2001 Approved Grading Plan Council Memo (July 2,2002) Letter of July 3, 2002 (Gregory Munson-Attomey for Applicant) Letter of July 8,2002 (Eric H. Galatz-Attomey for Property Owner of350 Brown Road South) Letter of July 15,2002 (Eric H. Galatz) This item was tabled by the City Council on July 8,2002 at the request of the Mr. Stephenson to allow his consultants to review the location of the wetland boundary. Ron Peterson, of Peterson Environmental, has been hired by the property owner to do the wetland delineation and analysis. The work has been completed, however, by the date of ^is memo the results of the delineation have not been made available for review. On Friday, July 19^ City Staff will meet with Mr. Peterson and a representative of the MC WD to review the findings. Further results of the meeting and finding by Peterson will be presented to the Council on July 22nd. Mr. Peterson has indicated that there are areas on the property where an encroachment on the 26* wetland buffer has occurred. The Municipal Code does not permit land alteration within 26' of a wetland boundary. It appears the application will still require an after-the-fact variance to permit land alteration within 26* of the wetland and does still require the change to the Conditional Use Permit to allow all the additioiuU fill that is on the property. Council has several options to consider: 1. Approve the application as is. This option should require extensive, mature tree planting to screen the visual impact of the larger hill and to provide better erosion control. The plantings would also provide more protection for the wetland. The benefits to this option would be there would be no fill that would be hauled away from the site. Also all existing vegetation that has established itself N02-2793 Revis Stephenson 1 850 Fox Ridge Ro^ Pane 2 ofl------------------ would not have to be destroyed. The concerns with this option would be that it would be somewhat inconsistent with the ordinances that protect the wetland buflcr areas, and would be inconsistent with the general recommendation that finished slopes are not steeper than 3:1. 2.Approve an to the Conditional Use Permit and not variances. This option would require removal of any fill that has been added within 26* of the wetland. This would require much of the hillside to be regraded since the toe of the hill would have to be moved further from the wetland. Ultimately, this would require some fill to be hauled away from the site. 3.Approve a combination of I and 2. This would allow the fill at the base of the hill remain but requite the upper portion of the hill be lowered and cut the slope to 3:1 . 4.Deny the application and require the finished grades to match the approvals granted in the original Conditional Use Permit. Please review the July 2,2002 staff memo for additional background on this request. Planning Commissioa Review aud Rccommcudatioa The Planning Commission reviewed this on June 1 7, 2002. To review the Commission had been given information that the application to permit fill on the adjacent properties had not been applied and new applications would be required to be submitted. Mr. Thomas Barrett, City Attorney, has.reviewed the application and has determined the application is legal as presented. That determination is based on the fact that the adjacent property owners did not do the land alteration and were not aware that the work had occurred on their properties until after the alteration had occurred. The conclusion is the adjacent property owners are not required to obiain permits. However, the adjacent property owners after-the-fact consent is vital to the request. Bv a vote of 6 to ft Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. Denial of the application would require the applicant restore the property to the elevations previously approved by the 2001 Conditional Use Permit The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application to permit an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for land alteration within 26* of the wetland, the denial includes any altera^ beyond the previously approved elevations. No recommendation was provided regarding the land alteration over the property lines and on the neighboring properties. This resulted from the information that was provided regarding the le^lity of the application. r /^02-2793 Revis Stephenson I8S0 Fox Ridge Road Page 3 of 3___________ Staff Recommendation (This rccoropicndalton » uachaaged and witbowt the benefit of the findings bv Mr. Prteiw. PctcriOB EBvIltwmeBUl) I.The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26' of the wetland be denied. Section iO.55, Subdivision 8 of the zoning ordinance prohibits any land alteration within a wetland and within 26' of wetlands. A variance requires a hardship and no hardship is justified in this case. The additional fill located within the 26' setback was done to extend the base of hill and there is no unique situation that exists that should require an encroachment into the setback. Additionally, any approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur within 26' of a wetland without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting. 2.The portion of the aftcr-tlic-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City ’s general recommendation that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. The point on the property where the flat area of the back yard begins to slope is less than a 3:1 slope and should be corrected. The original plan to fill the back yard was to make the back yard safe by eliminating the steep drop only 30 ’ from the back of the house. The fill changed the slope of the back yard from a very steep drop to a gradual slope. The existing grades have extended the back yard an additional38. This is very clear on the illustration attached as Exhibit C. You can sec how the proposed plan would eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Staff is not opposed to this change in the plan, however the grades should be changed to not be less than a 3:1 slope and remove the base of the hill from the 26' wetland setback. Staff has requested the Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application since Uie request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines. The legal notice was mailed including those two properties as part of the new application. Both property owners have consented to the project. Any recommendation shall include consideration of the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. All slopes shall be icstored with a minimum of 4-inches of topsoil and seeded or restored with some type of erosion control measure, erosion control plan shall be approved by the MCWD and City Engineer. The silt fence shall be relocated to be a minimum of 26' to the edge of the delineated wetland, and any fill shall be removed from within 26 ’ of the wetland (unless a variance to permit fill within the wetland setback is approved). All soils within 26 ’ of the wetland shall be decompacted following construction activity. The City Engineer shall review and make recommendations on the plan prior to any additional construction activities and corrections. No portion of the hill shall not less than a 3:1 finished slope. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct Staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial based on the findings and conclusions made by the Council. i * i ___ 'T'Wt-i--.-i^*r'M «•-' itV“-._ .• « A-:ai *-•*'- Mu U Blao U LEGAL OCSCRPTION OF PREilSES: L«t 4. Bock 1. FOX RDOE TMs wrvay M«nda to ahew th« beundorln of lh« obov# dMcribad propiariy, and tti* toeotim of on oxisting hetm ond dMh tWoon. ft doM not otrport to show ony ottwr Council Exhibit C Conipictc Date: 60 Day Dcadliae: 6/10/02 8/9/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 2.2002 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2793 Revis Stephenson I8S0 Fox Ridge Road After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance List of Exhibits A Notice of Planning Commission Action B Draft Planning Commission Minutes (June 1 7,2002) C Side Elevation - Cross Section Background In November, 2001 the Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for land alteration on the^iroperty over 500 cubic yards. The project required clear-cutting the slope and depositing of3,280 cubic ^ds of fill. The purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate b(.ck yard of the house. During routine inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill placed on the hillside , exceeds what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. A new survey completed by Gronberg tftd * Associates, dated 6-6-02, confirms the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but is beyond the property lines onto two adjacent properties. Staff also has identified areas where there is fill that has been added within 26* of the protected wetland. Staff mailed a letter on May 2,2002 ordering corrections to the property. Staff initially requested corrections last winter and spring, but due to road restrictions and the mild winter trucks to transport the fill from the property were not allowed to legally use Fox Ridge Road. A May 16, 2002 deadline was esublished to correct the problem. Mr. Stephenson contacted Staff and requested the opportunity to apply for after-the-fact permits rather than correct the problem at that time. The application under consideration is to permit additional land alteration in excess of500 cubic yards and an after-the-fact variance to permit fill to be located within 26' of the wetland. The CUP process allows the City to notify surrounding property owners within 350* and requires City Council approval for such proposed projects. Please refer to attached exhibits that compare the pre-existing, approved and actual elevations of the hillside. The elevation of the back yard is 966*. The lowest elevation at the wetland is approximately 938*. The tot^ drop of the hillside is 28*. The approved plan indicates an overall slope of 4:1. Typically, the City will require grading projects have a finished slope of at least 3:1 . The existing slope with the additional fill • f #02-2793 Revis Stephenson I8S0 Fox Ridge Road Page 2 of3____________ indicates a slope of less than 3:1. This would not be consistent with the general recommendation tfiat finished slopes not have less than a 3:1 slope. Wetland Setback Variance Below the hillside is a large wetland. The City of Orono requires a 26 ’ setback to.wetlands for any land alteration activities. A final wetland delineation was submitted following the project and wetlands were staked. The fill has been located as close as 17 to the edge of the wetland. The average distance the base of the hill is to the wetland boundary is between 20-25*. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation The Planning Commission had been given information that the application to permit fill on the adjacent properties had not been applied and new applications would be required to be submitted. Mr. Thomas Barrett, City Attorney, has reviewed the application and has determine the application is legal as presented. That determination is based on the fact that the adjacent property owners did not do the land alteration and were not aware that the work had occurred on their properties until after the alteration had occurred. The conclusion is the adjacent property owners are not required to obtain permits. However, the adjacent property owners after-the-fact consent is vital to the request. By a vote of 6 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. Denial of the application would require the applicant restore the property to the elevations previously approved by the 2001 Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application to permit an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for land alteration within 26* of the wetland, the denial includes any alteration beyond the previously approved elevations. No recommendation was provided regarding the land alteration over the , property lines and on the neighboring properties. This resulted from the information that was provided regarding the legality of the application. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1.The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26* of the wedand be denied. Section lO.SS, Subdivision 8 of the zoning ordinance prohibits any land alteration within a wetland and within 26* of wetlands. A variance requires a hardship and no hardship is justified in this case. The additional fill located within the 26* setback was done to extend the base of hill and there is no unique situation that exists that should require an encroachment into the settock. Additionally, any approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur within 26* of a wetland without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting. H02-2793 Revis Stephenson ISSO Fox Ridge Road Page 3 of3 ____________ 2.The portion of the after-tlie-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City’s general recommendation that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. The point on the property where the flat area of the back yard begins to slope is less than a 3:1 slope and should be correct^. The original plan to fill the back yard was to make the back yard safe elitptinating the steep drop only 30* from the back of the house. The fill changed the slope of the back yard from a steep drop to a gradual slope. The e.\isting grades have extended the back yard an additiona^^ This is * very clear on the illustration attached as Exhibit C. You can see how the proposed plan would eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Staff is not opposed to this change in the plan, however the grades should be changed to not be less than a 3:1 slope and remove the base of the hill fh>m the 26' wetland setback. 3.Staff has requested the Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines. The legal notice was mailed including those two properties as part of the new application. Both property owners have consented to the project. Knowing the issues relating to the finished grades, the property owner did seed the hillside and plant some trees. If the grades have to be changed to be in compliance with the previous plan, or to reflect a change to the grades based on the excessive slope, it may require the hill to be reseeded and replanted. Any recommendation shall include the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of 4-inches of topsoil and seeded or restored with some type of erosion control measure, erosion control plan shall be approved by the MCWD and City Engineer. The silt fence shall be relocated to be a minimum of 26' to the edge of the delineated wetland, and any fill shall be removed from within 26* of the wetland (unless a variance to permit fill within the wetland setback is approved). Ail soils within 26' of the wetland shall be decompacted following construction activity. The City Engineer shall review and make recommendations on the plan prior to any additional construction activities and corrections. No portion of the hill shall not less than a 3:1 finished slope. COUNCIL ACnON REQUESTED Motion to direct Staff to drafi a resolution of approval or denial based on the findings and conclusions made by the Council. The final resolution for adoption will be presented to the Council July 22,2002. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 PHONE:(^) 249-4600 FAX;(952) 249-4616 ZONING FILE #02-2793 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 24.2002 TO:Rcvis Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:^_Variance _Conditional Use Peimit ___Subdivision Other DATE OF MEETING: June 17,2002 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted Approval subject to conditions noted below X Denial for reasons noted below __Tabled for reasons noted below __No action required NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The existing fill should be removed from within 26* of the wetland boundary. The finished grades are not consistent with the grades approved with the previous CUP. The grading is over the property lines where no grading was initially proposed. The City Attorney should he consulted to determine the extec* to which the CUP and variance applications apply to the adjacent propeity owners. The finish^ grades do not meet the recommended 3:1 slope. You are scheduled to appear before the City Council on Monday, July 8,2002. If you have any questions please contact the Zoning Department at (952) 249-4600. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. litJM iiMlU MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Jane 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.in. B alteration on the property over SOO cubic )wds. The project required clear cutting the slope and depositing 3,280 cubic yards of flll, the purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill was the Orono Woods apartment building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road. At the time of the ^>proval, Weinberger explained that the property owner stated that some existing less maturejtrees would be removed with the intent to replant once the fill was placed on the hillside. Additional trees were to be added to the property where existing trees could not be used. The hillside was not to be a maintained lawn area that is mowed, but was to be left to restore itself naturally. Weinberger noted that during routine inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill placed on the hillside had exceeded what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. The City of Orono requested the property owner have a new survey completed to indicate where the land elevations had changed and by how much. The new survey completed by Gronberg and Associates, dated 6/6/02, confirmed the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but went beyond the property lines onto adjacent properties. Staff also identified areas where the fill had been added within 26* of the protected wetland.. Weinberger continued that staff sent correspondence ordering Mr. Stephenson to correct the property; however, the May 16,2002 deadline was not met. MCWD also had issued a stop work request. Instead, Mr. Stephenson requested the opportunity to apply for an after-the-fact conditional * use permit to permit additional land alteration beyond the previous approval, combined with a joint application including neighboring property owners, and an after-the-fact variance to permit the deposit of fill within 26'of a wetland. With regard to land alteration, Weinberger referred to Exhibits D, C, and D that illustrate what the land alteration conditions are comparing the pre-existing, approved, and actual elevations of the hillside. The elevation of the backyard is 966’, with the lowest wetland elevation of938*. The total drop of the hillside is 28’. Weinberger stated that the approved plan indicated an overall slope would be decreased to a 4:1 slope, pointing out that Qrpically the CiO' requires grading projects to have a finished slope of at least 3:1. • I MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondayt Jax 17,2002 6:30o*dockp.n. plan did not impact die wetland or wetland setback. Currently however, die fill is located as close as 17’ to the edge of die wetland, with an average distance from the hill to the wetland boundary of between 20- 25\ (W»-2793 RE VIS STEPHENSON m. Continued) Weinbfiger expanded on the three recommendation proposed by staff: I) The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to widiin 26’ of the wetland be denied. 2) The portion of the afteMhe-fact permit for the existing gndes is not consistent with the City’s general recommendations that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. In essence the applicant had extended his back yard an additional 38’. 3) Staff has requested that Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property ownera join him in this application since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property tines. • Comments from the adjacent neighbor to the north, Toby Jason, state that he has no issues with the project and is in full support of it He views it as an improvement to die property with regard to safety and believed the drainage was improved. A late fax submitted by neighbor Robert Hare supported the results of the project Weinberger then cited 6 conditions in his report that should be included as part of any recommendation. Mr. Stephenson questioned Weinberger whether his intention was to approve the sideyards as long as neighbors voiced their support Weinbergs indicated that with neighbor support, it would create a better scenario; however, the questions regarding slope variances and wetland alteration mudn. PAGE 16 OF 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondayt Jnac 17,2002 6:30 o*dock p.ni. Mr. maintained that the land alteration on the overhead slide had been corrected. The ^ existing grade is currently 2.9, since much of the fill tends to settle by one tiiird over time. He believed the silt fencing in place as of late had worked effectively in containing the fill. He asked if the sides could be approved if the current slope is 3:1. Although feedback from the City Engineer had not been collected, Weinberger stated his desire was to schedule the issue for this evening in order to prevent any further imrpovements from being done. Mr. Stephenson stated that, early on, the construction people did not have adequate silt fencing and dumped more dirt than he had origiiully intended. Mr. Stephenson questioned their motives to get rid of as much fill as th^ could and new silt fencing ** is constructed to replace the old after going over it In conclusion, Mr. Stephenson argued that more damage would be incurred by the wetland if the City required him to change the new buffer zone that had been created. The new buffer zone has cleaned out much of the buckthorn and otiier undesirables and been replaced with lutive grasses and trees. (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, Continued) Mr. Stephenson added that the seeding he had done had to be in order to avoid erosion problems during April and May rain showers. Smith asked Mr. Stephenson to help her understand how all of these enors evolved. She questioned whether he was there giving the crew direction or if someone else was the general contractor. Mr. Stephenson replied that at the outset, there had not been the wetland delineation that came later, nor did he feel the crew listened to his direction. He maintained that they had a co|^ of the plan in their possession but just did not listen to his requests for silt fence installation and fill limits. Smith stated that the project was under his direction and he should have managed it as such. Bellows pointed out that in any construction project, if the silt fencing is not up, tiiey don't dump. She maintained that the City was very clear from the start tiut they were not pleased. She stated that it was PAGE 17 OF 42 • I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, June 17« 2002 6:30 o ’clock p.ni. obvious to her that the applicant thought he would get away with it, and even went so far as to plant trees. More than simply erosion control was done. She felt the applicant was not being totally upfront with the Commission, the area was once a densely treed spot, and now the applicant had created a grade almost as steep as before with no trees to stop the slope. Dave Peltin, 1950 Fox Ridge Road, a current eleven year resident and childhood resident, believed the project to be * vast improvement. Mr. Peltin stated that the drop off created a scaiy scenario, even as a child himself there years ago. He disagreed that the removal of the old vegetation created a more dangerous situation, stating that previously the only thing to catch one from falling off the cliff were stumps. He felt the newly created buffer was 100 times more valuable than what was there before. Eric Galatz, of Leonard, Street, and Deinard, was in attendance representing Richard Chalfen of 350 Brown Road South. In addition to information provided to staff and the comments by Commissioner Bellows, Mr. Galatz asked to add a few remarks. He reminded the Commission that since no hardship previously exbted, Mr. Stephenson had only created a hardship for himself at this time. On Jan. 4,2002 Mr. Stephenson was notified by MCWD to install double silt fencing. On February 22,2002 the City of Orono asked Mr. Stephenson to stop work on the project until conditions improved, furthermore, Mr. t Stephenson was responsible for obtaining a wetland delineation prior to commencing his work as requited by the original permit. Through their unauthorized grading and filling project, Mr. Galatz ; ^ pointed out that the Stephenson's have added nearly 40 feet to their back lawn area, as vrell as, built a new deck and driveway. Mr. Galatz maintained that these Cuts disclose the Stephensons* failure to follow terms and conditions of existing permits and prior stop work orders. (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI. Continued) Mr. Galatz continued, that his client Mr. Chalfen, greatly appreciated his natural setting and privacy, which have now been significantly impacted. He stated that the City had granted variances that would have preserved that natural setting there originally, only now that has been compromised. Mr. Galatz encouraged the Commission to require that the applicant restore the landscape. In fact, Mr. Galatz stated, the applicant has not made any apologies to his neighbors or the City for his indiscretions. PAGE 18 OF 42 I* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Jnne 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. Mr. Stephenson asked to respond to each of Mr. Chalfen's issues independently. First, widi regard to die driveway and deck, Mr. Stephenson stated that he had meived a pennit for the deck and has not changed his drivewi^ in any wity. Second, he indicated that he is apologetic to both his neighbors and the City. He questioned the need to file pennit for his neighbors overflow fill amounts which are less than 100 cubic feet of fill therefore not requiring pennit. Finally, Mr. Stephenson stated that he disagreed with the view issues as put forth by the neighbor due to his proximity to the property. Bellows questioned if Weinberger could provide the Commission with a survey of existing conditions since the completion of the work. Gaffron noted that by comparing Exhibits B and D this is displayed well. Bellows felt that the two exhibits were dramatically different and asked if it would be possible to quantify the amount of extra fill that was used. Smith inquired about the typical amount of settling one can expect. Weinberger stated dial over a short period of time a little settling is somewhat common. Bellows reminded the Commission and applicant that the quantity of fill that is approved is for an amount only, not that which is needed to maintain a certain level after settling. Mr. Galatz stated that by extending the ridge out 38 feet, Mr. Chalfen's side hill view is now blocked by an 8 foot tall filled in hill, which obstructs his view to the woods beyond. Rahn felt it would be pertinent to obtain the City Engineer's opinion before nuking judgment and believed that when an ^iplicant goes way beyond what has been permitted, there are addhional issues to consider. • •• Mr. Galatz urged die Commission to take action now since Mr. Stephenson has already been on notice for six months. PAGE 19 OF 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoBday« Jaae 17,2002 6:30o*clockp.m. (002-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, ContlDved) Rahn e)q>re$sed his empathy to the neighbors who would be subject to a new series of trucks disrupting their lives this summer, who, of course, feel it is an easier course of action to let it all go. Smith asked for Mr. Stephenson's feedback regarding page 3, of the staff recommendations. Mr. Stephenson stated that item #3 of page 3 had been addressed by providing adjacent property owner support. Item #2, with regard to the grade, Mr. Stephenson maintained that the 2.9 grade is extremely close to the 3:1 slope that was approved and should be allowed. In reference to item 91, wetland encroachment, Mr. Stephenson stated that he would be more than happy to remove the fill diat had overflowed into the wetland area without having to shave the whole hill back. Fritzler questioned if the applicants crew was running equipment beyond the silt fencing and why. Mr. Stephenson indicated that small machinery had been used. Fritzler then asked how far into the wetland the applicants property extends and what he removed. Mr. Stephenson stated that his property extends 100’ into the wetland and that he removed much of the buckthorn at his own expense. Smith referred to page 4, the remedies to settle the issues, and asked for comment Weinberger reiterated that the entire project exceeded the approved 500 cubic yards of alteration and in order, to maintain the required 3:1 slope the entire slope will need to be shaved in order to pull the hill from the wetland. Currently at 36, versus the required 33, Weinberger questioned how the Commission felt about the encroachment into the wetland. Mr. Stephenson asked what could be done to keep the restored wetland buffer in tact PAGE 20 OF 42 MINITTESOFTHE 0RONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Jane 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p jd. Weinberger repeated that the City protects wetlands within 26’ thus ensuring that citizens do not disturb the wetland. Mr. Stephenson stated that MCWD had indicated to him that permits are available which allow fill back to a wetland as long as the natural buffer U restored, much like the golf course had done. Since ihe variances Mr. Stephenson referred to were never obtained, Mr. Galatz repeated that the hardship was his own doing and the edge of the ridge must be moved back. (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON m, Contiaucd) With regard to the neighboring properties, GafGron stated tfuit each will need to apply for their own permit to have the fill remain, Mr. Stephenson cannot apply for permits on behalf of his neighbors. Bremer questioned whether the letters and correspondence that have been received are enough to satisfy issue #3 for the City. ' Bellows maintained that no letter can suffice to support the CUP. * Fritzler voiced his opinion, stating that the crest of the hill needs to be backed up to what was originally approved in the CUP. Too much has been done and it is on the onus of Mr. Stephenson to correct the problem. Frtizler maintained that the integrity of the 26’ wetland setback needs to be restored. He added that, in his opinion, he would vote to deny the variance, deny the CUP, and require the applicant to move the slope back.. Bc.llo^ requested that item #6 of the conditions on page 4 of the report be stricken since die nei^bors are not co-applicants in diis request Smith stated that she concurred with the thoughts laid out by Fritzliir. Rahn indicated that in bis view the applicant had been negligent of what was originally approved and PAGE 21 OF 42 MlHk III I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Jane 17,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. agreed with removing item #6. Berg concurred. Bremer stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant would need to destroy the work he had done; however, he had created this for himself. Bellows agreed with Fritzler and struck item d6. Mr. Stephenson stated that had he known the neighbors would need to apply for the permits themselves, he would have had them do so. Smith asked staff if anything could be done to minimize the disruption to the neighborhood. Bellows pointed out that none of this disruption would have had to occur if the applicant would have followed the letter of the law right from the start. (W2-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, Continued) Weinberger stated that, in the applicants defense, he had asked for neighbor consent to die co- application. Mr. Stephenson expressed his disappointment and referred to the Orono Mission Statement which he felt encouraged the City to do what’s best foi die environment and the majority of its citizens support He stated that he did not mean to create this mess and could pull the overflow fill out of the wetland buffer rather, readily and reseed at his expense. Mr. Stephenson maintained that it did not make sense for the City to order him to do something to the neighbors property now after they have recommended their support of the project Berg stated that the project needs to revert to what was originally approved. What he has done was not part of the original plan, and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the neighbon love what he has PAGE 22 OF 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday* Jaae 17,2002 0:30 o*clock p ja. done, they did not file an application or join in die applicatic • a Mr. Stephen wn questioned the purpose for an •fier-the*fiKt application in the flrst place if the docs not approve them. Berg stated that they are available in order to allow the CiQr to correct what was done improperly. Mr. Stephenson stated that had he not filed for the after-the-fact application he would be continuing bis work today. Rahn clarified that by not filing the application, Mr. Stephenson would not be excused fiom correcting the problem, in fact, the City bad sent him notice to do so. Mr. Stephenson argued that the reasoning behind his denials are not due to the fact that they are not reasonable, but that they were not approved ahead of time. He questioned if he had come to the Commission with his neighbors to apply for a CUP to clear and fill the area originally would he have been granted approval, he argued yes. Smith disagreed, and stated that the Commission likely would not have approved the way it was done. Rahn stated that the approval had required a IS* setback to the sides, and he is currently in his neighbors properly, which already reflects a 30’ encroachment without ever going to the neighbors. For this, and other reasons, he argued that the Commission would not have given approval to the variances as Mr. Stephenson believed. («02-2793 RE VIS STEPHENSON HI, Continued) Bellows moved, Fritxlcr seconded, to deny the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Application #02-2793, Revis Stephenson HI, 1850 Fox Ridge' Road, for additional fill to be added to his property at slopes beyond what was recommended and the placement of soil on neighbors property. It is further recommended that aU three staff recommendations are frilowed PAGE 23 OF 42 i 1 I AaNUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moidayt Jnac 17* 2002 6:30 o'clock p.in. and Items #1 - 5 of the subscqueal staff coadMoas. VOTE: Ayes 6» Nays 0. »■(Recess takea from 8:58 - 9:05 p.m.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P^. (89) 802-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS. 250 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST, PRELIMINARY PLAT 9:05 pjD. - 9:42 p.m. Biad and Carol Pass, Applicants, were present Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a preliminary plat of the 14 acre property at 2S0 North Shore Drive West allowing it to be divided into two building sites, shared driveway, and conservation outlot. While the property owners own 20.S acres immediately east of the property, for a total of 34.S acres, if the potential exists for future development a right of way should be considered. The general site plan meets all requirements for a front lot/back lot subdivision. Weinberger continued that the shared driveway also meets the minimum requirements. He added that outlot B is platuied to be part of a much larger conservation easement area that will be dedicated to die Hennepin Conservation * District. The Hennepin Conservation District would maintain and manage the conservation area. While Hennepin County has requested a land dedication totaling 60’ fiom the center line of C.R. 19, the City has not always required the land dedication for additional right of way. In fact, Weinberger explained, that no other areas along this right of way are dedicated more than 33*, and this might infringe on the current wetland area. . V Weinberger stated that a variance is required to permit land alteration in a designated wetland for driveway construction. Dave Zetterstrom, EntranceFcimit Coordinator for Hennepin County, has reviewed the plans and noted in his letter dated May 21,2002 that ^ proposed driveway entrance if the only location along the roadway frontage where access can be pemiitted for the property. PAGE 24 OF 42 ! Complete Date: Deadliae: 6/11/02 8/10/02 TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:June 11.2002 SUBJECT: #02-2793 Revis Stephenson III 18S0 Fox Ridge Road • After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtikt: List of Exhibits: RR-ID One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) A B C D E F G H I i Application Approved Land Alteration Plan Cross Section Existing Grades MCWD Permit (12/06/DI) MCWD Letter (I/4AI2) City of Orono Violation Letter (2/22/02) City of Orono Violation Letter (S/2/02) Planning Conunission Minutes (1 1/19/01) City Council Minutes (1 1/26/01) Application Background: In November, 2001 the Council approved a Conditional Use Pennit for land alteration on the property over SOO cubic yards. The project would required clear cutting the slope and depositing of 3,280 cubic yards of fill, the purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill was the Orono Woods apartment building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road (Dunbar Project). At the time of the approval it was stated by the property owner that some existing less mature trees would be removed with the intent to replant once the fill is placed on the hillside. Additional trees were to be added to the property where existing trees could not be used. The hillside will not be a maintained lawn area that is mowed, but is to be left to restore itself naturally. A conditional use permit was required for land alteration of greater than SOO cubic yards. The slope is Qfii located within a shoieland area, where trees and existing grades on slopes are protected. The CUP process allows the City to notify surrounding property owners within 350' and requires City Council approval for such proposed projects. •02-2793 Revis StcpIicMOH 10 IISOFMlUdstRlMd pieeior4 'ft Status of the Project During routine inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill placed on the hillside has exceeded what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. The approved site plan indicated an area down the hill out from the center of the property would be the location of the fill. The approved grading plan indicates that there would be no land alteration closer than 15* to a property line. The City of Orono requested the property owner have a new survey completed to indicate where the land elevations had changed and by how much. Staff believed the amount of land alteration exceeded what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. The new survey completed by Grontwrg and Associates, dated 6-6-02, confirms the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but it went beyond the property lines onto adjacent property lines. Staff also has identified areas where there is fill that has been added within 26' of the protected wetland. Staff mailed a letter on May2,2002 (please read Exhibit H) ordering corrections to the property. Staff initially requested corrections last winter and spring, but due to road restrictions and the mild winter trucks to transport the fill from the property were not allowed to legally use Fox Ridge Road. A May 16,2002 deadline was established to correct the problem. Mr. Stephenson contacted Staff and requested rather than correct the problem at that time he requested an opportunity to discuss the item as part of an amendment to the previous CUP. Staff informed Mr. Stephenson the only option he would have would be to request an after the fact conditional use permit to permit additional land alteration beyond the previous approval, combined with a joint application including neighboring property owners, and request an after the fact variance to permit the deposit of fill within 26* of a wetland. I And Alteration Please refer to Exhibits B, C and D that illustrate what the land alteration conditions are comparing the pre-existing, approved and actual elevations of the hillside. The elevation of the back yard is 966*. The lowest elevation at the wetland is approximately 938'. The total drop of the hillside is 28'. ' The approved plan indicated an overall slope will be decreased to a 4:1 slope. Typically, the City will require grading projects have a finished slope of at least 3:1. The existing slope with the additional fill indicates a slope of less than 3:1. This would not be consistent with the general slope the City recommends. As of the date of this memo the City Fngin giw has not had an opportunity to review the plans to comment on the slope. Wetland Imrxicts Below the hillside is a large wetland. The City of Orono requires a 26' setback to wetlands for any land alteration activities. The proposed grading plan did not impact the wetland or wetland setback. A final wetland delineation was submitted following the project and wetlands were staked. The fill is located as close as 17' to the edge of the wetland. The aven^ distance the base of the hill is to the wetland boundary is between 20-25'. 102-2793 KevU Stq»hcnsofi in 1 ISO Fok M4fe Road Piie2or4 staff Recommendatioii Staff recommends the following: 1.The variance request to allow encroKhment of the base of the hill to within 26' of the wetland be denied. Section lO.SS, Subdivision 8 of the zoning ordinance prohibits any land alteration within a wetland and within 26* of wetlands. A variance requires a hardship and no hardship is justified in this case. The additional fill located within the 26' setback was done to extend the base of hill and there is no unique situation that exists that should require an encroachment into the setback. - Additionally, any approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur within 26' of a wetland without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting. 2.The portion of the after-the-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City ’s general recommendation that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. The point on the property where the flat area of the back begins to slope is less than a 3:1 slope and should be corrected. The original plan to fill the back yard was to make the back yard safe by eliminating the steep drop only 30* from the back of the house. The fill changed the slope of the back yard from a very steep drop to a gradual slope. The existing grades have extended the back yard an additional38. This is very clear on the illustration attached as Exhibit C. You can sec how the proposed plan would eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Staff is not opposed to this change in the plan, however the grades should be changed to not be less than a 3:1 slope and remove the base of the hill from the 26' wetland setback. 3.Staff has requested the Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines. The legal notice was mailed including those two properties as part of the new application. Both property owners have not yet consented to the plan. If there is no official consent received by the City the fill should be removed from those two properties immediately and the property be regraded to match the plan approved in November, 2001. If the neighbors do consent, the grades will have to be confirmed that they do not exceed 3:1 and the City Engineer shall iqiprove the plan from an engineering perspective. Staff placed this item on the Plaruiing Commission agenda for June to avoid any delay in resolving thismatter. The survey indicating the finished grades was not delivered to our office untilJune 10*^. Knowing the issues relating to the finished grades, the property owner did seed the hillside and plant some trees. If the grades have to be changed tobc in compliance with the previous plan, or to reflect a change to the grades based on the excessive slope, it may 'require the hill to be reseeded and replanted. •02-2793 RevU SteptoHoa m IISOFoslUdielUMO Piae3of4 r’ Any leconimendation shall include the following conditions: 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of 4>inches of topsoil and seeded or restored with some type of erosion control measure, erosion control plan shall be approved by the MCWD and City Engineer. The silt fence Aall be relocated to be a minimum of26* to the edge of the delineated wetland, and any fill shall be removed fiK>m wifiiin 26' of the wetland (unless a variance to pennit fill within the wetland setback is an»oved). All soils within 26' of the wetland shall be decompacted following construction activity. The City Engineer shall review and make recommendations on the plan prior to any additional coostivction ac^vities and conpctions. No portion of fee hill shall not less than a 3:1 finished slope. Consent to the supplication shall be received by adjacent property owners if any land alteration is approved beyond a property line. r .VV v4/*‘ I ‘ ' 4 i02*2793 Rfvti Sicplicmon m IISOFoailU^Roid r^4oT4 L ApoBcation# 02,-279 Z DateRccdved ^’7,’l^oz. fATdAmount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATIONUriUClI lAA-AlIVn ^ . ..I She Address / ^ ^ Type of >^)plication to be Filed l—j'* AI-U^4uji/\ -AiUm'ku^ - f o P Propel^ Identificatioo Number (PJ.D.) APPUCANT Name L Address /ft fb Rai RJL Pli Pt ethome) n7L «(woricS fstx. ynn City /Ora«%« _______Zip_js:SULCL- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________ Phone (home). Phone (woik)_ Address City Zip. I (do) (do not) also own the adjbcent parcels of land. Date P«^)eity Acquired fKl 0 I Ijlicent (monthtyear) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP applicatioif /$: .<’ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use. $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Ouest ^nrtments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $325.00 Commercial/Induslrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration JS^^O Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - SOI cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walb within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewd Fee (no change fiom original q)pUcation) After-the>Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation V^th Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeab _____Other - see Fee Schedule #2793 i / I s. 5. 6. 7. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS *• Completed Application Fonn. request in detail, p-- (m A^3. Oovenunem Cen4^4W27^ Department ofF^ ^ - refer to handout for survey Z “eluded on required survey. c^ges in elevation (gmdn). contours) if land alterations involve rfdie (“elude marital status) of all ne««n» 2. 3. 4. 9. viwgcs m eievauon (grades). ««eranons involve ' X4"“nS'ci?iSf.:4^ T^<!rr «*“■ “ i««» ^ - P**"- if Wlicri.le =r As m wMendom lo this .rr'->--n ri Jsl PasonsyouwishnoSfiedrf thissppiiS ““ TO« REPROD^TON^p“OWMENXS or copyssr- WliXTn“t4ffif°rive1'«^Lu“n ^ I-- Appuc-io. is «„,p,.^. ■----------------------------------------------- Date ■ ■ APPLIC^S SIGNATURE ---------- ./WnUnismtor. agnj '“luested by (be Zoning andtor unusual expenses incuned in leWew^f 2L JX T T' f“ P*y»^ suppbed IS mie and conec* to Ihe best of Applicant's signature* Date v4^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE **»e propcl^bi*a” *)Snte***^“ “‘*.fi«*‘er authorized reasonable “O*"* for puiposes of investigation a^niST^f ____ a . -Owitei*s signature ~~f2.'T -O Date---------------------— ^ /^YO 2^ Pto|^eSZu^“* c^u.^ ..— rSe.“i^ *• ptS^slS^Sa'ss gs: ■srztirSa-.ri: #27Q.Q LEGAL OeSCnPTION OF Lot 4. Bock 1. FOX RDGE This iurvoy Mondi to ihow tho boundortoi of tho obovo doocribod proporty, and tho loeotiw of on opting bo(M ond dock thtrooa It doto not pirport to ohow ony othor -X '> •*’' V '■ /■■■ '• * . V'- \v .‘5r •: ♦ i- >■, • • • «•• •« «v It** 1W> V' Wl* tf«* Gc *«HA^ »»' ^f«v«4;««| * *' % •* •---iTf^liin rrniiiiHittfgi <1 ■«* ■ i ■ r. ■f-.• ' OE^-fl7-2e01 16:46 OnyBMhMhrOnlir Hq4.1SI1l.NMSi lUt 2S00Shid)(M0dnaitf BMHqMNSan-SSTS m piMMccn)4n«90 flRfH047l«e Eim I: IMSto: BoaiSelMaiiigtri ftodiaM JifflwCilta Lnotfiihir MoftaGiiw ScalThami IMoofenRiid flobirt Sdiitdis CHEEK URg»CD 6124710662 P.02/02 ^ Hiuiehaha Creek Watersked District ~~ ImprovingQtnU^wfWMtoi QuaUty^L^ ^ J" . tS //V/' ST*. 1^1 Of* Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. and on the basis of statements and information oontalnad In the per^ appication. ooriespondence, plana, maps, and an other supporting daU submitted by the afyiDcant. aU of which are made a part herebr by reference, PERMISSION IS HEREBY ORANTED to the applicant named below for use and development of land In the Minnehaha CreeK Watershed District Issued to: Revfs Stenhaenson Permit No: 01^445 Location: 1850 Fox RMoe Rd. Qrono Purpose: Rules B: Erpaton Control Date of Issuance: 12/06/Q1 Date of Expirafaon: 12/06A)2 By Order of the Board of Managers MchaelWyatt District Technidan This permit is not transferable, and b valid to the date of expiradon. No actMfy b authorized beyond the expiration date. If the permittee requires more time to complete the project an appficadon for renewal of the permit b required. The applicant b responsive for compliance with all District Rules and for the action of their representatives, contractors, and employees. Conditions;. ■ Project to be completed as described in plans submitted to the MCWD office on November30,2001 and according to the provisions of thb permit • Properly install and maintain an reqtdred MCWD Rule B, erosion control measures untfi the disturbed areas are rastabilized sot fence must be orange in color When the sKe b restabUized and the MCWD staff has performed a final inspection, an sUt fences must be removed No filling or excavation aclivfties may occur within the boundary of the delineated wetland (Statement concerning fees for Inspections, violations, etc... on reverse) jn4-e4-20B2 11:43 hlhtCHPHP CREEK URTERSHED 6124710682 P.02/02 Minehaha Creek Watershed Biatrict Improving Quality rfVPkter. Qf$ality Onyrii^iiwIirOanly Mat aSOOShMi^fMOdRoid EmsiOi;MNS69ai-SS78 MMK|BSa)471<0690 Rk (832)4714682 Emal: •dRinVirinniMMCMiUMB VMbSte: wnunbineMiaaaAoig BMTdoflk'wm PvnateQ.6L UflMfWMr Moniet Grass SoolThanas IMoc.'fiWd RobsrtSctHDsdir ^SSSnSiwM Revis Stephenson January 4,2002 1850 Fox Ridge Road Orono, MN 55356 Mr. Stephenson: During routine inspections by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Staff, we (bund a number of violations of the provisions of the MCWD Rule 6 permit for erosion control. At the iocabon dted below, violations were recorded on January 4.2001: • Parmlt <101-4451850 Fox Ridge Road: Grading has been Initiated without the necessary erosion control measures in place as Indicated on the erosion control plan submitted to MCWD. It also appears as though soils near the wetland area have been heavily compacted by construction equipment and a portion of the wetland may have been Inadvertently filled from construction activity. In order to avoid penalties from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrir.t which may include fees and the delivery of a Stop Work Order, these violations require prompt and immediate attention. Ail violations should be attended to and fixed immediately. WoHc should not continue until the necessary repairs have been made. A deadline of January 8,2002 has been given In order to resolve these Issues. The permit holder is thereby required to: • Install silt fences to MCWD specifications on all downhill slopes and around stockpiles • Silt fence must be maintained in order to be effective and up to MCWD standards • Wetland delineation flags must be maintained In the original locations for reference to wetland boundary • No impacts to wetlands may occur with this project: if impacts are unavoidable, MCWD Board of Managers approval will be required for the project • Soils must be decompacted in areas within 25 feet of the wetland boundary following construction A MCWD representative will inspect the required repairs made to the construction sites later In the week. Thank you for your prompt cooperation and immediate attention to this matter. If you have any questions please call 952-471-0590. Sincerely, Michael Wyatt District Technician GITYoT ORONO Munidp*] Oflkci StraMMinis: 2750 Mtf PMkmy Orono. MN 55356 P.O. Boi 66 Cnistal Bay. Ml 553230066 Revis Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road LongXake. MNSS3S6 Mr. Stephenson; During a routine inspection with the City of Orono and MC WD we found a number of issues related to the land alteration on the property. The violations are noted below and require immediate attention. Ail violations are required to be corrected by March 5, 2002. This date is especially important as the mild winter causes great concern over erosion that will occur since the ground has not frozen. 1. o 3. 4. 5. 'Hie silt fences have not held and should be replaced or repaired. .le fill has been located within the required 26' wetland buffer and must be removed. No fill or land alteration is permitted within 26' of a wetland. Soils must be decompacted in areas within 26' of the wetland. It appears some land alteration has occurred beyond what was approved by the City and MCWD. The City of Orono is requesting you submit a survey showing finished elevations on the property to indicate the amount of area on the property that has had changes to the original elevation, and to indicate any land alteration that may have occurred beyond the property boundaries. The hillside should be disced from side property line to side property line. The existing hillside har been disced top to bottom. The top to bottom discing has created many chatmels for water that will wash fill down the hill towards the wetland area. The corrections must be competed by March 5,2002. Please contact the City when the above are complete for an immediate inspection. Shortly after they are complete the required 4" topsoil shall be added and the hillside seeded so the vegetation can establish itself. Please feel free to contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. I can be reached at 9S2-249- 4600. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator lUcpbooe (952) 249-4(00 • Fas (952) 249-4(l( .Vt.CITY of ORONO m\ MaBld|Ml Offices StnttMims: 2750 lUley PMkny Onmo. MN 55356 HaBtaflMratt: P.O. Bm 66 ciykal Bay. MN 55323^ May 2,2002 Mr. Revis Stephenson 1850 Eox Ridge Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Stephenson: I am writing this letter as a followup to our previous corre^ndence and meetings relating to the fill and regrading of the hillside on your property. As of April 30,2002 no progress has been made on the violations noted below. Road restrictions have been lifted and the City of Orono is requesting all violations be corrected immediately. 1. 2. 3. 4. The silt fences have not held and must be replaced or repaired. The fill has been located within the required 26' wetland buffer and must be removed. No fill or land alteration is permitted within 26' of a wetland. Soils must be decompacted to the standards set forth by the MCWD in areas within 26' of the wetland. It appears some land alteration has occurred beyond what was approved by the City arid MCWD. The City of Orono is requesting you resutvey the property lines and identity any changes to the final grading not consistent with the approved plan. We also noticed the e.xisting hillside has recently been seeded. The Conditional Use Permit required the finished grades match the approved grading plan approved by the Council. Additionally, 4" of tep soil is required to be placed above the finished grades prior to seeding. Please contact the City for an inspection as soon as finished grades are established. Once fmished grading is approved, the required 4** topsoil must be added and the hilbide seeded so the vegetation can establish itself. soon as seeding b completed, a second inspection b required. These corrections must be completed by May 16,2002, or the City may initiate legal action. Please feel free to contact me as soon as possible to discuss thb matter. 1 can be reached at 952-249-4600. Sincerely, Pau. Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Cc: Michael Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Renae Schubert, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Wendy Bottenberg, City of Orono ‘Mephooe (952) 2494600 • Rn (952) 2494616 wwmetemnn—ns 1 AONUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMAOSSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19.2001 o*dock p.in. («01>2730 Ace Properties, Continaed) Palm stated he would like to have it tabled. Stoddard moved, Mabiuth seconded, to table Apidicatioa #01-2730, Ace Properties, 3375 Crystal Bay Road, to allow the Applicant time to revise hb plans. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #01-2732 REVIS L. STEPHENSON, HL, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:30 p.m. - 7:58 p.m. Revis Stephenson, Applicant, was present Weinberger slated the Applicant has requested a conditional use permit to permit land alteration over 500 cubic yards on the property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. The project would consist of clear cutting the slope and depositing approximately 3,280 cubic yards of fill. The purpose of the project is to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill is from the Orono Woods apartment building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is required for land alteration greater than 500 cubic yards. The slope on this lot is not located within a shoreland area. Weinberger stated some existing less mature trees would be removed within the intent of the Applicant to replant once the fill is placed on the hillside. The Applicant is also proposing to plant additional trees and natural grasses. Weinberger stated it is not the intent of the Applicant to mainuin this area as lawn but as a natural area. Weinberger stated approximately 300 truck loads of fill will be delivered to the site. The source of the fill is from the senior apartment building site located at Highway 12 and Brown Road. The City Engineer has expressed some concerns about the potential damage to Fox Ridge Road, wrhich b a City street, given the number of truck loads tb'* ^ill be traveling over this road. Staff is recommending the property owner provide some type of financial guarantee that could be used to correct any damage caused by the contracters* activities. I Weinberger stated a utility easement is located through the property, which was granted in the 1970s as part of a Metropolitan Council project. The sewer main line was never consmicted and portions of the original easement located over the 20 acre property north of the Luce Line Trail was vacated years ago when it was determined the line would not be constructed. The easement located across this property and other lots in the Fox Ridge neighbortiood has not been vacated. Staff is requesting input tom the Metropolitan Council on the future use of thb easement and whether it can be vacated. Staff is recommending approval of the application based on the following conditions: I. A determination is made by all agencies with rights to the utility ea.v*4ent that 12 feet of fill can be located over the easement. 2. A letter should be submitted by the property owner indicating that two sih fences would be installed to protect the existing wetland, and that the silt fence would be installed prior to any tree removal or land alteration. PAGE? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2001 6:30 o’clock p.m. (Ml-2732 Rcvis Stephenson, Continued) 3. The MCWD shall issue an erosion control permit prior to issuance of a land Iteration permit. 4. The flushing station located on the property shall be protected by fencing to ensure it will not be damaged during the project 5. All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of four inches of topsoil and seeded or restored with some tjpe of erosion control measure, erosion control plan shall be approved by the MCWD and . City Engineer. 6. The property owner provide some type of financial guarantee that could be used to correct any damage to the road caused by the contractor ’s activities. 7. Fox Ridge Road is a residential street. The contractor shall place signs on Fox Ridge Road alerting other users of the road where the work will be taking place. 8. Temporary fencing shall be installed around the construction activity to separate the land alteration activity from the surrounding property. Stephenson stated he is adamant about protecting the wetlands in this area and is agreeable with most of the conditions listed in the Planner’s Report. Stephenson requested clarification of Item U6 relating to the financial guarantee. Stephenson commented he was informed by the contractor that the road should not be damaged, noting tlie road currently is in poor shape. Stephenson stated the neighbors are supportive of this project since it will eliminate the steep slope, and that his intentions are to plant native grasses and trees in this area to help restore the area back to its natural state. Mabusth suggested the Applicant discuss the financial guarantee with the contractor. Weinberger stated the work is not expected to start until mid December, and if the ground is frozen by then, the hauling of the fill will not be as big of a concern. Stephenson indicated he has no control over when the fill will be brought in, with the project expecting to take between five and six days. Smith inquired whether the impact on the wetland over time would be better or worse with this proj.:ct. Weinberger stated the City Engineer has indicated that the rate of water runoff will slow down by changing the grade in this area. In addition, vegetation will be planted in the areas where currently there is just dirt, which should help prevent erosion.* Hawn recommended a deadline of May 30.2002^ required for the landscaping and planting. Stephenson stated he does not have a problem with that requirement. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be planting the same number of trees that will be removed. PAGE! MlNiriXS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2001 6:30 o’clock p.in. (W01>2732 Revis Stcpheiuon, Coatinocd) Stephenson stated he would like this area to be well-forested and intends to plant natural prairie grasses as well as pine trees, oaks, maples, and apple trees. Stephenson stated that currently the majority of the trees consist of box elders that will be removed as part of this project as well as two maple trees. Stephenson reiterated that the road presently is in poor condition and that he has a concern regarduig a financial guarantee. Lindquist stated the City needs to have a letter of security on file prior to the commencement of this project Stephenson inquired what amount the City would be requesting. Gaffiron recommended the City Engineer and the Public Works Director meet with the Applicant to discuss the current condition of the roadway and document any existing problems. GaffhNi recommended this item be left up to the City Engineer and the Public Works Director to determine what the appropriate amount of security would be. Gaffion suggested the Applicant speak with Gappa following the hearing. Stephenson stated he is agreeable to do that. Gaffron inquired when the Applicant is proposing to place the black dirt on the property. Stephenson stated he would like to do that at the time he does the planting. Gaffron recommended the deadline for completion of the planting be moved to June 30"' to avoid problems with winter road restrictions. Fritzler inquired whether the entire fill would be spread this year. Stephenson stated the fill would be spread in conjunction with the dumping. Fritzler expressed a concern that the dirt may freeze before the contractor would be able to spread it. Frizler suggested the Applicant also advise the contractor to do periodic cleanup of die road, noting the contractor is prohibited from leaving anything on the roadway. Stephenson indicated they would comply with the applicable laws. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application Ml-2732, Revis L. Stephenson, HI., 1850 Fox Ridge Road, granting of a conditional use permit to permit land alteration over 500 cubic yards on the property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road, subject to the conditions outlined in the November 13,2001 Planner’s Report, and further subject to total restoration ofthe area being completed by June 30,2002. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 9 ■-TI 1 NONUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2001 6:30 o'clock p.m. (U6) «01>2734 MARGIE NEWTON. 505 ORCHARD PARK ROAD^ VARIANCE, 7:59 p.m. - 8:09 p.m. Margie Newton, Applicant, and Thomas Bren, Contractor, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to permit an existing horse bam to remain on the property located closer to the front property line than the new proposed house. Orono’s Zoning Ordinance prohibits accessory buildings from being located closer to the front property line than a principal structure. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 621 square foot addition to the bam. The proposed building would be 1,700 square feet. Any building over 1,000 square feet is considered an oversized accessory building. The bam location meets standards required for special setback regulations that apply to private bams and stables. The Applicant currently has two horses on the property that she would like to retain. Weinberger stated new soil testing and septic design has been submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City’s on-site septic manager for a four bedroom house, which could be expanded to a five b^room is needed. Staff is recommending approval of the variance to permit the oversized accessory building to remain on the property based on the existing building location, the best building site on the lot is located behind the bam, and it allows for a walkout at the highest lot elevation. Mabusth noted the riding arena would also be subject to the principal structure setbacks. Bren indicated the paddock area would Just be used for pasture. Bren stated at this time they do not intend to use it for anything but pasture. Hawn recommended the Planning Commission grant a variance for accessory use to the land. Rahn inquired whether the original house has been removed. Weinberger stated the house was removed a couple of weeks ago. Newton indicated the addition to the bam would be used for storage, noting she has a camper she would like to store inside. Bren staled the principal residence would be constructed prior to the addition to the bam. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, Co recommend npproval.of Application 801-2734,505 Orchard Park Road, granting of a variance to permit the oversized accessory building to remain on the property without a principal structure, subject to the construction of the principal residence located behind the bam occurring prior to the addition to the bam, and granting of a variance permitting accessory use of land. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 10 ■minutes OF THE ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETING Moadqr, November 26,2001 ________T kIo o*dock p.m. *(07) 001-2729 W. GREGORY AND KATHERINE COWARD, 1950 HERITAGE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4728 WbiCc moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4728, a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit to permit constmcdoa of two accessoiy bnildings on a through lot for the property located at 1950 Heritage Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays C. (881 801-2732 RE VIS STEPHENSON HI, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - CONDITIONAL Uf>E PERMIT-RESOLUTION NO. 4729 Revis Stephenson, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit land alteration over SOO cubic yards for the purpose to fill a steep slope area and have an improved finished grade for the backyard. The property is located at 18S0 Fox Ridge Road, with the lot having only 20 to 30 feet of yard area before the lot has a steep drop. The project would require clear cutting the slope and depositing 3,280 cubic yards of fill. The source of the fill is from the Orono Woods apartment building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road. The Planning Commission reviewed tl.is item at their November meeting and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the November 20,2001 Planner’s Report. Weinberger noted a financial guarantee is being requested on this project ^cause Fox Ridge Road is a public Toad and there is some concern with the number of trucks and amount of fill that will be transported to this site. Weinberger stated the purpose of the financial guarantee is to insure the current condition of the road would be maintained. , Weinberger stated Staff is also working with the Applicant regarding restoration of the vegetation in this area. The Applicant is proposing to plant some maple and other hardwood trees in place of the box elders and brush that currently exist Stephenson stated he has nothing to add to Staffs report. White moved to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4729, a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit to permit land alteration and fill of 3,280 square feet of material to the rear of the property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road, subjeci to the conditions outlined in the November 20,2001 Planner’s Report. Stephenson stated he would like to discuss the financial guarantee. _ _ » Weinberger stated Staff would be meeting with the Applicant to discuss the current condition of the roadway as well as the financial guarantee. Stephenson stated he does not want to have to finance construction of a brand-new roadway since the current condition of the roadway is poor. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mooday, Novenbcr 26» 2001 7:00 o*clock p.m. (#01-2732 Rcvis Stephenson, Continocd) Mayor Peterson stated the Public Works Director and City Engineer would be meeting with him to discuss the current condition of the road. Gappa stated if the hauling of the fill is done after die ground freezes, they should not have a problem. Sansevere suggested the Applicant consult with an attorney as well regarding the financial guarantee. Moorse stated Staff should be able to narrow down a number for the financial guarantee. Sansevere seconded the above motion. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#9) #01 ‘*^33 WILLIAM B. AND LYNAE PETERSON, 420 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCE RENEWAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4730 White moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4730, a Resolution Granting a Renewal Variance to permit the renewal of a variance to lot area and to grant a variance to permit the property located at 420 Orchard Park Road to be developed with a single family residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#10) #01-2734 MARGIE NEWTON, 505 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4731 White moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4731, a Resolution Granting Variances for the property located at 505 Orchard Park Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #01-2735 AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14, STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE Gaffron stated under the proposed amendment, in-ground pools and their associated grade-level patios would no longer be considered as structures for the purpose of calculating ‘‘lot coverage by structures". The original lot coverage ordinance adopt^ in 1989 did not include poob in the calculation of lot coverage. The ordinance was later amended si.x months after ib adoption to include pools and their associated patios. The Planning Commission did review this amendment and was pretty evenly divided on the issue. The four Planning Commbsion members in support of this change would like to see it accompanied by a new hardcover limitation on all non-Shoreland residential lots under two acres in area. The three Planning Commission members against the proposed amendment feel that poob and their associated patios/decks should continue to be calculated as lot coverage by structure, and suggested that decks regardless of height should also be considered for inclusion as lot coverage. PAGE 7 LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD rftOfiSSlONAL ASSOCIATION June 13.2002 Eric H. Galatz 612-335-1509 eric.galatz@leonard.com . 1 ■ 1 - HAND DELIVERED Orono Planning Commission do Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner CityofOrono 2750 Kelley Pailcway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Stephenson Application for Amendment of CUP and Variance at 1850 Fox Ridge Road Dear Planning Commissioners: We represent Richard Qialfen who resides at 350 Brown Road South in connection with the referenced application by Mr. and Mrs. Revis Stephenson III for an amendment to a conditional use permit (CUP) and variance at their property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. The amendment to the CUP and after-the-fact variance requested by the Stephensons are completely unacceptable under City ordinances and other governing law and we therefore urge the City Planning Commission to reject the Stephenson ’s application and order restoration of the property consistent with the terms of the existing CUP. The Background Facts Disclose the Stephensons * Persistent Failure to Follow Terms and Conditions of Existing Permits and a Prior Stop Work Order We have previously written several letters to the City to express Mr. Chalfen ’s serious concerns about the Stephensons ’ obvious violations of the CUP, City ordinances, and other laws. Unfortunately, despite Mr. Chalfen ’s efforts to ensure that the Stephensons are made to comply with applicable conditions, ordinances and other laws, Mr. Chalfen has seen no improvement in the Stqihensons ’ troubling activities. As our previous letters and the enclosed Affidavit of Richard Chalfen demonstrate, the Stephensons have, since their filling and grading project began, heeded few, if any, of the terms of conditions attached to the CUP and have flat-out ignored a Stop Work Order. Even more troubling, the Stephensons have conducted extensive finishing work (e.g., seeding in grass and replanting trees on the filled grade) even after repeated notifications by the City that the filling and grading work had to be corrected. This irresponsible and cavalier pattern of behavior is offensive to the City’s authority and 'las simply aggravated the degree of damage to the environment and to neighboring properties. Mr. Chalfen trusts that if the Stephensons complain ISO South Fifth SraitT Suite 2300 Minniapolis , Minnesota sS4oi Tel 6ii-33$-isoo Fax 4ii*335 iSs7 LAW offices in MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL, MANXATO, SAINT CLOUD AND WASHINGTON, D.C. 222642lvl WWW.LBONARD.COM Orono Planning Commission Page 2 June 13,2002 about the cost of correcting the conditions that the City fully recognizes that the Stephensons have created the problem for themselves. The Stephensons started clear cutting trees and importing fill before any silt fencing was installed, in clear violation of the CUP. The Stephensons were ordered to stop work on their filling and grading project in early January following an inspection by Minnehaha Creek Wateished District (Watershed District) that disclosed violations of the erosion control plan for the project. Undaunted by Watershed District Order, the Stephensons have continued their work, which has included, among other things: (1) further heavy equipment use and other prohibited work in the wetland setback (and, in some cases, within the delineated wetland itselQ; (2) planting of grass and trees after receiving notices from the City that City staff had concluded that portions of the fill material the Stephensons had imported would have to be removed or re graded; and (3) the addition of steps leading from an expanded back deck to the existing (altered) grade in the back yard. From these facts alone, it is obvious that the Stephensons intend to complete the project however it is they fit, whether or not that is consistent with the terms and conditions imposed on them by the City or the Watershed District. Mr. Weinberger’s June 2002 report to the Planning Conunission provides further evidence that the Stephensons have acted without regard to the original plan they submitted to the City. Among other things, Mr. Weinberger reports that the Stephensons have added nearly 40 feet to their back lawn area (that is the flat part of their yard near to the back of the house) through their unauthorized grading and filling project. As a result, the Stephensons have more than doubled the size of their usable back lawn area, while leaving a steep grade (that is, less than three to one) down toward the wetland at the back of their lot. The result is completely at odds with the Stephensons ’ earlier claim that they wanted to create a more level grade throughout the back yard to make it safer for their children. The Actions Taken by the Stephensons Violate the CUP The record demonstrates that the Stephensons have breached the terms and conditions of their existing CUP and the erosion control plan in the several material ways enumerated below: 1. Required silt fencing was not installed before filling work commenced, leading to unnecessary risk of erosion and sedimentation to the nearby wetland. 2. The silt fencing that was installed was not a double fence as the CUP required. 3. Even after the inadequate silt fencing was put in place, the Stephensons continued to perform work in the wetland setb''ck area. As the Mr. Chalfen’s testimony and the photographic exhibits vividly demonstrate, the Stephensons moved mechanical equipment extensively in the wetland buffer area after the silt fencing was installed. This 222642SVI Orono Planning Commission Pages June 13,2002 woilc violated the wetland setback condition in the CUP and jeopardized the natural resources that the silt fencing and setback requirements were intended to protect. 4. The All imported by the Stephensons is clearly more voluminous than what is permitted in the CUP. Mr. Weinberger’s report (including the attached cross section diagram) is entirely consistent with what Mr. Chalfen has observed, as recorded in his aflidavit. The current grade profile creates a much bulkier hillside throughout the cross-section profile ^ than what was approved by the City. Therefore, it is almost certain that the Stephensons violated the volumetric limit for imported fill established in the CUP. See also item eight, below. 5. The record also demonstrates that the contours created by the Stephensons are much higher than the accepted contours as originally proposed by the Stephensons. Both Mr. Weinberger’s report and Mr. Chalfen ’s affidavit and the attached photographs show that the relatively flat grade at the back of the Stephenson ’s house now extends out an additional thirty-eight feet from where the pre-existing grade began its steep descent toward the back of their lot. 'This extended “table ” of new fill is very noticeable in various enclosed photographs, and as the cross-section diagram attached to Mr. Weinberger’s report shows, this feature has caused a significant departure from the accepted contours in the Stephensons ’ opginal plans. The resulting landscape is imnatural in appear;>nGe and impairs the view shed from Mr. Chalfen ’s property. Fuithcr, the extended “tabte ” grade has, naturally, caused the remaining Glope to be steeper than the recommended three to one grade, de~pite the fact that the Stephensons extended the foot of the hill mto the wetland buffer. 6. *rhe record shows that the Stephensons have violated the twenty-six foot wetland setback by placing fill within the buffer zone. When that fill is removed, as it should be, it will be necessary to re-grade the remaining hillside to maintain compliance with the slope guidelines. 7. Although they did not identify it in their plans submitted with the CUP application, the Stephensons have added a sloped driveway area on the north side of their house. This slope was apparently created using imported fill and was used to enable heavy equipment access to the Stephensons ’ back yard. The creation of this slope is clearly a part of the overall filling and grading project and therefore the fill contained in that slope should be included in the calculation of total fill volume for the project and it should be removed following completion of back yard fill removal and re-grading as the City may require. 8. The Stephensons have inexplicably broadened the area of fill not just beyond the side yard setbacks that were incorporated into the original contour plan, but well beyond their side lot lines into adjacent properties! Fill in these areas, depicted in an overhead-view diagram attached to Mr. Weinberger’s report, was completely unauthorized by the City and further contributes to the inescapable conclusion that the amount of fill brought in b} the Stephensons far exceeds the volume approved by the City. Though it is not clear 222<42Svl L Oiono Planning Commission Page 4 June 13,2002 from Mr. Weinberger’s report, it is probable that the grade extending laterally down the face of this illegal “side-lot ” fill exceeds slope guidelines as well and, even if some is allowed to remain, this fill must be re-graded accordingly. The Stephensons Actions Have Caused and WU! Continue to Cause Adverse Natural Resource Impacts that the City Must Not Endorse The Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.09, (“MERA") requires the City to consider any alleged impairment, pollution or destruction of air, water, land or other natural resources and provides that the City may not approve any conduct that has, or is likely to have, such an effect on natural resources, so long as there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with the legitiiuate and reasonable health, safety and welfare concerns. MERA does not allow economic considerations alone to justify conduct that is likely to cause impairment, pollution or destruction of the state’s natural resources. Here, the Stephensons have violated the Watershed District’s Erosion Control Plan, incorporated by reference into the CUP. That violation led to the issuance of a Stop Work Order, which the Stephensons simply ignored. In addition, as noted, the Stephensons began filling and grading woric before silt fencing was in place, thereby jeopardizing downstream ecological resources due to uncontrolled sediment erosion. The Stephensons have also performed woric, including the use of heavy mechanical equipment, in the wetland setback, which is obviously intended to serve as a buffer to protect the nearby wetland habitat. According to the Watershed District staff, the Stephensons ’ woric “heavily compacted ” soils near the wetland area and that inadvertent wetland filling may have occurred as a result of the Stephensons ’ violations of the erosion control plan. Further, since the existing grade of the filled hillside is not consistent with the contour plan approv^ by the City and the slopes and volumes of new material (presumably more susceptible than native materials to erosion) may not be consistent with the sound engineering principles that piesumably underlie the City ’s approval of the plan prepared in accordance with the original CUP application, further impairment of the wetland may be exper:ted unless the inappropriate grading and volume of fill are corrected. Finally, the enclosed photogr^hs support Mr. Chalfen’s observ. dions and his belief that some of the Stephensons ’ work (particularly tree and brush removal) was carried out within the delineated wetland (that is, not the wetland buffer, but the wetland itself). There is no evidence in the record that the Stephensons received any authorization to perform woric within the wetland itself. 222642tvl i Orono Planning Commission Pages June 13.2002 Together, the facts in the record reveal that work performed by the Stephensons has caused environmental impairment, pollution and destruction and, unless remedied, is likely to cause further adverse impacts in the future. Reasonable, prudent alternatives have been and are available —i.e., following the conditions in the CUP would have prevented potential adverse impacts to natural resources and strict compliance with CUP conditions moving forward (by, for example, removing excess fill and adhering to the contour scheme approved in the CUP) will help prevent futiue impacts. Even if the Stephensons complain that adherence to the conditions of their permit will cause financial expenses, the City should not be influenced by the claims, as financial considerations alone cannot justify the Stephensons ’ requests. The banning Commission Should Recommend Denial of the Requested CUP Amendment and Variance and Should Recommend an Order Requiring Strict Compliance wish the Existing CUP Mr. Chalfen concurs in most significant respects with the conclusions and recommendations contained in Mr. Weinberger’s report to the Planning Commission. With respect to the first staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the fill must be removed fix>m the wetland buffer area and the soils in that area must be decompacted. Mr. Chalfen believes that, to the extent possible, pre-existing vegetation in the buffer area and in the wetland itself should be restored. With respect to the second staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the slope of the filled grade must not exceed the recommended three to one slope and that the foot of the slope must be removed from the twenty-six foot wetland setback. In addition, Mr. Chalfen would like to see * some clarification in the record that this steepness of the slope must not be exceeded along any radius extending from the pre-existing back lawn area of the house. Thus, if the Stephensons are required, as they should be, to remove all fill exteu''ing beyond the side lot setbacks, they should be required to remove and re-grade the remaining fill as may be required to ensure that the slope extending along die edges of the permitted fill areas does not exceed the recommended slope. Finally, with respect to the third staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen believes that the only conclusion is that the fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and fix>m the side yard set back areas within the Stephensons ’ property. Mr. Chalfen therefore disagrees with the staff suggestion that the Planning Commission may accept “the consent ” of the neighboring property owners as effectively authorizing amendment to the Stephensons ’ CUP.' ' To the extent that the adjacent property owners fail to consent to the addition of fill to their pnpeity, Mr. Qialfen agrees with the conclusion of the staff that the fill in question should be removed However, as explained in the 222642Svl Orono Planning Conunission Page 6 June 13,2002 As Mr. Weinberger’s report notes. City staff requested that *'Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application, since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines." The record is inconclusive, however, as to the volume of fill that has been illegally plac^ on the adjoining properties. Therefore, it is unclear whether or not the adjacent property owners may themselves require a conditional use permit for "land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards." If either adjacent owner would have required a CUP to place the fill on his property that the Stephensons have placed there without authorization, then it stands to reason that the Stephensons ’ illega' actions should not obviate the need for separate CUP application(s) to be made by the adjacent owner(s). To allow such land alterations without the process requir^ by the City’s code would likely be a violation of the due process rights of those persons usually afforded notice and opportunity to comment as a part of such a process. Mr. Chalfen would also like to see the City require adherence to the existing CUP requirements that the fill be removed from the side lot setback areas within the Stephensons ‘property (that is, not just from the adjacent properties). There is no basis in the record for ef’^'ctively amending the CUP to allow more fill than was previously authorized. In other words, the Stephensons should be required to meet the three to one slope ratio throughout the limited frll area permitted in the CUP, even if this means removing more fill from the center line of the fill area to enable compliance with slope limitations of the grade extending laterally toward the side lot lines. The StaJjTs Legal Analysis is Limited, But is Essentially Correct in Concluding that the Stephensons Do Not Meet the Test for Either an Amended CUP or for a Variance Both the requested amendment to the CUP and the requested after-the-fact variance fall far short ‘ of meeting legal requirements and they must therefore be denied. Further, granting either request would be contrary to sound public policy as the Stephensons ’ behavior in flaunting the City’s and the Watershed District’s authority should not be rewarded. An iqiplicatioR for amendment to a CUP should meet all threshold requirements as though the application was for issuance of a original CUP. A CUP or variance ’’may be denied for reasons relating to public health, safety, and general welfare" even if those concerns are not embodied in ordinance or statute. Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City o*‘Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335,340 (Minn. 1984); see VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503,508-09 (Miim. 1983) (city has broad discretion to rule on variance request); Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192,195-96,167 N.W.2d 45,48-49 (1969) (city has broad discretion in deciding on main text, Mr. Qialfen disagrees with the reasoning the sufif applies to arrive at the coockuioii, particularly the premise that having the adjacent property owner ’s consent should make any difference in the re^t 222642SVI -wa nttf J • Orono Planning Commission Page? Junen, 2002 CUP). Where a permit request is denied, the applicant has the burden of persuading a reviewing court that the reasons for the denial either are legally insufficient or are not supported by the record. Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. CityofAfton, 323 N.W.2d 757,763 (Minn. 1982). To establish the type of hardship required to qualify for a variance, a property owner must satisfy each part of the test laid out in the code, including that the property owner's plight is due to circuQistances unique to his property. The record here provides no support for the requested amendment to the CUP or for the variance. The Stephensons ’ plight is not due to any circumstance unique to their lot; rather, it is due to their own decision to deviate substantially from the approved contour plans in the existing CUP. Conclusion The application is patently without merit and must be rejected. For all the reasons stated herein, oU the conditions of the existing CUP must be enforced to protect the environment and the interests of adjacent property owners, including Mr. Chalfen. Mr. Chalfen therefore urges the Planning Commission to adopt the staff recommendations, with the following clarifications: (1) any damage caused by the Stephensons ’ woric to the wetland itself must be mitigated; (2) all slopes must not exceed the three to one slope, even if that means the Stephensons need to remove more fill than the City expects; and (3) all fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and the side yard setback areas, regardless of adjacent property owner consent. Very truly yours. LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Eric H.tiaiatz Christopher M. McGlincey cc: Enclosures Richard Chalfen Hugh M. Maynard, Esq. Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor Ronald Moorse, City Administrator 2r!642tvl 1 •. I PHOTOGRAPHS % EXHIBIT B riloKK.KAi'iiS'JAKKN IN l\M AUV 2002 I * v • , ? I r t. j / • nrr^ ’ mmm' I?'I \\i ; iVlfl / : •/. ^ •» ‘.■W W • •fv'?? -■■ 4 %Bfift - ti ^. -im I I . I *^\ ' •■ '\'K i r .- •-•\ ' • •■ ; • ;/ *1^* * *•( ' [If V ./ • y r.,.. -4i:^ -i1 B 1 V .1- •!i l llninr.K IAKi;.\ IN I \M \K^■ 2002 fmmM ipsfir f rjzil noS 15, ibBMi ...f,' ,,.::t? . I •_. X / *J -*1^ J^- ..' V ‘ <■ -• w ^ ■■•< ►■*'//."t m i^i. V v":* *..r •' • » . .^ .*• V ^ J ‘ . • -:%k>jr'. l‘lln|()(,U\I-||STAKf:N IN .1 wrAKV 2002 ’ 1 h mM Ml L V - %» K'-' JT30tr I'lIOHHJUAPIIS TAKEN IN .1 AM AkV 2002 Sfif ‘.'.i'v''I.' 'i' * • r Ui• * I ^ Hi f ■'i’-J r.. •'. *■ •Mi' ^ IS • V , 7v* -^ .iv l‘ 'Cfv ■ \ Vi;.j : ^ - ‘/‘I’??'' •)i’. jeratiT /•» \ ■\J^y 4q \4|^; / t Sib ■ 1 ii’. ^ t-r. ‘V„ - . V -J, r /,V *J/ I’lli )|n(.|{ M'ilSTAKr.N IN I \M MiV 2002 ■ ■-‘5 ‘'- -mi .w **' - •- t m m ’?■■' X • «*• 5* \ s| * N*^ lil() 10( iKAl'IlS TAKEN IN I l.UKl\\RY 2002 11 1^:4 M r J*; :'m --'-i fc V-; » I ■■. ■ i mm . m SMi !l ’isv15 ,aE?v -/^ i -.‘ ;a ft-« III «&ZSAlf2 - '• 'iS Vv •'-- ,iV' - 1-IHffiiSf U i rilOI (H;RAI’I1S TAKEN IN I Kimi ARY 2002 i) ■■ -: V|il-|ii’|&^ i. ' !.». P..1 'T fS»^T IrfM ?PaiilwlSfe"3i' ■. ' ~ f 9 ■ y*^ ) !-v vS--*' > 1^-11 J M i‘W % l|Vi if B:iJ« U^'A ^> ? 1 i -2“' ‘' t ^ ii a;i sw.f' f^v, illMMm PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN LN FEBRUARY 2002 ^ '^31 r ‘ >T •' • ^ • r /sj' /■'^V.'■'Jhj, ■ :' •«.■■'•■ '^- . -* ' ll ' * . :. . /// mi * ■ . .'* I.. ■ ;• ^ . 1 X rtl -•. k: ■ . ^ .*/ / • • •■• .,v * *.r. % T'-^i.. ,„■ - -■»■»«- »»* I n AM mm ■il-fiittalfian 111 riioKM.K\i‘ns iakenHv I ION \UI). SIKI I I AM) DELNARI) •4 « « r V -4. •-V * '* t V 1 P* V. c »f • t > - /V V * r r/^ • f :¥ iliii£ ^II'SJV'.- ‘X-‘V”fc ’ ^ * iir^li Li-si; ^ rir’* f «■- • *. W^-V; ,- .-N• ^ V. • mM^:;.:>^sa BBRI^ ,^'lf m'm3;S- frM fcl'Sri P5m*^£aa. '4: IP? ‘ ,'SVJ : '••*“* I msWr^'mm- 4 * X. , > * ^ k ■ . * -s ' ' > •''./• 1 **•' C»*f * • 1*110 H )f;KAl>iis TAKEN BY I.K»\ \KI>. SIKEET AM) DEINAUI) <%5m ^ \ v^ ■’ ^7 -■ ■ ;'I^I ^ r<*>. <• ^ : . • ^ ‘/. -..-c ■ca • "t • *'' ’) ^ mS^ i ■<- Kil :Mv: '•'. : s'-. ,X€^^1 Ml ilir.-i: fH’ £;S 5S' as-^-^f i3 m iu^ -) ' ■ if ? B. '■-' 11i sir ' fc*-' - . -;:y'\ Cr?ZS^V4B 7 <■ PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA In the Matter of Stephenson Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and for Variance AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD CHALFEN Richard Chalfen, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. All matters sworn to in this affidavit are made based upon my personal knowledge or upon sound information and belief. 2. I am a resident at 350 Brown Road South, Orono, Minnesota. I purchased my residence on November 1,2001. 3. My residence is situated on a parcel of property (“my property ”) about twelve acres in size. My property is roughly in the shape of a backwards letter “L.” A significant portion of the upright leg of this backwards L consists of a wetland area. That leg of my property extends along the entire eastern boundary of a residential property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road, which since sometime in 2001 has been owned by Mr. and Mrs. Revis Stephenson m (“the Stephensons”). The Stephensons’ back “yard” includes a small portion of that wetland that extends throughout most of the upright leg of my property. The Stephensons’ back yard is plainly visible from various parts of my property, including the area around my residence. 4. At the time I purchased my property, I was unaware of any plans or pending applications by the Stephensons to perform any work on the back yard of their home. 1 soon learned. however, that the Stephensons had significant filling and grading plans for the back )‘ard. The way 1 learned of it was by observing great mounds of dirt being dumped in their back yard and bulldozers uprooting dozens of mature trees and pushing the fill around the ruined landscape. 5. In December 2001 and January 2002,1 observed many truckloads of dirt being dumped in the back yard before any silt fencing was installed on the lower reaches of the Stephensons’ back yard, where upland vegetation gives way to wetland vegetation. 6. As my concern grew about the growing pile of dirt in the Stephensons’ yard, I started inquiring of the Stephensons and the City about the natu ’-e of the project and only then learned that the City had issued a conditional use permit (CUP) for the project. As it turns out, the CUP was issued weeks after I purchased my property but I was never notified of the Stephensons’ pending application for the CUP. Sometime after I began making inquiries and raising objections to the Stephensons’ project, the City commenced its investigation and looked into enforcement of the CUP. I continued to lodge objections to the project which I made directly and through my attorneys. Most of my objections were made before any seeding and landscaping were carried out. 7. As the filling and grading project progressed, I observed many things that I found troubling. A single silt fence was installed well after the project was underway. The Stephensons never installed the double fencing as required by the CUP. Both before and after silt fencing was installed (which as I understand it is required by ordinance and watershed district regulations to protect the neighboring wetland) I observed heavy mechanical equipment, c.g., a large bulldozer, as well as a Bobcat^“ loader, operating all over the back yard, including the zone between the edge of the wetland and the silt fencing location. I also observed many trees • ^ being uprooted or cut down (some of which I believe were within the delineated wetland) • ^ » and I saw copious amounts of dirt either placed or spilling into areas immediately adjacent to my property and into the wetland boundary. 8. My observations stated in the preceding paragraph are substantiated by the observations of a Miimehaha Creek Watershed District staff member who inspected the Stephensons* property in early January 2002 and issued a Stop Woik Order based on observed violations of the erosion control plan issued by the watershed district. A true and correct copy of that Order, which I obtained from the City, is attached as Exhibit A. I also took several photographs in early January and, again, in early February 2002 to document the deplorable site conditions. I have attached true and correct color photocopies of these photographs to this affidavit as Exhibit B, with brief captions. I saw no slowdown, let alone stoppage, of work, including work in the wetland setback area, as a result of the Stop Work Order. 9. In addition to my observations of the illegal work being carried out on the periphery of the Stephensons’ back yard, infringing into side setback areas and the wetland setback area, I was also shocked to see the size (and unsightliness) of the mound of dirt that the Stephensons had placed in their back yard. As it continued to grow in size, I came to realize that there was no way the volume of dirt 1 was seeing could be made to fit the contours that the Stephensons had proposed in their plans and which the City apparently accepted in granting the CUP. My perception of this has not changed since the huge mound of dirt was graded in early spring and planted by the Stephensons in late April. From my vantage point, it appears that the graded surface of the filled landscape extends vastly beyond the contours indicated in the plan submitted by the Stephensons. I believe that the volume of dirt imported and used as fill greatly exceeds the allowable volume under the CUP.' I 10. The greatly changed landscape in the Stephensons’ back yard is unnatural in appearance and is aesthetically displeasing. It presents a stark contrast to the preexisting landscape. In the seven-plus months of the year when the foliage is off the trees, I have a clear view of this altered landscape. The Stephensons have created a large hill, in essence. This new hill significantly impedes my view along the formerly continuous hillside or bluff line. particularly during the seven-plus months when there is no foliage. I consider this dramatic and decidedly unnatural change in the landscape to be offensive and I believe it will have a negative impact on the value of my property. I also believe that significant erosion and sedimentation have occurred and will continue to occur as a result of the Stephensons’ activities which may impair the wetland and may thereby impact my property and its value, since a large portion of the wetland at issue is located on my property. Further affiant saith not. --------^ Riciiard Chalfen ' Subscri^d and sworn to before me this day of June, 2002. Notary Public SUSAN E. OLSON ^ NOTAf^r ^'BUC-M iNHESOTA If/Ji.JXS 2226746VI Council Exhibit D L W FREDRIKSON & BYRON, E A. Attorneys and Advisors AffttiiiUi: Mexico City Winaw Montreal Toronto Vancouver 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-3397 (612) 347-7000 FAX (612) 347-7077 U"vv\%-.fredlaw.com Direct Dial No. (612) 347-7146 gmunson@fredlaw.com July 3,2002 Barbara Peterson, Mayor City Council Members Attn: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono,MN 55323-0066 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I represent Revis Stephenson, III with respect to his application for an amended conditional use permit relating to fill placed on his property, and with respect to his variance request to address fill which arguably encroaches in the wetland buffer area. Initially, the City of Orono granted Revis a conditional use permit to conduct a fill project in his backyard to eliminate steep and dangerous slopes, both for safety issues, and to avoid excess erosion and runoff Upon completion of the project conducted pursuant to the CUP, it became apparent that some of the fill encroached on the previously delineated wetland buffer, and beyond his property line, and that the final slope was very slightly off the 3 to 1 ratio required. Therefore, this request for an amendment to the CUP and for a variance is before you. ANAI YSIS OF RELEVANT FACTS Afier obtaining the required CUP for the proposed fill project, Revis undeilook and completed the project. Upon City inspection, discrepancies were noted between the completed project and the approved project. 1. Wetland Buffer : Under the approved project, no fill was to be placed within 26 feet of the adjacent wetland, as required by City Code. While some fill was unintentionally placed within the buffer area associated with the previously delineated wetland, it has now been determined that no encroachment exists. The initial wetland delineation was performed during the winter, a time which environmental scientists concur is inappropriate for such a delineation due to the frozen conditions. Revis recently retained Peterson Environmental Services to confirm the previous delineation of the wetland. The recent delineation is not totally complete, but initial work suggests that the wetland, and the related buffer area, lie substantially fUrther towards the wetland, and away from the fill area than indicated in the first delineation. That result suggested 1 FREDRIKSON & BYRON, R A. Attonuyi and Advimt Barbara Peterson, Mayor City Council Members July 3,2002 Page 2 despite performing the delineation in a month with near record rainfall. If the final revised delineation confinns initial observations, then no fill lies within the actual buffer area, and in fact, the re-seeding performed by Revis has substantially increased the size, and improved the quality, of the natural buffer. With confirmation of our expectations, no variance would be necessary. Revis has decided that rather than immediately withdrawing the variance request, he would prefer that the City Council authorize City staff to meet on site to review the refined delineation when it is complete. Assuming relevant staff members concur with the refined delineation, the variance request relating to encroachment in the buffer area would be withdrawn. 2. Breadth of Fill: The City inspection revealed that some fill has been placed beyond the approved ‘’width" for the project, and in fact, has in part been placed on the immediately adjacent properties. Both impacted property owners have consented to the placement of that fill, as indicated in letters previously submitted to the City. The primary purpose for the expansion of the fill area was to improve drainage for all parties involved, and to avoid excessive lateral run off. Given the logical rationale for the expansion, and the adjacent property owners ’ consents, an amendment of the CUP to allow the completed project to remain is the most prudent alternative. At a minimum, it is requested that the City Council direct the City Engineer to examine the relevant areas to assess this asserted improvement to the initial plan, and if found acceptable, the requested CUP amendment could be addressed at the next scheduled City Council meeting. 3. Final Grade of Slone : The City inspection further revealed a slight discrepancy to the required 3 to 1 finished grade. That result was unintended. The finished grade appears to be approximately 2.9 to 1. Revis admits that the result does not comply with the initial CUP requirements, but it should be recognized thafthe slope is a significant improvement over the pre-project slope, and the discrepancy is minor. As the slope settles over time, it is likely that the grade will reach or e.xceed the required 3 to 1 ratio. Additionally, the natural grasses planted on the slope have “taken ” quite well, and the slope has remained very stable despite dramatic recent rainfall. More recent results examining the final slope will hopefully be available for the July 8, 2002 Council meeting. Any re-grading at this point may risk destabilization of the slope, and ih'^ end result would provide little difference. The proposed amendment to the CUP, under the circumstances, is reasonable. Previous correspondence to the City has painted Revis as a devious landowner, but that is simply not the case. Revis recognizes that he is responsible for the project. He has remained in contact with the adjacent landowners and City Staff throughout the project. He has not filled the wetland. He has not violated a “stop 'vork order”. He has complied with his proposed landscaping plan, and has improved the safety and aesthetics of the yard. He has enhanced the natural wetland buffer, improved the quality of forestation, and improved the drainage in the area. While Revis recognizes that he may not be “entitled” to the requested amendment to the FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P. A. Attomep §nd AJviun Barbara Peterson, Mayor City Council Members July 3.2002 Page 3 CUP and variance, the relevant facts support their approval. Revis encourages the City Council to act affmnatively on his requests, or at a minimum, to direct staff to conduct a site visit to observe and analyze the revised wetland delineation, and the improved drainage. The approval of the requests is within the clear authority of the City Council, even with respect to the variance (if ultimately deemed necessary). The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reviewed Minnesota’s variance standard as stated in Miimesota Statutes § 462.357 on numerous occasions. In interpreting the statutory variance standard, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated: “The first (hardship) requirement is that property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. This provision does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. In such a case the constitution would compel a variance regardless of the statute. (Citations omitted). The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances in cases w’here the constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of “undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance.” (Roswell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). That reading of the language substantially clarifies a common misinterpretation of the variance standard in Minnesota. In 1995, the Minnesota Court of Appeals again restated the standard. The City of St. Paul had granted itself a variance to construct a dome over baseball fields that exceeded by five feet the maximum structure height allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. This was challenged by the ovmer of apartment buildings located adjacent to the proposed dome site. In determining whether the property “cannot be put to a reasonable use” the Court stated: “This court has previously construed this language to mean the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable use, but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict provisions of the code.” (Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W. 2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). Finally, in May, 2000, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). The property owner sought numerous variances to accomplish a subdivision of its property into three residential lots. The granting of the variances FREDRIKSON «c BYRON, P. A. AttmuptniAhum Barbara Peterson, Mayor City Council Members July 3,2002 Page 4 was challenged by an adjacent landowner. In once again affirming the granting of the variances, the Nolan Court stated, *'In Rowell, this court squarely addressed the question and explained that the statutory undue hardship requirement ‘does not mean that a property owner must show the land caimot be put to any reasonable use without the variance.* Rather, the undue hardship standard requires a showing that the property owner would like to use their property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by ordinance.” The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ consistent application of the interpretation it first announced in 1989, provides much more flexibility to municipalities in granting variances. The apparently rigid “undue hardship” standard is less onerous than many think. Rather than proving that no reasonable use at all exists for a property without the variance, under this standard a landowner must only prove that the proposed use which is disallowed under the controlling regulations is reasonable. Revis has accepted that the result of the project is not precisely what was contemplated, however, reasonableness and logic dictate that the project be accepted by the City as is, through the granting of the variance, and amendment of the CUP as requested. The project has been completed in a quality fashion. Great care has been taken to seed the disturbed areas. The advanced growth of the new seeding is depicted in the photographs attached hereto. That new coverage provides significant benefit to the nearby wetland through elimination of erosion and runoff. Revis ’ neighbors whose properties are directly impacted by the fill have consented to this result and support it. Revis has proposed a reasonable use of his property, one which significantly enhances the relationship between his property and the adjacent wetland, through elimination of runoff and erosion. The project has rendered the property significantly more safe. Your thoughtful conside^on is appreciated. ^tnl^yours, * Gregory Munson GWM/ek4 {«6«8464\l) ; - Enclosure cc: Revis Stephenson III ‘ Ron Peterson J.D7PWS Peterson Enviroiunental Services rr m I I L Council Exhibitibit LEONARD, STREET AND DEIN moressioNAL association July 8,2002 Eric H. Galatz 612-335-1509 eric.gaIatz@leonard.com HAND DELIVERED Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Council Members do Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Stephenson Application for Amendment of CUP and Variance at 1850 Fo.\ Ridge Road Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of the City Council: We represent Richard Chalfen who resides at 350 Brown Road South. Mr. Chalfen asked us to write in support of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the referenced application by Mr. and Mrs. Revis Stephenson HI for an afler-the-fact amendment to a conditional use permit (CUP) and variance at their property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. The after- the-fact amendment and variance requested by the Stephensons are unacceptable under City ordinances and other governing law. We therefore urge the City Council to reject the Stephenson’s application and order the Stephensons to re-grade the property to conform to the original CUP. Zoning Administrator Weinberger included in the Request for Council Action copies of an Affidavit of Richard Chalfen and a letter from me. That affidavit and letter set out the basis for our objections to Mr. Stephenson’s applications, which we will not repeat here. We are writing now to express our support for the Planning Commission recommendation to reject the Stephensons’ request for after-the-fact conditional use permit and variances. The Request for Council Action does not unambiguously recommend outright denial of the Stephensons’ request. To the extent the Request for Council Action may be construed to allow for a compromise of the Planning Commission’s recommendation of a complete rejection the Stephensons’ applications for an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit, we present the following in opposition to any such compromise: ISO South Fifth Strut Suiti 1500 Minneapolis , Minnesota 55402 Tel Sts-sss-isoo Fax Sii-sss-iSs? 2234562v2 LAW OiriCES IN MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL AND MANKATO i t . . If rr m( «« •• 1 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 2 July 8,2002 The Stephensons* applications do not meet the requirements of the City of Orono. The Stephensons' applications fail to meet the requirements of the City of Orono in at least two critical respects: *(1)The Stephensons failed to notify property owners within 350 feet of the property. In their application for an amended permit, the Stephensons seek after-the-fact approval of alterations the Stephensons made to their property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road and to their neighbors’ properties at 1895 and 1900 Fox lUdge Road. The mailing list covers only property owners witMn 350 feet of the Stephensons ’ property. (Copies of the mailing list and map used by the City and a map marked by us to show the area 350 feet from all the effected properties are attached). When the Stephensons violated their original CUP, they deprived the City of Orono and all of their neighbors the opportunity to review and comment on the work the Stephensons illegally performed. The Stephensons are now denying some of their neighbors the right to review and comment on their request for after-the-fact approval by failing to notify all property owners within 350 feet of the property the Stephensons actually altered. The Stephensons failed to provide a certificate of survey for the property that is the subject of the application. Orono requires with each application for a zoning or building permit a certificate of survey, signed by a registered land surveyor, showing existing and proposed structures and improvements. Where the application includes proposed changes in grade or drainage, Orono also requires the applicant to submit a drainage plan. The Stephensons altered the grading and drainage of 1850, 18^5, and 1900 Fox Ridge Road. The Stephensons ’ certificate of survey covers only 1850 Fox Ridge Road. The failure to provide a survey of all of the effected property is not just a technical defect. By failing to survey all of the effected property, the Stephensons deprived their neighbors and the City of Orono an opportunity to consider and analyze the lull impact of the Stephensons ’ project. The Stephensons failed to obtain MClVD approval of the amended plan. The Stephensons ’ application for an amended CUP and variance is also incomplete because the Stephensons failed to submit the amended plans to the Miimehaha Creek Watershed District (the “MCWD”). The MCWD issued a permit for the grading work covered by the original CUP. In fact the MCWD issued a stop work order to the Stephensons when the Stephensons failed to 2234562V2 ! Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 3 July 8,2002 install the double silt fence they were required to install under the MCVVD permit. The City of Orono requires compliance with the permitting requirements of all public bodies having jurisdiction over the project. Because the Stephensons have not obtained a MCWD permit for their revised plan, the City of Orono cannot approve the amendment to the CUP or the variance. B. . AfteMhe-fact endorsements of the after-the-fact applications do not cure the defects in the applications. The Request for Council Action reports that City Attorney Thomas Barrett reviewed the applications and determined that the “application is legal as presented.” Specifically the Request for Council Action reports that the City Attorney found that separate applications by the adjoining property owners were not required because those property owners “were not aware that the work had occurred on their properties until aRer the alteration had occurred.” The basis of Mr. Barrett ’s opinion cannot be true. Over the course of several months, Mr. Stephenson removed trees and brush, dumped truckloads of dirt, and the drove earthmoving equipment across the neighbors ’ properties, radically changing the contours and landscape of those properties. If Mr. Barrett ’s conclusion depends on the assumption that the neighbors were ignorant of the Stephensons ’ constructio activities, Mr. Barrett ’s conclusion cannot be correct. Even if it is possible that the neighbors did not know that the Stephensons had altered their property, the fact that they consented to the changes after the fact does not cure the harm caused to the other neighbors, the community at large or the environment. The laws underlying the CUP the Stephensons violated are designed to ensure the orderly development of the City of Orono, to protect all the citizens of Orono, and to protect the environment. The Stephensons ’ immediate neighbors do not have the right to waive enforcement of the law on behalf of the City of Orono or on behalf of other citizens. C. The Stephensons have created their own hardships—as well as hardships for their neighbors. (1) At the June 17,2002 Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Stephenson identified two “hardships ” that justified the Stephensons ’ request for a variance from the CUP and wetland setback requirements. First, the Stephensons ’ surveyor failed to accurately mark the wetland boundary. Second, the Stephensons ’ contractor brought too much dirt to the site. Contractors over which the Stephensons had control created both these conditions. The fact that the Stephensons failed to exercise that control has caused substantial hardship to the Stephensons ’ neighbors, to the City of Orono, and to the environment, which hardships include excessive truck traffic, filling of w etlands, removal of trees and brush, and use of City resources in enforcement 2234562v2 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 4 July 8.2002 efforts. Hardships created by the Stephensons cannot be the legal basis of a variance the Stephensons. (2) With respect to the Stephensons ’ assertion that they were damaged by the actions of their contractors, they should seek their remedies from those contractors. The City of Orono should not allow the Stephensons to shift their burdens to the City, the citizens of the City of Orono, or the environment. (3) Mr. Stephenson also argued that removal of the excess fill would require more truck traffic and more earth moving equipment, which will result in further disruption of their neighbors and the public roads. The Stephensons should not be allowed to continue their permit violations pennanently in order to avoid another few days of noise and traffic. If the Stephensons ’ activities correcting their work cause damage to their neighbors or the public roads, the Stephensons should answer for those damages. CONCLUSION The City Council Should Deny the Requested CUP Amendment and Variance and Should Order Strict Compliance with the Existing CUP Mr. Chalfen concurs with the recommendation of the Plaiming Commission to deny the CUP amendment and the variance and offers the following with respect to the staff recommendations: 1 . With respect to the first staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the City Council should deny the request for a variance that will allow the Stephensons to encroach into the wetlands. To the extent compliance with the original CUP constitutes a hardship, the Stephensons created the hardship by violating the CUP :n the first place. 2. With respect to the second staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the slope of the filled grade must not exceed the recommended three to one slope and that the foot of the slope must be removed from the twenty-six foot wetland setback. (a) In addition, the City Council should require that any slope along any radius extending from the Stephensons ’ pre-existing back lawn area of the house must not exceed Ihree- to-one. Thus, if the Stephensons are required, as they should be, to remove all fill extending beyond the side lot setbacks, they should be required to remove and re-grade the remaining fill as may be required to ensure that the slope extending along the edges of the permitted fill areas does not exceed the recommended slope. 22J4$62v2 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Pages July 8,2002 (b) As the staff notes, by violating the original CUP, the Stephensons have extended their existing back lawn area by approximately thirty-eight feet. The staff also notes that it “is not opposed to this change in the plan ” if the Stephensons meet the required slopes and remove the base of the hill from the wetland setback. Mr. Chalfen is opposed to this change in the plan. As apractical matter, reducing the slope and moving the base and sides of the hill toward the Stephensons* house should have the effect of reducing the flat back lawn area at the top of the hill. Because the Stephensons have failed to engage a surveyor or engineer to delineate the proposed grade changes, the staff does not have the information it requires to assess the proposed change and the City Council does not have a record on which to base its decision. The only appropriate actions for the City Council are (1) deny the applications for variance and amendment and (2) require restoration of the property to its original condition or re-grading in conformance with the approved CUP. 3. With respect to the third staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen believes that the City Council must require the Stephensons to remove the fill from the adjacent properties and from the side yard setback areas within the Stephensons ’ property. Mr. Chalfen therefore disagrees with the staff suggestion that the City Council may accept “the consent ” of the neighboring property owners as effectively authorizing amendment to the Stephensons* CUP because (1) the neighboring property owners do not have the right to waive the Stephensons* violations of the original CUP on behalf of the other citizens of the City of Orono or the City of Orono itself and (2) the Stephensons did not properly include their nei^bors* properties in the 350 foot mailing list or in the certificate of survey submitted with the applications. For all the reasons stated above, M the conditions of the existing CUP must be enforced to protect the environment and the interests of adjacent property owners. Mr. Chalfen therefore urges the Planning Commission to adopt the staff recommendations, with the following clarifications: (1) any damage caused by the Stephensons* work to the wetland itself must be 22J4S62v2 itigr Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 6 July 8.2002 mitigated; (2) all slopes must not exceed three to one, even if that means the Stephensons need to reduce their unlawfully expanded backyard; (3) all fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and the side yard setback areas, regardless of adjacent property owner consent; and (4) landscq>ing of the re-g^ed areas must comply with the original CUP. Very-truly yours. LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Enclosures cc: Richard Chalfen Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, City Platmer 2U4S62v2 Jul-OI-2002 OI:llaa FrnrCITY OF OftONO ♦9S224946I6 T-S99 P.002/004 F-757 1 petinepln County Taxpayer Services Department Parcel ID 031172313000S Heuee Number 1850 Street Name FOX RIDGE RD mairnnotiiloa»t^fcofd9<imap.ltnpiwnuacempOationctMommtion j|nnepin County Taxpayer Services Department el Information Parc«l ID 0311723130008 House Number 1880 Street Name FOX RIDGE RD This is not«Itgatty ncofded msp. It rspnssnts s compilation of Intoimstion anddata'lmm CXy, County, and Stats mad authoritias and oOm aounas. «o •o «o CO r>4 M> O o % iUN MU 2t/i4/il mmtnn cquhtv FtofEirrY luftmiMitm systoi PROPCm OUNillS LIST iEPOit NQ. mSMOi rm Y BAUM 5iS PROP AOM OMMER tttRl TAXPAYSR NAItE/AOIlR Si 0S-117-2S 11 iiil tftso AOORCSS UNASSICNCD CAROtlL MAC nXUAN JR ETAt LOMOtlOCf ASS0CIA1ES P O iOX 5420 HPtS m 55%4i-5420 SO 0S-U7-2S 12 0002 OOOSO AOMESS UNASSfCNEO CAIGXU MAC nUUM JR ETAL LOMCilOCC ASSOCtAUS P 0 BOX 5428 NPtS MM 55040-5420 SO 8S-117-2S 12 BOOS 00030 ABORESS UNASSIOIEB STATE or NXM DMR REAL ESTAU H6NT .ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 500 LAPAYETU RO ST PAUL NN 55155 PROP AOOR OMNCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOm S0NR1-117-2S 1^001 00S5>V BiONN^S U P PiUKlY^4r1( 0 PARLEY NlLLIAN^^ATNiEEN FARLEY SSO JNIBIfN IQLS \ LiME MN> 55S54 SO 0S-U7-2S IS 0002 00300 BROUN RO S * JtRM C DOUTRIT ETAL JOHN C DOIfTNIT soo s Bmm ro LONO LAXE KN . 55354 SO 03-117-23 IS 0005 01905 FOX R1B0E RO RIB MACK RAYMOND H HACK 1995 FOX RUGE RO LONO LAKE MN 55354 PROP AOOR ONNER MANE TAXPAUR NAHE/AODN 01995 FOX RIDGE BO 0 i KIRKMAH t J N R2RKMAN DAVID E i JOANNE N KZRXMAN 1995 POX RZOOE BO LONO LAXE NN 55354 SO 03-117-23 23 0007 01095 • POX RIDGE BO T J DAYTON 0 N DAYTON TOBIN J A MAE DAYTON 1095 rox RIOCE RO LONO LAKE NN 55354 30 03-117-23 13 OOOO OlOSi * POX RXB6E RO REVIS L STEPRENSON 1X2 ET* AL REVIS L STEPRENSON XIX 1050 FOX RXQCE BO LONO LAKE MN 55354 PROP ADBR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 3B 03-117-23 13 1009 01900 POX RX06E RO S M 0 E N POLANSXY STEVEN N i ELLEN N POLANSXY 1900 POX R20QE RO LONG LAKE MN 55354 30 03-117-23 IS 0010 0L9S0* POX RIOCE RD D S PMELPS BED PHELPS MVXO S 0 ELLEN D PHELPS 1950 POX RIDCE RD LONO LAKE MN 55554 38 03-117-23 19 OOOl 0003B ADDRESS UNASS1GN» CAROOL MAC MILLAN JR ETAL L0N6R1DCE ASSOCIATES P O BOX 542D HPLS m 53990-5420 PROP AOOR ONNER NAIfE TAXPAYER. NAME/ADOR TOTAL DATCII j;03 00H2 'f0 ^ /2.® St**^** fS4i I V ‘y w‘J .! / 1 •4 AllBittNiBilfl 3 2 •o I I Council Exhibit LEONARD, STREET AND DEINAl PKOriSSIONAL ASSOCIATION July 15,2002 Eric H. Galatz 612-335-1509 eric.galatz@leonard.com HAND DELIVERED Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Council Members c/o Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Stephenson Application for Amendment of CUP and Variance at 1850 Fo.\ Ridge Road Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of the City Council: We are writing on behalf of Richard Chalfen, 350 Brown Road South, to address assertions made at the July 8,2002 City Council hearing and in the July 3,2002, letter submitted by Gregory Munson on behalf of Revis Stephenson 111 in connection with Mr. Stephenson’s application for an afier-the-facl amendment to a conditional use pemiit (CUP) and variance at their property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. Mr. Chalfen’s property abuts the eastern boundary of 1850 and 1895 Fox Ridge Road and the southern boundary of 1900 Fox Ridge Road. Stephenson’s after-the-fact applications cover work Stephenson performed without a pennit at 1850, 1895 and 1900 Fox Ridge Road. The aerial photograph attached to this letter shows the subject properties and the Chalfen property, and the conditions that existed on the properties before Mr. Stephenson clear- cut and filled the area east of his house. The Request for Council Action Zoning Administrator Weinberger prepared for the July 8 hearing sets out our objections to Mr. Stephenson’s applications and the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation to deny those applications. The purpose of this letter is to point out specific items in the record and to respond to Mr. Munson’s July 3 letter and July 8 presentation, as follows: A. Mr. Stephenson knowingly proceeded with material violations of his CUP. In the introductory paragraphs of his July 3 letter, Mr. Munson asserts that “Upon completion of the project conducted pursuant to the CUP, it became apparent that some of the fill encroached on the previously delineated wetland buffer, and beyond his property line, and that the final slope was very slightly off the 3 to one ratio requir^.’’ This sentence contains four separate assertions, each false or misleading: i$o South FifTM St »iit Suite ijoo Minniafous, Minnesota 55401 Tel <ii<55i>i500 Fax <ii.555-t<57 2234562v3 LAW OmCES IN MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL AND MANKATO Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 2 July 15,2002 1. The project was never completed or conducted “pursuant to the conditional use permit.” On January' 4, 2002, Michael Wyatt of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”) cited Mr. Stephenson for failing to install required silt fencing before commencing work, relocating wetland delineation flags, and impacting the wetlands without a permit. (Letter F attached). On February 22,2002, Zoning Administrator Weinberger cited Mr. Stephenson for failure to maintain silt fences, placing fill in the i wetland setback, and altering the property beyond the area approved by the City and MOW'D. (Letter G attached). 2. The violations were made “apparent” by direct orders from MCWD and the City of Orono long before Mr. Stephenson completed the project. (See Letters F, G and H attached). In his May 2,2002 letter to Mr. Stephenson, Zoning Administrator Weinberger reported that Stephenson had failed to respond to the violation notice issued in February and Stephenson had further violated the CUP by failing to install 4” of topsoil before seeding. (Letter H attached). 3. Mr. Munson emphasizes the “previously” delineated wetland as he did at the hearing. Mr. Munson does not report that the wetland was delineated by Mr. Stephenson through his consultant. The possibility that Mr. Stephenson’s delineation may have been w rong does not justify Mr. Stephenson’s blatant and intentional disregard for Mr. Stephenson’s delineation, and the orders of the MCWD and City of Orono. The CUP is a permit for 3,280 s.f. of land alteration. It is not a permit for an unlimited amount of fill up to the wetland setback, wherever it may be. Mr. Stephenson might have asked for permission to install more fill if he thought the wetland was further from his backyard. The City might have granted a CUP allowing more fill. Mr. Stephenson did not report a suspected error in the delineation to the MCWD or the City of Orono and he did not assert it as an excuse when he w as cited for failing to install and maintain a silt fence along the setback. Mr. Stephenson did not stop work, confirm the delineation, and apply for an amendment to the CUP. Mr. Stephenson’s after-the-fact wetland delineation is an after-the-fact justification for his violations of the CUP and MCWD permits. 4. The assertion that “the final slope was very slightly off the 3 to one ratio required” is very misleading. It might be true that the final slope is close to 3 to one (the as-built sur\ey submitted by Mr. Stephenson appears to show slopes closer to 2 to 3 or 2.67 to one, 25% steeper than 3 to one). It is true that staff recommends 3 to one as the steepest slope it will permit. It is also true that the plan Stephenson submitted and the City approved calls for slopes of 4 to one. If Mr. Stephenson installed his fill at a slope of 3 to one, his slope is 33% steeper than permitted. As a result, his back lawn at the crest of the hill encroaches 38 feet deeper into the natural setting he violated in the course of violating his 223456:vJ r Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 3 July 15,2002 CUP. The CUP the City issued in November 2001 permitted a 4 to one slope. The City should require Mr. Stephenson to conform to that permit. B. Mr. Stephenson's violations of his original conditional use permit and watershed district permit were either intentional or grossly negligent. In his ''Analysis of Relevant Facts" Mr. Munson attempts to further underplay the extent and seriousness of Mr. Stephenson ’s permit violations by characterizing the violations as ''unintentional ” and the difference between the approved and actual work as “a slight discrepancy.” Mr. Chalfen asks the City to consider the following: 1. On November 11,2001, the City of Orono granted Stephenson a conditional use permit for 3,280 s.f. of land alteration. A site plan marked by Zoning Administrator Weinberger shows the area covered by the permit and the area Stephenson actually altered without a permit. (See letter attached to the report to the Planning Commission and this as letter as “D”). Stephenson covered at least twice the area he was permitted to cover. 2. Mr. Stephenson ’s intrusion into the wetland buffer was not “unintentional ” or, if the intrusion was unintentional, Mr. Stephenson was grossly negligent. The January letter from the MCWD (Letter F) cites Mr. Stephenson for commencing the fill work without inst.;lling the required double silt fence. After the January citation, Mr. Stephenson installed a single silt fence. The February letter from the City of Orono (Letter G) cites Mr. Stephenson for failing to maintain the single silt fence. Photographs of Mr. Stephenson driving construction equipment on ‘he wetland side of silt fence, with openings in the silt fence, demonstrate that there was nothing “unintentional ” about Mr. Stephenson ’s violation of the wetland buffer. In fact, those pictures may demonstrate that Mr. Stephenson intruded on the wetland itself. Color copies of some of the photographs Zoning Administrator Weinberger attached to the Request for Council Action are attached to this letter. 3. Mr. Stephenson ’s intrusion across his side setbacks and into his neighbors ’ yards was also either intentional or grossly negligent. Mr. Stephenson ’s CUP approved a set of plans with distinct construction limits. The fill exceeds those limits by 50 to 60 feet on each side and crosses Mr. Stephenson ’s property lines. Mr. Stenhenson failed to mark those limits or take other action to confine the fill to the approved limits. Further, Mr. Stephenson and his contractors could not have placed the fill without intentionally clearing the trees and bmsh from the filled area. 4. Mr. Munson asserts that the “primary purpose for the expansion of the fill area was to improve drainage for all parties involved----” Mr. Stephenson was not simply feathering his fill into his neighbors ’ yards. Mr. Stephenson brought the crest of his hill 2234562v3 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 4 July 15,2002 38 feet further toward the wetland and built his slopes 25% sleeper than the City CUP allowed. If the “expansion of the fill area” laterally was required at all. it was required to improve drainage conditions Mr. Stephenson created in violation of the City ’s permit. 5. Mr. Munson characterizes Mr. Stephenson ’s work as an improvement to the wetland buffer and drainage characteristics of the site. Whether the current conditions are better than the natural conditions Mr. Stephenson destroyed is questionable but irrelevant. Mr. Stephenson had a permit to install a hill with a 4 to one slope over a limited area on the condition that he install silt fences and keep his activities outside the wetland buffer. Mr. Stephenson clear-cut and filled twice as much land as his permit covered, failed to install silt fences, drove construction equipment in the wetland buffer, and installed a hill w ith a slope that is steeper than the approved 4 to one slope and the steepest permissible slope of 3 to one. 6. Mr. Munson again characterizes the difference between the finished slope, which “appears to be approximately 2.9,” as “unintentional ” and a “slight discrepancy ” with the “required” 3 to one slope. The facts are (a) the slopes appear to be as steep as 3 to 2, (b) Mr. Stephenson knew or should have known the fill substantially exceeded the permit, and (c) the slope required by the permit the City issued on the basis of plans Mr. Stephenson submitted was 4 to one. 7.Mr. Stephenson is responsible for his actions and for the actions of his consultants, suppliers, and contractors. Mr. Stephenson presents himself as a victim of the City, the hauler who brought the fill to his site, and his wetland delineator. According to Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Stephenson clear cut and filled twice as much land as his permit covered, failed to install and maintain silt fences, installed fill in the wciiand buffer, in his side yard setback and on his neighbor’s property, and drove construction equipment in the wetland buffer because (a) the City provided an inaccurate topographic survey, (b) the hauler would not stop hauling, and (c) his wetland delineator erred. If it is true that all or any of these parties victimized Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Stephenson should seek redress from those parties. None of Mr. Stephenson ’s excuses, if true at all, justify his violations of the CUP. C. Whether or not the City has the authority to issue the permits Mr. Stephenson seeks, the City should not issue those permits. In our July 8 letter to the City, we alleged procedural irregularities that may render Mr. Stephenson ’s application invalid. Specifically, the copy of the 350-foot notice map the City provided for my review and the survey Mr. Stephenson submitted with his application did not include all of properties Mr. Stephenson altered. These are technical arguments Mr. Chalfen will investigate further if necessary. The City 2234362v3 f' Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 5 July 15,2002 should reject the applications for the following more important substantive reasons; 1. The City will set a dangerous precedent if it approves Mr. Stephenson ’s applications. Mr. Stephenson violated the original CUP knowingly or with gross negligence. Rather than correcting his violations when cited in January and February, Mr. Stephenson proceeded with his work and with further violations. WTien the City cited Mr. Stephenson again in May, he came to the city with a request for after-the-fact approvals that will allow him to *. continue his violations forever. If the City approves Mr. Stephenson ’s applications the City will set a precedent that encourages landowners with potentially controversial projects to develop first and ask forgiveness later. Worse, the City may be setting a legal precedent that may require the City to grant after-the-fact approvals for projects the City would not have approved in the first place. 2. Mr. Stephenson ’s neighbors do not have the authority to forgive Mr. Stephenson ’s permit violations. Mr. Stephenson violated a CUP the City of Orono issued under laws designed to protect the environment and the interests of all citizens of the City of Orono. The City cannot delegate authority for enforcement of its laws to private individuals, especially not individuals who benefit from the violation of the law. 3. Mr. Stephenson ’s violations are material and long lasting. Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Munson have attempted to minimize the gravity of Mr. Stephenson ’s actions. Mr. Stephenson clear-cut approximately 6,500 square feet of trees and brush. As the attached photographs show, Mr. Stephenson left an unsightly pile of tree trunks and brush at the bottom of the hill, within the wetland setback. On information and belief, Mr. Stephenson buried the balance of the trees and brush under his hill. The photographs also show that Mr. Stephenson left a huge, unsightly hiunp of a hill where he had permission for a hill half as wide and 25% less steep. Mr. Stephenson and his neighbors do not object to this unsightly hump because they do not see it. CONCLUSION The City Council Should Deny the .Requested CUP Amendment and Variance and Should Order Strict Compliance with the Existing CUP Mr. Chalfen concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the CUP amendment and the variance and offers the follow ing with respect to the staff recommendations; 1. With respect to the first staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the City Council should deny the request for a variance that will allow the Stephensons to encroach into the wetlands. To the extent compliance with the original CUP constitutes a hardship, the 2234S62v} ! JTiMf t Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 6 July 15,2002 Stephensons created the hardship by violating the CUP in the first place. If the current delineation discloses that the hill does not encroach, Mr. Chalfen asks that the City determine the degree to which Mr. Stephenson ’s activities in the assumed buffer effected the delineation. To the extent the delineation depends on analysis of vegetation and soils, Mr. Stephenson has substantially altered both. 2. With respect to the second staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the slope of the filled grade must not exceed the recommended three to one slope and that the foot of the slope must be removed from the twenty-six foot wetland setback. To the extent the grading plan the City Council approved in November 2001 requires slopes shallower than 3 to one, Mr. Chalfen urges the City Council to require Mr. Stephenson to comply with the original permit. a.In addition, to the extent the City Council does not require strict compliance with the original CUP, the City Council should require that any slope along any radius extending from the Stephensons ’ pre-existing back lawn area of the house must not exceed three-to-one. Thus, if the Stephensons are required, as they should be, to remove all fill extending beyond the side lot setbacks, they should be required to remove and re-grade the remaining fill as may be required to ensure that the slope extending along the edges of the permitted fill areas does not exceed the recommended slope. Mr. Chalfen does not object to minimum feathering of Mr. Stephenson ’s hill into his neighbors ’ yards in order to prevent creation of gullies. b.As the staff notes, by violating the original CUP, the Stephensons have extended their existing back lawn area by approximately thirty-eight feet. The staff also notes that it “is not opposed to this change in the plan ’’ if the Stephensons meet the required slopes and remove the base of the hill from the wetland setback. Mr. Chalfen is opposed to this change in the plan. As a practical matter, reducing the slope and moving the base and sides of the hill toward the Stephensons ’ house should have the effect of reducing the flat back lawn area at the top of the hill. (We acknowledge that in earlier correspondence we supported the staff recommendation of slopes of 3 to one. We believed staff recommended a 3 to one slope because that slope was consistent with the original approvals. We have since discovered that the original CUP approved slopes of ^ to one. Our position is and has been that Mr. Stephenson should be required to comply with the original CUP.) 3. With respect to the third staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen believes that the City Council must require the Stephensons to remove the fill from, the adjacent properties and from the side yard setback areas within the Stephensons ’ property. Mr. Chalfen therefore disagrees with the staff suggestion that the City Council may accept “the consent ’’ of the neighboring 22J4562v3 ^ W----\WtT Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page? July IS, 2002 property owners as efTectively authorizing amendment to the Stephensons ’ CUP because (1) the neighboring property owners do not have the right to waive the Stephensons ’ violations of the original CUP on behalf of the other citizens of the City of Orono or the City of Orono itself and (2) the Stephensons may not have included their neighbors ’ properties in the 350 foot mailing list and did not include that property in the certificate of survey submitted with the applications. For all the reasons stated above, oil the conditions of the existing CUP must be enforced to protect the environment and the interests of the City and citizens of Orono. Mr. Chalfen therefore urges the City Council to (a) adopt the Planning Commission recommendations and reject Mr. Stephenson ’s applications and (b) adopt the staff recommendations, with the following clarifications: (1) any damage caused by the Stephensons ’ work to the wetland itself must be mitigated; (2) all slopes must not exceed 3 to one cr any shallower slope required by the original CUP, even if that means the Stephensons need to reduce their unlawfully expanded backyard; (3) all fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and the side yard setback areas, regardless of adjacent property owner consent; and (4) landscaping of the re-graded areas must comply with the original CUP. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Enclosures cc: Richard Chalfen Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, City Plaimer 22MS620 Jun-13'2082 Or:23u ProrCITY OP OKONO ♦352248411I T-442 P.010/020 F-340 I nhA ^ HA.WP VMMlbVORM. '“^1 M 8 --■iidatttyufiidiBii mtrn mmr ^ *• , o| i I s •o & fc i • • & €*« LCCAL OeSCRPTKM OF PRCMSCS: Lot 4. aiodi 1. FOX . , . i.. 3^ 2:a ii|«Afi'6' ■ri X \!' B&ii^ftmiininii nili Jun-13-2002 07:23 m FrwCITY OF ORONO Hinnehaha (!reek ♦9522494616 T-442 P.012/020 F-340 GnyptMlnmtar Cantor HNya.16St9.NMm Mad; 2600 SIwiVMOd Road Betlslor.MNS6331-W8 W»n«t952)471«CS90 Pte (952)4714692 EflMfc oiMnOniiniMhahKAi)Lorg wasnr Nwwjnbinchtfiaenelco/s BMidnfllanasM PamalaQ.BM jamaiCiMna UrmFUmt Monica (3ratt SocRtiwnas MaksknMd nobwtSdBMdir Waterahed District Imf roving Quality ofWater, QjutUty t^Life January 4,2002Revis Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road Orono, MN 55356 Mr. Stephenson: During routine Inspections by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Staff, we found a number of violations of the provisions of the MCWD Rule B permit for erosion control. At the location cited below, violations were recorded on January 4.2001: , pnrmititoi-4^n larvt Fnv Road; Grading has been initiated without the necessary erosion control measures in place as Indicated on the erosion control plan submitted to MCWD. It also appears as though soils near the wetland area have been heavDy cornpact^ by construction equipment and a portion of the wetland may have been Inadvertently filled from constmction activity. In order to avoid penalties from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District which may Include fees and the delivery of a Stop Work Order, these violations require prompt and Immediate attention. All violations should be attended to and fixed immediately. Woilc ehould not continue until the necessary repairs have been made. A deadline of January 8,2002 has been given In order to resolve these Issues. The permit holder Is thereby required to: • Insfell silt fences to MCWD specifications on all downhni slopes and around stockpiles . ^ . • Silt fence must be maintained In order to be effective and up to MCWDstandards . . « • Wetland delineation flags must be maintained In the unginal locations for reference to wetland boundary . , • No impacts to wetlands may occur with this project if impacts are unavoidable. MCWD Board of Managers approval will be required for Tso^lls must be decompacted in areas within 25 feet of the wetland boundary following construction ^ A MCWD representative will inspect the required repairs made to tha construction sites later in the week. Thank you for your prompt oooperation and Immediate attention to this matter. If you have eny questions please call 952-471-0590. Sincerety* Michael Wyatt District Technician • • Juti-l3'Z002 0M4ai Fror^lTY OF OWHO «SS224i4lll T-442 P. 011/020 F-340 a ■Mm-'CITY of ORONO Muaklpil Onkts Febniaiy 22,2002 Strait Uinta: 2750 Kitley Plifcway Oram, MN 5S3S6 MilBot Udrim P.O. Box 66 Ciystil Biy, MN 55321^066 Revis Stepheosoa 1850 Fox Ridgo Road LekCf MN»55356 Mr. Stephenson: to the land alteration on the property. The vioUtioM w not^ b^w not frozen. 1. •» 3. 4. The silt fences have not held and should be replaced or repaired. The fill has been located within the required 26* wetland buffer and must be removed. No fill or land alteration is permitted within 26* of a wetland. Soils must be decompacted in areas within 26* of the wretland. .. . ^. j It appears some alteratioii has occurred beyond what was approved by the City and fdCWD. The City of Orono is requesting you submit a survey showing finished elevations the property to indicate the amount of area on the property 1*** changes to tto ginal elevation, and to indicate any land alteration that may have occurred beyond theon on 5.T^UU^'*^^d be disced firom side property line to side property line. The existing has been disced top to bonom. The top to bonom discing has created many channels for water that will wash fill down the hill towards the wetland area. The conections must be competed by March 5,2002. Please contact the City wh« the »bove arc complete for an immediate inspection. Shortly after they are complete the required 4 topsoU sbaU be added and the hillside seeded so the vegeuition can cstabUsh itself. Please feel flee to contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. I can be reached at 952-249- 4600. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator TdapbaM (952) 349-4600 • Fas (952) 249-4616 www.cLoroaojna.as ^ JunH 3*2002 07:24u Fr«KITY OF OMNO ♦9S22404010 T-442 F.014/020 F-340 GITYof ORONO Municipal Oflicca Street AdOresst 2750 Kelley Paifcmy Orem. MN 55356 MalHof Addresi: P.O. Ba 66 Ciystel Bey. MN 55323^66 May 2.2002 Mr. Revu Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road Long Lake. NM 55356 Pear Mr. Stephenson: I am writing this letter as a followup to our previous correspondence and meetings relating to the fill and reding of the hillside on your property. As of April 30.2002 no progress has been made on the violailor^ noted below. Road restrictions have been lifted and the City of Orono is requesting all violations be corrected immediately. 1. 2. The silt fences have not held and must be replaced or repaired. The fill has been located within the required 26' wetland bufTer and must be removed. No fill or land alteiadon Is permitted within 26* of a wetland. 3. Soils must be decompacted to the standards set forth by the MCWD in areas within 26' of the wetland. 4. It appears some land alteration has occurred beyond what was approved by the City and MCWD. The City of Orono is requesting you resurvey the property lines and identify any changes to the final giading not consistent with the approved plan. We also noticed the existing hillside has recently been seeded. The Conditional Use Permit required the finished grades match the approved grading plan approved by the Council. Additionally. 4” of top soil is required to be placed above the finished grades prior to seeding. Please conuct the City for an inspection as soon as finished grades are established. Once finished grading is approved, the required 4" topsoil must be added and the bilbide seeded so the vegeution can establish itself. As soon as seeding is completed, a second Inspection is required. These corrections must be completed by May 16,2002, or the Ci^ may initiate legal actioiL Please feel free to contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. I can be reached at 952>24M600. Sincerely. Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Cc: Michael Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Renae Schubert, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Mike Oaffron, City of Orono Wendy Boticnbcrg, CiQr of Orono Tdephone (953)249-4600 • Fax (952) 2494616 wwwxIxifonajMLua I til I H1i fMaill T II HI : IMIoKX.RA|*IIS TAKFN BY IK )NARI). S I RI K I AM) DKI.NARF) C K' ,*M b W 12^ Mm' /! 7K T' T*-TJP- ' i<f.« ^ pm ^ wm •r *• \l> t. ^ / ^ if \ 11 •' — ^.n? ( r .r*^ r=; j'-'/ : •r - V ■;‘^ '- • ■..^.- '■‘•Kr.'f (''v'•' -;.-'-!vv^..- :'•.. ,.:r > • '•. •.! ' . ^ - ' • r i' ' / '. - * • ^ / -_o ni()l(K;KAl'IISTAKi:N IN 11 HIU ARY 2002 'iagiii •r'.. p/ |»i T' m m mmr: \4».'-r7'‘ a ''Aj V 4 / ' V ' -'"v , v'l • ' ^ I' I*,'- .mxmim M if’l ! !'?rirtp •mlj«!g Ph SV Ka^Si r ». rilOKM.I^ \PIIS I AKI N IN .1 \Ni Ain 2oo: iiiiW i I 1) 4'' #^ # •.A' . , . A » •wt^- . . 'iAjr.-iJi ■? I v." » It a P!*B* ■' - f: ;^ -• '■i? .*• • io(,K\nis I \Kr\ N I \M Ain :tio2 1 y‘ ^ It- • ’ » L » t i *• ull! • ‘ ' ‘ * “ rt*^ V # tri. />»•■ .. rO / ■•c > ■ '^"lris^r~y. ^ -il. ■‘J— '■■p^? *r . • r----- ninl<M,K\|'||S l AKI N l^ I \M \in :o(i2 I#m ■ ■ % 4 ? ."t . • "S 'tk- • ' ■ Vi ■' ■ S ;‘. ■m p| ri- *^;.<vr4. ^' ' ■ 1 ■ “-i' i mS ' '4SS V .r^'v v^sj:;-■rr--^vj 4% •hr I ^ V y i4HI »»iP ^mmm\k' '^ii 1 r;> i I '.^'M Hi ^•.■■-■ ;, ■■■ '.‘.X- -X • •■■’ !r^;v;- »■• if.-' -..■ ■•‘. >':H:;:-i iii^^' / 8 v ’ ■'■ :i i*‘ >: f i* :%i^. ': ' •■; ■-*«! ■< %, -U ‘"s:> •'i.iK |•|I010(.I^\|•I1STAK^:^ IN JAM ARV 2002 ■J'f ^ * ' T* • ^ A®'; •j- > 4m -^i;-- ■ yf# i* w'iffi fflqS^4:-^r>'r ..V* - Iw^®s ♦ «^V4 ■____________ , g^'t^li ■' V',T^-'' ^ Kl g.‘ '«>? P^)W:^h KiL'd^ ^A*l —I l^i K^um >*^'*- J3g! r.Ti. -jsr?; i 9St?i ijif^ ■mf. w "-• ^ # jr '*''^ : % . JT ? • i ^ *.. :k“^„ m Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. July 17,2002 Mr. Paul Weinberger City ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 »»ccxitsjn 'JUL P 2 2002 CIIYUHOHUVU Subject;Wetland Buffer Observations Revis Stephenson Property Orono, Minnesota PEC Project No. 2002-037 Dear Paul: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) has field reviewed an alleged wetland buffer encroachment on the Revis Stephenson property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. We specifically reviewed the magnitude of the alleged encroachment and the quality of re vegetation and erosion control efforts on the property. As discussed at the Orono City Council meeting on July 8, 2002, we found it necessary to refine the winter wetland delineation done on the property by EnviroData, Inc., from which the 26-foot buffer was measured. Our observations and recommendations are as follows; Observations and Recommendations The previous delineation was too conservative (an understandable result given the conditions under which the delineation was performed) and encompassed a strip of upland along most of the wetland boundary. The rationale for the refinement of the delineation is provided below. • The wetland fringe appears to be partially due to the depressed elevation of the wetland ’s outlet structure under the Luce Line Trail. With the refined wetland boundary, the total area of grading that occurred within the 26-foot buffer totals less than 300 square feet. The entire slope has been successfully stabilized with erosion control fabric, herbaceous vegetation and silt fencing. Minimal erosion and sedimentation has occurred since the site was re-vegetated, despite record storm events in June of 2002. 1353 M;.*ndoij Heights Road. Suite 100 Mendota Heights. MN 35120*»I *2 Tcl 63l-6Sh-OI51 Fax 65l•^8h•03^9 www.petersoncnv.eor* r Mr. Paul Weinberger July 17. 2002 Page 2 PEC Project No.2002-037 • The bufTer is slightly depressed topographically, creating an efTeaive trap for sediment before it reaches the wetland boundary—no visible sediment deposits have traversed the buffer to reach the wetland. The grading along the north and south property boundaries appears to have reduced the potential for gully erosion in these areas. In particular, on the south boundary the grading has corrected a pre-e.xisting gully that was previously delivering sediment downslope toward the wetland. • Early indications are that the buffer has been successfully re-vegetated with native vegetation. Most of the buffer is densely vegetated with a nurse crop of annual rye, with native grasses and wildflowers just becoming visible. The upland slope has also been re-vegetated with native plants, which are not as dense as in the buffer but appear to be well established. • Given the very small amount of buffer encroachment and the substantial erosion risks associated with re-opening the slope, we recommend that the slope and buffer be left undisturbed. Vegetation is sparse on the wetland fringe on the waterward side of the buffer. This appears to be due primarily to the removal of a number of box elders (Acer neguttdo) and common buckthorns (Rhanmus calhariica, a restricted noxious plant species in Minnesota)* that were shading out herbaceous vegetation. Native wetland plants such as lake sedge (Carex lacustris) and blue flag (Iris versicolor) have started to move into this area so additional seeding does not appear warranted However, some additional native shrub plantings (e.g. red osier dogwoods - Cornus stolonifera) would be desirable in this area. Buckthorn stumps should be treated with Roundup^** herbicide to minimize re-sprouting At the south end of the property, a patch of garlic mustard (AUiaria petiolata, a prohibited noxious weed in Minnesota) has become established*. We would also recommend herbicide treatment in this area and post-treatment plantings of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation Refinement of Wetland Delineation During our initial field review of the Stephenson property, we noted that the wetland boundary appeared to be too conservative (i.e. encompassing some areas that we did not appear to be jurisdictional wetland. The previous delineation was carried out on ' See Minn. Rules 1530.0732. ^ See Minn. Rules 1530.0730. I L. Mr. Paul Weinberger July 17,2002 Page 3 PEC Project No.2002-037 December 2, 2001 under winter conditions. The delineation report indicated that “snow cover obscured much of the herbaceous vegetation”. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources ?nd U. S. Army Corps of Engineers directs delineators to exercise caution in performing wetland delineations outside the growing season: *Tt is possible to conduct wetland delineations outside of the growing season, but severe limitations are often encountered .” (emphasis in original)^. The attached data sheets document in detail the basis for our re-delineation of the boundary. A graphic is being provided that depicts both the original and refined delineations and the resulting change in the buffer boundary. A.small portion of the original delineation was not changed. In the central part of the boundary, two of the original flags were lefl unchanged. With the buffer measured from the refined boundary, the constructed slope encroaches 6 feet into the buffer at one flag and 8 feet at another. The slope does not encroach into the buffer at any other location. The resulting encroachment totals under 300 square feet in area. We look forward to reviewing the refined delineation and buffer with you and staff from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on Friday July 19, 2002. At that time we would also like to obtain your concurrence on the recommendations provided above. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions. Best regards, Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1118 cc.Revis Stephenson Greg Munson - Fredrickson & Byron Mike Wyatt/Renae Schubert - MCWD ’ Guidelines for Submittine Wetland delineations to the St Paul District Corps of Engineen and Local Units of Govenunent in the State of Minnesota USAGE Public Notice 96-01078-SDE, April 17, 19%, Page 5. ViTKiCf <b. j./ w. u. ff. ^‘AKir lifirTiMn Application Date: 6/13/02 Completion Date: 6/13/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/12/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: DATE: 7/16/02 Name Wendy Bottcnberg ITEM NO.: ^ Title Zoning Adminstrator/PIanner Agenda Section: Zoning JUL p 2 200? CITY 0^ Item Description: 802-2796 Gina Kosek 1875 Shadyu’ood Road Variance Zoning District: LR-1 C One Family Rural Residential District (.5 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Stall' Report and Exhibits of 7/8/2002 Application Summary: This application was heard at the July 8,2002 City Council meeting. The City Council approved by a S-0 vote to approve the application and directed staff to draft an appropriate resolution for the July 22.2002 City Council meeting. The resolution retlccts action taken by the City Council: 1. Remove shed in 0-75’ setback zone. 2. Remove and sod over south driveway. 3. Remove all stone borders. 4. Remove 50 s.f of unnecessaiy boulder walls-indicated on Exhibit B of resolution. 5. Allow a 2 ’ X 60 ’ sidewalk from drive to front door. 6. Approved hardcover in 75-250' setback zone at 4,992 s.f (28.88%). The applicant agrees with all the above items except a removing a portion of urmecessary boulder wall. The portion of unnecessary wall approved to be removed that the applicant has an issue with is the tree ring, indicated as “A” on Exhibit B of the resolution. The rock wall surrounds a red maple tree and the applicant is concerned about the tree, tree roots and erosion as a result of removing the rocks. The portion which loops around the tree is approximately 20 s.f Tom Kellogg, did visit the site prior to the July 8, 2002 City Council meeting and determined this wall was not needed for erosion control. Staff Recommendation: To approve the enclosed resolution. Council Action Requested: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(LK2), FILE NO. 02-2796 WHEREAS, Mark Kosck and Gina Kosek, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") arc the owners of the property located at 1875 Shad>'wood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A. (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to permit 4,992s.f. (28.88“/b) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%) hardcover exists and 4,230 s.f. (25%) is allowed to permit a ground level deck, second story deck and sidewalk from the drivewav to the existing residence; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 17.2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 1 his application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2796. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where .5 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 83 acres. 3.fhe Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 2002 and recommended appro\al of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. A larger then normal driveway is justified because Shadywood Road is an 1 of 7 4. 5. arterial street and carries more traOic than most residential streets in the City. B. The boulder retaining wall around the driveway is necessary to prevent erosion. C. The patio doors need a means to e.xit the residence. D. The lot is confomiing but unusually shaped. K. The structural coverage on the lot is below the allowed 15%. The City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser\ e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or dilTiculty; is necessary to preserv e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Citv Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdiv ision 16 (I.)(2) to permit 4.992 s.f. (28 88®/o) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback where 3.745 s.f. (22.13®/o) hardcover c.xists and 4,230 s.f. (25®/o) is allowed to permit a ground level deck, second story deck and 2’ x 60' sidewalk from the driveway to the existing residence Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2 of 7 i 2. 3. 5. 6. The following hardcover shall be removed from the property prior to final inspection of the decks (indicated on Exhibit B): South driveway removed and sodded, shed located in 0-75’ setback zone, all stone borders, and 50 s.f. of unnecessary boulder walls. A 2 ’ X 60 ’ sidewalk from the driveway to entrance of residence is permitted, allowing hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone to 4,992 s.f. (28.8%). Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 8,2003). ^'iolation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance all constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the tCims of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 3 of? The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 July, 2002 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 On this before me. day of ,2002,jxrsonally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of who.'e identity I proved on the oatlv'affirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he^she/they executed the same as his/her/Jieir free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA 4 of? • .r-Tr-rnf Trr^r^'Vi*.ffrAi(in< I kir.lL.a.' 'l>. H. i i COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this__day of ,2002,jjersonally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of ,a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public 5 of 7 kiuaEu Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRPTION OF PREMISES : *n»al part of Government Lot 3. drvcflocd a$ fotlows: Beginiunt; o poi'-t «n the Southeasterly line ofTroci h. Reipstered Land Survey No. 624, Files oi'ihc Registrar of Titles. 107.39 feet Northeasterly from the most So-ithcrly comer of said Tract t*' thence Southeasterly at a right angle to said Southca-sterly line 71.88 feet; th ince dcflcciing to the left 71 degree' 41 minutes 30 seconds, a di::ance of47.34 feet; iliciice North at a right angle 32 feet; thence East at a right angle 92.11 feet, more or Ics.s, to the Westerly line of Park Street, as shown On tlie plat of‘Shady Wood” (now County Road No. 19); Ihwrce Northwesrcrly. along the Westerly line of said sdreef to the most easterly corner of said Tract E; thence Syi.thwc$tcrly along the Southeasterly line of said T»uct e to the point Of beginning, in Section 17, Township 117, Range 23. Subject to any roads, highways or rights-of-way now laid out or existing un or across s.tid premises or any portign thereof, iw referred to In deed Doc. No. 1941 32, Files of Regijirar of Titles. (Torrens Property) That part of Government Lot 3. in Section 17, Township 117, Range 23 Iwunded bv a line described as follows: Commencing on the lake shore of Lake Minnetonka on Uie East sid.* of said Lot, 49 rods NortJt of the South line of said Lot 3; thence West 27 rods; thence North 68 feet to tlie actual point of beginning of tract of land to be described* thence contimung North 32 fcci; thence East 92.11 feet to the Westerly line of Park ’ Street (now County Road No. 19) as laid out and dedicated in the plat of Sliady Wood* thence Southeasterly along the Westerly line of said road 33.7 tccl, fence W.:..i 102.6*6 fcci to the point oflwginning. (Abstract Property) Tract E, Registered Land .Survey No. 624, Files of Rcgijtlrarof'l itics Hennepin County Minnesota. (Torrt^n$ Property) * Tracts B, C, D and Registered Land Survey Nr. 1216, Files of Registrar ot 'l itics Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens Property) AifOy That part of Government Lot 3, Section 17, Tov/nship 1X7 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows:,.,, Commencing on the lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka, distant 49 rods Norch the South line of said Lot 3, thence West a distance of 27 rods to the point of beginning; thence North a distance of 68 feet; thence East a distance of 102.66 feet to the Westerly line of County Road Number 19 as laid out and dedicated in the plat of Shadywood; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said road to its intersection with the line drawn West from the point on the lakeshore distant <9 rods North of the South line of said Lot 3; cnence West to the point of beginning. Page 6 of 7 Application Date: 6/13/02 Completion Date: 6/13/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/12/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: DATE: 7/2/02 Name Wendy Bottenberg ITEM NO.: u Title Zoning Adminstrator/PIanner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2796 Gina Kosek 1875 Shad>-\vood Road Variance Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Rural Residential District (.5 acre) List of Exhibits: A Site Plan indicating hardco\er to be removed B Staff Report and Exhibits of 6/17/2002 C Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting - Junel7,2002 Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) (2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75- 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 5,882 s.f. (34?'b), where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%) exists and 4,230 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant has applied for a variance to construct two lakeside decks and a walkway. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being second stor^^ Currently there are 3 patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiting. The second story has a 9' door and the ground level has a 9* and 6' door. The lower deck will be slightly longer than the second story deck due to the 2 doors at that level. The ground level deck/walkway will be 3’ X 13' and 3* x 20’ with the center rounding out to 5' for a total approximately 1 10 s.f The second story* deck will be over the lower deck and slightly smaller resulting in no additional hardcover. Discussion: The applicant purchased the property with the thought the residence would be remodeled, however, after review of the foundation and structural limitations it was determined it should be tom down. In 2000, the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence*. At that time the applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be located within 75’ of the lake, at the same location of an existing deck. Planning Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the application. The building plans that were reviewed and permit iss»i*d met both lot coverage by structures and hardcover requirements. The hardcover in the 75-25t unback zone was calculated at 3,745 s.f. or 22.13%. The setback zone will allow 4,230 s.f, wiucn would have left 485 s.f unused. How ever, since the house was completed a year ago (The Cenificate of Occupancy was issued July 2001), the driveway and retaining walls have been constructed. The driveway is larger than what was shown on the original survey, and the retaining walls were not shown. The retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway. Also, a small retaining wall was constructed on the lake side of the residence. When the retaining walls were constructed the applicant did not know they were considered hardcover. Additionally, the second driveway on the property has not been converted to grass as required. With regards to the house, the approved building plans indicated 2 windows and a patio door where the 3 patio doors are now located. This change in plans by the applicant apparently occurred during construction. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 2 vote to allow the two decks arid walkway with the following conditions to bring dow ’n the amount of hardcover on the property: 1 . Remove south driveway and replace with grass. 2. Remove shed located in 0-75’. 3. Remove all stone borders. 4. Remove all unnecessary' boulder walls. The minority opinion did not support the two decks and walkway for the following reasons: 1. Two of the patio doors were not on the approved building plans. 2. The driveway is larger than needed to enable driving out onto Shadywood Road, allowing room for parking miscellaneous items. 3. The new residence is approximately 1 year old and considered new construction. 4. There is no inherent hardship. Engineer Discussion: The applicant agrees the south driveway will be removed and replaced w ith grass and the shed and all stone borders w ill be removed. The last condition of Planning Commis.:ion approval states all unnecessary boulder walls be removed. The applicant feels the other retaining walls on the property are necessary and needed for erosion control. City Engineer. Tom Kellogg, did visit the site to view the retaining walls and determine there necessity for erosion control. Exhibit A in this report indicates the hardcover being removed. Also, indicated on the plan are three small areas the engineer thought were not necessary' for erosion control. These three areas are: A- the loop around the tree (20 s.f.), B - retaining wall by arborvitae (20 s.f) and C - small portion of wall by walkout (10 s.f.) for a total 50 s.f. (.29%). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval following the majority opinion of the Planning Commission plus the three areas indicated on Exhibit A. The applicant shall remove the shed, south driveway, rock borders and the three areas (A, B, C), to reduce the hardcover on the property. Total hardcover in 0- 75’setback area will be 88 s.f. (.46%) and hardcover in 75-250’ setback area will be 4,872 s.f. (28.08%). *Staff would like City Council to consider a 2’ x 60* sidewalk be constructed from the driveway to the front door. A sidewalk does not exist at this time. A sidewalk of this size would increase the hardcover in 75-250* setback area by 120 s.f. to 4992 s.f. (28.88%). Council Action Requested: To direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution for the July 22,2002 City Council meeting. I • ' .mTABlC SICO f# r' I r\* I • %»%m«••*• 75* SCIBACK IfC LAGOON —'(LAKE Minnetonka) An %-■ 47.34 89®56' 30*' W ui \ LCCAL MSCRPTION OF PRCMTSES ; TImi ptit q(Covemmciil Lot i. ik»ci;licd as fodom: Rcgtniuiti; 4t • potr.l iin lit? SicwihcatKily line aniicl KccisicivU l.«nd .liirvcy No. 62-l« Film ui'ihc Hegisirar of Tiiks. 107.S9 Fed Noflhcnsicily fiom cNc moil Sotiihcfly comer oFsaid Traci (!; ihciice Souihcaiicfly at a lighi angle lo said .Souihcaucrly lino 7I.KI icci; il- :ih ;c dclkcmig lo llM UR 71 degrees 41 minutes 30 seconds, a dittjnce of 47.34 led; iIkiici . .'^luali ai a righi angle 37 Feel; iHcncc Easi at a riglii angle 92.11 Fed. mure or k%s lu itic Westerly lino ofTaik Sired, as shotvn on lh« pUi oF**SKady Wood** (now Couttly lUad Nu. 19); |liciM « Nonliwemfly. alon| iht Wciierly line of uid itreci to the nmsi L'aiiuily corner oF said Traci H; thence Souliweiterly alu«tg the Souihcasicrly line of said i{ lo ii»e lioiiil oFlicginning. in Seriion 17, Township 1 17, Ranee 73. \ N 89®56'30" W 125.21 y Suiycct to any roods, highways or riglils oF-way now laid out or CflistniQ on or dooss said premises or any portion ihercoF, M leFcned to In doed Doe. No. 194 1 33, Files uF Regisifar oF Tillts. (Torrens Propetiy) That part ofCovcrnmeoi tol 3, in Section 17, Township 1 17, Range 23 Ixtorukd by a lint dcsciiUd as follows: Commenclnt on the lake shore of Lake Miimtiuctka on die Fast lid.* or said Lot, 49 rods North of iho Sooth line oFaaid Lot 3; thence West 37 rodr. thence North 61 feat lo Uie aeiuol point of becinnlng of troct of land lo be detenbed; ihcncacoMlnulncNonh32 r€d;lhcnccEosi92.ll fecliotho W.nc.ly »ineoFP»ik Street (now Cuwnfy Road No. 19) u laid oui and dedicated in tlio plal oFSIiady Wood; thence Soothcasicily along die Wcsicriy line of said road .33.7 Fed, Irenes W.u 102.66 feel to iha point of heginninc. (Ahdract Property) T TrKi C, Regisictcd Land Survey No 624. riles of Kegistfor uf'l itlcs. I knnepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens Property) Tracts 0, C. 0 and IL llegisicicd I and Survey N«. 1216, Files of ltegi»t»4» on’idci. Hennepin (^ituy, Minnesota (Torrens Property) o : denotes iron morker OeorinQs shown ore based upon on ossumed dolurrt Tll^t part ot Co».rn«nt Lot J. S.ctlon U, Touo.i.l,. ''ofth, «.Mo IJ w..t of th. »th P-^inclpol H.rldl.n, oo.crlb..! .. dUtint o rod. Horvh.;./ th. South lir* of^»«W l«t 3. Matt a dlatarsco of 2i ro< or —- .... ------------- u..t i di.t.oco o. ..Tod. to tho point of b.qlnnlnq) thooeo “”th . dUt.neo of t« f.oti th.nco E..t . .... to th. M..t.fly lln. of County Ho.d Muohor IS oo luid out •ml\l.dtc.t.d In tho pl.t of Sh.dyuoodi thone. C;«thorl-/ alone th. u..t.rly I in. Of ..Id ro.d to It. a:.““r.tn M..t fro- Vh. ,^lnt on th. l.h..hor. dl.t.nt 4» roda Worth of iho South .Mno of aald Lot 3i wnonca Woat to This survey interyJs lo show Ihe boundaries of the obove described properly. the locolion ol on eiisting house ond shed, ond the locolion of d visible **hofdcover* thereon. It does r>ol purport lo show ony other improvements or encfoochmenll. UIIAWH QCCKCO 02-265 REVIS n TN DATE OCSCR^nON J GRONBERG 1 ASSOCIATES, INC. ■C0H5U.'I« tiariRS. IAIO SlRVtYORj. m ITANCRS 445 NORTH mow ORtVT. LONG LAKE, Ifi 55356 052-47J-4I4I FAX 952-473-4435 I icRCOY aetrr ikat fits PtAii SPCcrcAiCK. or report WAS PeCPAflCO 0) IC OR UM)ER MV OaVCF Skmvi»0N AM) fMAT I AM A 0U.V tCCMSCO PRQFCSSfiNAL CNCKCR AND LAM) RiMToa ufxi TIC uas or nc siaic or micsoiA DATE IM ICENSE MARNR 'T^tcJcL Ho9 DATE 6/12/02 J(XI NO. 02-265 . firi * L- -I I- " - 'A « • % f f I u (LA -r I r.' * % a L r\* I legal OCSCf riial part of (idi SisuihcasiCfly lit Titles, 107.59 Fi Souihcasteily al the UR 71 degri righi angle 32 Fi line a F Park Su« llwitce Northwc said Traci F; ih point oiTwginni Subject in any r premises or any Regiiuar of Tit' Thai part uFCo Una desei ibed a Fast lid.* ef sail thence North 61 tSence caiMlmii Sited (now Cm ihcnce Sombea Feet 10 iha poiai TfKt G, Regisii Miftnmota. (T Trad! 0. C, F>; Hennepin Coon Ai *#, That part o panqo 27 ^ foilowa:^M dlacant 49 Meat a dial North a dla feet to the and dedicat the Meaterl line drawn roda North the point c REVI90N C 1 Ih UWH 1 CiCettEO 02-265 5*0c>- V-*\ SURVEY 'y^UNE \ \ \ \ ^^mTABLC SiCO \ \ 7V scieAOt iwc \ :: %• • < % \ \ 00--V EXISTING HOUSE LAGOON ■s*\ (LAKE MINNETONKA) V\ fllM vRUI.4 \ (•SIfl ‘CP r: r.c-p^vi. \ • % • • ••* A A • /- ? W V 47.34 89*56' 30' ^ * legal oescrption or PRCKIGES ; n»l mh of Government Lot 1. a^cilbcd as followi: negmuioB *t e pou t .>« iL? SouiHcoilcily line of Tract R. lUcifr.rca UnH ?;wvey No. 034. F.fcs ui ihc Ucgiiinf of Tiikt. 107.5^ feet Noriheiaicfly f«om iIk most Snuthcily enme/ ol »«a riavi u; ihc»»vc SoiiiliceMcily at a ligHi «ogtc to umJ Souihcasietly line 71.*• feci. iF :*k< Ocllccuog 10 the left 71 dccuc*. 41 mlmees 30 lecoodi. a dittance of 47.34 kei. U k «c *: Nunh at a right on|l« 32 feci; ihcnct East at a fitfit angle 93.1 1 feet, wore oi lus to Hie IlM n» rack Slfccl, u ahonm on the ftal of “Shady Wood“ (now Cnwiy Koad Nc. 19). tlwnco Northweiterly.alont the Weiic.ly line of uid kticcl lo the m.»ii ^M.4ly coi.icf of taid Tract E; ihcncc !toi.lhweiiefly along the Souihosierly hne of said 1 •«€! i. to ihe poini oiTkginning. m Section l7,Tu%enihfp 1 17. Range 33 Sutijcei many roads, highwayi or riglm of-way now laid out Of cikiMm».«*»f Jciuss said prciniaei u# any noniott thereof, ai refened to in deed Ooc No. 191 1 .3?, I «lcs 01 Retiiliar of Titles (Tofrcni Property) 1hai part of Government Ul 3. in Section I7. Township 117. Range 23 Utunded by a Una deiciibedai follows: Commencing on the lake shore of UkcMmnciocika on die Fail sid.» of said Lot, 49 rods North of the Sooth line of aaid Lol 3; Ihcr^e rods; thence North 61 feet in Uie aetutl point of beginning of irou nn«.d 10 •iieiico wmtlmdngNorth 33 feel; Ihenee East 93.) I feel to ll^ W.»k: > W feel to the point of lwgi»»ning (Abtiract Pfopcily) T1.CI G.R<|i>ictc<l L»naSuivey No 621. T.leioflUjMnif of 1 iHc IU.«o-p<n Coontr. MinnesiMa (Torrens Property) Tiicti 0. C. 011x1 1', K«ip>«.ie<l Uod Suf.t)f No. 1216. T.lti of lUf.iMu. ol I .:lc». Meniwpiii Couiuy, Mixnctou (Tnnom Piopcn») #«r 1 Siicelofs 17. Tu’xrnahip 117 llotth.Th.t port of Coy.rno.Bt uu.crlbo<1 .« nanqa U Mnnt of tha ath i-knahora of LaHo Minisatonha, foUo«a:^.,c^on.:l.tq ot .aid 4>t 7, thoi .a diacant 49 roda Mor‘ „olnt of barjl.mlivir thanco ut.t 0 Ul.l.nc. • dut. .-o r.J 101.60 Hoctn • Ol.t.iico of ‘6 J tio«bor 19 00 U1<1 out foot to tho Mcotorly lino of .honco Southorl,- oJoni; iis :::r: s“.u:'n.r.rs":.":.;:v.......•• thn point of \ ^ N 89*56'30" W 125.21 o : oenoles iron mofkcf Oeofio9a showrt ore bosed upon on ossumed dotum. This survey inlends to show Ihe boundones of the obove described property. the locotiort of on eiistlr>9 house ood shed, ond Ihe location of d visible hordcover Uiereon. It does not purport lo show ony other improvements or erKroochmenlt. m-jure.!} n£vBg)M OAfC iMfRWN ClCCKCO 02-265 ocfownoH GRONBERG 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. .consume uiciuiri. mo suivtrofis. ate f\«#cRs 445 NOflIII WUOW (WE. LONG LAKE. Ifi 55356 952-473-4141 FAX. 952-473-4435 I ICRfOY CCRTfY THAT tltS PLAH. »*CCd‘CAT04. WAS PWCPAflfO OY K OR UNOCR MT PetCCf SlFfRVlSlOrt A^ TMAT I AM A vULV IttRSIO FROftSSOMAt CMCKCR A»0 LAN) SLRvtvoa i#a» •'€ uws or nc siaii or leacwa OATC ^2^ IM UCtNSC NUbOCR SCALL rmffi- OATL 6/12/02 JOB NO 02-265 ^e.cJd- &'/3-6^ H'03 -0-"'/OQ> •rTTp* k-i zTo\^J\c Q«rA<^^ ’ui 'oUl. Z^'f lO n --Peer -Coc 5‘^U 'S>eck- S^COI^D PLDOf^ as (Cfi f>!-5;-3 • *’/'* *^"* •» •* 1 'r; «/ \>»^ 1 a 96 %«♦- A* 0l=AB ri I=\/ATI/^W Complete Date: Deadline: 6/13/02 8/12/02 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner June 13,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2796 Gina Kosek 1873 Shadywood Road Variance •• Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.S acre) Lot Area:36,040 s.f. (.82 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Analysis Worksheet Application Letter from applicant Site Pian/Survey Building Plans Lakeside View ofPla; . Approved Hardcover Calculations > Approved for new residence Hardcover Calculations - Existing and Proposed Certificate of Occupancy Photo of Property Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LK2); Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75- 250 ’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 5,882 s.f. (34%), where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%) exists and 4.230 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant has applied for a variance to construct two lakeside decks and a walkway. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being second story. Currently there are 3 patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiting. The second story has a 9' door and the ground level has a 9' and 6' door. Ihe lower deck will be slightly longer than the second story deck due to the 2 doors at that level. The ground level deck/walkw-ay will be 3' X 13' and 3’ x 20' with the center rounding out to S' (See Exhibit E) for a total of approximately 110 s.f. The second story deck will be over the lower deck and slightly smaller resulting in no additional hardcover. U02’2796 Gina Kosek 1875 Shadywood Road 6/13/2002 Page I J J Lot summaiy: TTie applicant purchased the property with the thought the residence would be remodeled however after review of the foundation and structural limitations it was determined it should be tom down ’ In 2000, the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence. At that time the applicant applied ft,r a variance to allow a deck to be located within 75' of the lake. Planning Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the application. The building plans that were reviewed and permit issued met both lot coverage by structures and hardcover requirements. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone was calculated at 3 745 s f. or 22.13%. The setback zone will allow 4,230 s.f, which would have left 485 s f unused However, since the house was completed a year ago (The Certificate of Occupany was issued July 2001), the driveway and retaining walls have been constmcted. The driveway is larger than what was shown on the original survey, and the retaining v alls were not shown. The retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in giade for the driveway. Also, a small retaining wdl was constmcted on the lake side of the residence. When the retaining walls were constmcted the applicant did not knew they were considered hardcover. Additionally, the second driveway on the property has not been converted to grass as required. ^ With regards to the house, the approved building plans indicated 2 windows and a patio door where the 3 patio doors are now located. (See Exhibit E). This change in plans by the applicant apparently occurred during constmetion. Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement. • ..xdship in Exhibit C. The applicants should also JO asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. There is justificicion for the driveway to be wider because Shadywood Road is an arterial street and carries much more traffic than most residential streets in the City. The applicant should have the ability to turn around and drive out onto Shadywood Road rather than backim? out onto Sliadywood Road. “ 2. Should the patio doors have a means to exit the home or should they remain securelv lockcd/blockcd? ^ 3. Should retaining walls or some of the driveway be removed to bring the amount of hardcover m the 75-250 setback zone more into conformitv? 4. The lot is conforming but unusually shaped. 5. The stmetund coverage on the lot is below the allowed 1 5%. m-2796 etna Kosek 1875 Shadywood Road 6/13/2002 Page 2 I 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Coinmission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this application for the hardcover variance requested. Granting of a hardcover variance would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. The hardcover in the 7S-2S0' setback zone is proposed to be 5,882 s.f. (34%) including the 110 s.f. for the proposed decks. Even if the applicant removed the south driveway, all rock/retaining walls except one row around the north driveway it would still be over by 357 s.f at 26.5%.i If the Planning Commission recommends denial, the question regarding if the patio doors should remain securely locked, removed, or other directions, needs to be addressed. Also, applicant should be advised to remove all hardcover that is not approved with this request of with the building permit issued 2 years ago. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variance. 2. Recommend denial of variance, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. M2-2796CtnaKos$k 1875 Shaelywooel RotKl 6/15/2002 Pagt5 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: Structural Coverage; Hardcover Calculations: LR-IB Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) Actual 36,040 s.f. (.82 acre) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 36.040 s.f.Allowed: 5,406 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,496 s.f. (6.9%) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75’19,120 s.f 0s.f (0%) 433 s.f (2.26%) 433 s.f (5.76%) 75-250’16,920 s.f 4,230 s.f (25%) 3,745 s.f (22.13%) 5,882 s.f (34%) The existing hardcover calculations are those which were on the survey used to issue the building permit 1 £> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received"' Amount Paid *^3^ *00 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number FORMATION . <5^15 SsV^jA^rvi p^/1 ification Number (En J)^) f - m» Attach legal description to applicadon if not included on required survey. D^eProperty Acquired__<H\MOO CfivxkW/i ^ni»nth/y«.;.r^ I w) (do not) also own the i^ljacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^/residential other rsnecifv^of property Zoning District: other (specify). APPLICANT Name _ Address Phone (home) '•I/T7P Name__________________________________ Phone (woric) (f\0. ~LiQ(o-^^urt ...ji/AMMoL City: ___________ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home). Phone (woric) Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Coiutrucdon Cost $ O.I I ivi'i vrr xKXs\[\jE^ij k i»umaiea ^.oiKtrucuon tJo |i^* (attaclF additional sHeets if nwcssary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusua*lmoperty conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ric/ . _________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #279 Mil required SUBiMITTALS ^tT for*your "PPlirnfign dtadlmr ilatf tn 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Fonn Certified Property Owners List of owners svithin ISO' l,k.l t , must obtain this list, labels and man from H.'™’ 5f (y®“ Finance, A-603, Govt Center 348-5910) ^*“"*P*n County Department qf e^aleldL'al‘oi'TV“"'^"> "“-^verreproduction. P™’"* O «py 8'/,- x 11- for gi^P proposed'' ^fe'2o“ in existing the property. This would mclude namefs^ of H v * f**^*°“ interest in As an addendum to this persons you wish notified of this application ^ separate list of any other Additional items as may be requested by City staff. Tte Appl ie^t ^d Property O^" APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE iriS. s ^ a£?£Sf£' W.. 2-, Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE/ • ' if Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have alj(y4ubmittafe into tH^Ciiv offi ^ ' f Commission Meeting. Planning CoiLnission MeeUngs are held on .Ifdf month. Applicants must be present at all scheduUH •• • **" Monday of each Commission and Council. If an applicant is unabli. r*T “•***“** ®*“ <*>« Planning make ^gements to have an authorized agent attend in vo*i^'"f “ scheduled meeting, please & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting ^ ^ advise the Buildiitg •. •J' > .T** % *;• fA ^AJsi (...)i *- •% I . 7 i L 1875 Hardcover Variance W'e are again applying for a variance so that we can build a deck off of our house at 1875 Shad>‘wood Road. VVe currently have no deck. Our last variance application, which we applied for in the fall of 2000 when we were about to begin building our home, was denied at the Planning Commission level. We withdrew our application at that time, at the suggestion of the Planning Commission. As a side note, one of the reasons we withdrew our application - aside from the fact that it seemed to be a losing battle • was that a member of the commission suggested that we could receive a partial refund, which we never received. Our new plans for a deck stay beyond the 75*foot setback, which was the issue in our first variance application. At issue now is the 25% hardcover rule for the 75 to 250 area. We thought we were under the 25% requirement, but as it turns out we are at 29%. The additional hardcover comes in two main areas; our retaining walls (which we didn't realize counted as hardcover) and our driveway. The proposed deck, which is less than 150 square feet hardcover, would be acceptable if we did not have so much hardcover tied up in our driveway and retaining walls. Our driveway may seem large, and it is admittedly larger than what was on our original plan, but it has been this large throughout the entire building of our home, so we weren't hiding anything from the city, and we feel strongly that it needs to be this size for our safety as well as the safet>' of our visitors. When we originally applied for the driveway. Dale Zetterstrom came o.it to review the site. He was concerned that we have room for a turnaround of some son so that we wouldn’t have to back out onto County Road 19, which is an increasingly busy road. As such, and also due to our e.\perience with living in this area for 6 years, we designed our garage to be a side*entry garage, leaving plenty of room for us to turnaround in our driveway. Another concern with the driveway was the number of visitors we have. As there is a no-parking rule on 19, there is no place for our gusts for park, and a regular driveway does not have adequate space. We lived previously at 1855 Shadywood Road, which is right ne.xt door. We had what I would describe as a “standard ” driveway. It was difficult, especially in the winter with the snowdrifts, to back out, and some of our guests received tickets for parking on the side of the road. We both come from rather large families (6 and 5 children respectively, most of whom live in the Twin Cities) so large gatherings is a fact of life. In addition to parking concerns for our guests, my husband works in construction and often drives a truck with a large trailer attached. Without our current driveway, we simply would have no place to park the truck when the trailer is attached. The retaining walls, most of which were not on our original plan, were added because we needed them, not because we wanted them. We needed to have a retaining wall for our driveway, and we made it two-tiered so we could have a level of plants in it and also so \ we could avoid going over four-fect in height on any one level, which would require assistance from a mechanical engineer. Hie south side of our home needed retaining rails as rail. There was previously a caiport tn this area. Its removal leR a large bank of dirt that was washing away with every ram shower A^n. we built a 2-tier retaining wall to avoid going over four feet in height on any one level and also to create an area for a potential patio, since we still had no <tek and were unsure of what was going to happen on that score. On the west side of this area we built a small retaining wall just to keep the dirt from washing away. In addition to the retaining walls, we have several garden areas surrounded by rows of OTall field stone. Again, we weren’t thinking about hardcover when we did this we were just tiying to inakc our landscaping more appealing. These can be removed if absolutelv necessary for the cons^ction of our deck. We also didn’t include the walkxvay from our dnveway to our front door on the original plan, simply because we didn’t know what we were going to do. We don ’t fee] our driveway or retaining walls are egregious in size or nature, and our n^rejor building them as they currenUy stand were based primarily on safeiy and/or The deck, which is too small for a dining table and chairs, is basically to allow us to exit the wi;st side of our home, which has two 9-foot patio doors and a 6-foot patio door We feel we are asking for something very reasonable - especially compared to our first' ^nance application and what we had originally hoped to do. Frankly, what w^ %vant to build can hardly qualify as a deck - it’s more like an elevated walkway on the first level and a balcony on the second. * I wuld like to stress that this home is not e.xtraordinarily large, and we don ’t have a disproportionate amount of hardcover. We own nearly an acre of land plus several adjacent lots that are xvetlands; unfortunately a rather large percentage of that is non- buildable. We reduc^ the hardcover in the 0 to 75-foot area significantly, and feel that cvei^hing we have done to this property has been well within reason and has signi^antly improved the overall appearance of the property and the area in general We have tned to do ^vhat we felt was best for this piece of property, as well as the safety of our family and the people in the surrounding area. I designed this house and all of the landscaping my husband built the house and executed most of the landscaping plans. This IS the place we want to raise our family and spend the better part of our life We are not trying to make a buck, we simply want to live our lives in peace. We hope you will allow us to do that. Sincerely, Gina Fink Kosek • • A I 2. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIOr Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 . (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application ^ - Date Receh'ed Xfntt Amount Paid &'V' p ''"y r PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address <,\\iJjA\MrrA __________ Property Identification Number^ (P.IJ).) fvxTtr.ti.f. A TA n-in-aa-: yl ' *Attach legal description to appUcation if not included on required surve; Date Property Acquired 9. 30 (20:_____________________________fmonth/vear) I (do not) also own tHe adjacent parcels of land, (i.&ss .siv.£t«^v^:e<t) Present use of property: ^ residentid Zoning District:__________________ other (specify). APPLICANT Address: J , 0^^^'^ER (if different than applicant) Name _________________ City: Phone fliome) *1^9 Phone (work)_______________ Zip:.^^ ^ • Address:City: Phone (home). Phone (work). Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: 1)oaaI r-^ ^ * * ^ (attacVi additional sheets if necessary) * '• VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ /5etback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage 2^.*'..; » Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY, CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: \s.^ gjiL U^UtV a f,_ ^ \K^\rc CJL\ Ma {/f.-WKZ ♦ (^.UA ^ ICVVc/y*«yi^vx4ir<^i, 4VV ^ fCYUx'V £V^ Siy Ai<U (VUrdtJ \j4e VvAVf ___2X«;<;hV^ WLi- {\jSC(\Otkd ^ ^ “icy ^ wV^cVi 6 REQUIRED SUB>nTTALS All-gflht following Information mwst be submitted bv the application deadline datg In order for vour application to he eomM^r^d gomnl#t»; ■ ■■■■■■ M .uBiri JMCmilUCU U order for vour application to he comM^r^d gompl#t»; I. ^ Completed Application Form m __ 2-----Certified Prope^ Owners List of owners %vithin 150 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hermepin Coutity Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor/ and include hardcover calculations as Tn ___ 3. 4. ^ ----- ouu ia\.iuuc naracuver calculations ds required.^ In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVz' x 11" for reproduction. C\>; \ynf^A^ ^pographic surv^ proposed elevitions) if any changes in existing^ ^ --------^ II ttujf enanges in cxisung grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction.o 1 —r----- — vusj \Lj wpy o/a X 11 lor rcproaucuon 5* Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854** x 11 ”). — ' 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 owmer(s). ---- As an addend^ to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour yatlaDgg.PPPlicaliQn h not complete if the above inform ation has not been ineluded. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. M I Applicant's Signature ( >LaaA. - vAi 0 OWTS’ER’S SIGNATURE Date __A 1^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner's Signature ^Date 60 Applicant must hav^^ll submiAals into the Cit\* offices 25 days before the Plaiuiing Comnussion Meeting. Plaiuung 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 a-*rangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Zok • lUA-^Wv cU omI UXy,>at^ iOnVo A. ^ .\D . J..i. a A f.ORONOGOPYHARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEl a SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)C®iD 75.250’2S0«S00* ?^j-ao 9'f-^o ^i.»f6fro SOO-IOOO' rxiSTiNC HAnnCOVER IN ZONE A. House .Width X X X err' B. Garage C. Driveway X X . D. Sidewalk X X E. PatioADecV X X F. Landseape Uaderlaln By Plastic X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _+ B _ _ _ _ _ X too . PROPO'^Fn HARDCOVER IN ZONE House AS • Length Width X X X * -sz B. Garage* C. Driveway X X • • D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Uaderlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B-____X 100 S.F. S.F.-5roH£v< S.F. -T?0Od S.F. -S«£D S.F. S.F. S.F. 2L S.F. S.F. m S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S,p, .V/t^ £212- ^A20 S.F. 19 120 t S.F. ■y .?./ % A B S.F. fS S.F. cJ> y *7 S.F. Cc/A 2/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S6 .S.F. S.F. /90 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. j p iuoes /Ci Ay±__S.F. .jJLZZdl — S.F. 2. ad ■ » A B - I ORONO HM ^OSfK VER CALCULATION WORKSHEE Cr SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S*15*250V 250-500* 7-S-oo A.House X 1437 S PLCA|th Width X S F X sz «•» • S F•X sx 19 S F B.Caraxe X X F C.Driveway j-U/hei X • • 12/4-S.F. S F«X X7 D.*Sidewalk X )42>S P X B S F E.Piiio(Deck X • S3 204-S.F. S FX«i F.Landscape X sa S FUnderlain By Plastic X V • • M«S • S.F. C.Other ■ A X • S.F. S F TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ + B • m 3t4e w.r* S.F. m X 100 e 16.920? -----JLS.JU — S.F. r« A B PRQPOSEO HARDCOVER IN House L%n|ch Z£ Width X X X 2320 S.F. !.F. ;.F. ' B. Carafe C. Driveway S.F. S.F. ^ , S.F. F-*^ ‘ v/«-‘' S.F. X X /2.00 S.F. ' S.F. - D. Sidewalk X X /OS S.F. @ E. Facio/Deck X X Tt Io S.F. r 23 • S.F. F. Landscape Uoderlatn By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. C. Other S55 N TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 41^0 ♦ B. IL. 030 X 100 •’ _________S.F. , 4.'tf0 37 f 3 S.F. A /^,^2.0 S.F. B Z «. /?. % 2An 7o ^trBitn 1 «■ I i-'A*%• ftA'k_.. r / P/'opo^c! HARDCOVERJ^LCULAllUiN WUKK5Hl!.l!.l ‘ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’ 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House . _____________ L<n;ih Width X X X S* G ats ^o * ^ S C: Driveway 31 X X 7/s D. Sidewalk X X VS44UC5 E. Ptiio/Peck X X /c>o P. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- U04- + B r/o4 /^/7/9 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X LenfUl Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B .X too - S.F. S.F. S.F; S.F. a •• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.Ft . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F."' A B S.F.* A S.F. B m % 'OoL X- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY City of Orono Building and Zoning Department Date Approved:7/6/2001 SITE ADDRESS P.t.D. OmVER ZOSINC DISTRICT 1875 Shadywood Road 17-117-23-24-0002 APPROVED OCCUPANCY Mark & gina kosek LR-1C FIRE DEPAR TMENT Mound POST OFFICE BUILDER ADDRESS Wayzata 55391 TYPE: Residential Single Family Permitted Use NUMBER OFDnELUNG UNITS: 1 Mark & Gina Kosek 1875 Shadvwood Road Commercial Structures: This certificate of occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shell not be removed except by the Building Inspector. Wayzata. Mn 55391 BUILDING PERMIT NO. TYPE P02959 New Residential Buildings: Need not post this certificate of occupancy. 9/18/2000DATE ISSUED ._______________ SEWER P03237 SEPTIC SAC UNITS Ao change in the use is allowed prior to obtaining new certificate of occupancy 1 PLUMBING MECHANICAL FIREPLACE WATER P03353 P03237 REMARKS: P03409 P0349S FOR YOUR INFORMATION For any police, fire or medical emergency - Call: 911 Posting of your assigned street number is required •n purchasing a new home, ftlt for your homestead at the City offices. Register your address for xoting. drivers license and automobile registration. \.y Moter and sewer is billed gttartely. Septic Inspection fees are billed annually. RermUs are requiredfor any additions or alterations on your property or for construction of any garages, deck, dock or other accessory structure Special regulations prohibit any excavation, filling, grading, dredging, tree removal, or construction of any kind within 75 feet of any lakeshore or within 26 feet of any wedands. Thtt Is to eertlj^ that / ha\e Inspected the premises at the above address end that the building substantially conforms to the requirements ejthe ordinances of the Cliy appticabfe to ty constructed buildings, or to such alterations or repairs as uere covered by this building permit number and that the construction, alterations or repair has been substantially completed In accordance with the plans upon uhich the building permit required by ordinance uas Issued. ' I . f Friday. Jolt 06.2001 Uhtte: Ouner/Buifder Canary': Assessor PtmMm jeum. TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY City of Orono Building and Zoning Department J- DATE APPROVED:03/27/01 SiTEADDRESS 1875 Shadywood rd OmtER Mark P.I.D. BUILDER 1711723240002 Kosek MAILING ADDRESS 1855 Shadywood Road B UILDING PERMIT: _ P02959 DATE ISSUED 03/27/01 Failure to correct these dendeucies will cause occupancy vioiallon citiations to be issued. 1. Comptete exterior siding 2. Provide final grade 3. Permanent front landing 4. Keep rear doors secured shut until decks are complete / hereby agree to make the above corrections and to call for reinspection within the time allowed: Owner/Contractor START BILLING FOR: City Sewer City Water Building Official Tuaday, htardt 27,2001 mu»: CruKBiltbttCkrk UHowtStit 7 /o70 yyidijX^rc^ ' * ' ' .' : ' _i»''/f> w.' M '- '7l*y \ ‘ - ^ - 'V7*' m.-: ;;» lT» ' I' • \^. •. ' • ■' i^- lip i^EEv: •«««!• HM»I «ar«n.^j ------------ V r-:.:/js li y 61aaa" as?! sssa m --------------I f^»-’ /. - - - — ___ — - -.* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday* June 17* 2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. DR*FT (#1)2-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued) Smith asked if the City would like to limit transports. Weinberger noted that this would be too difficult to monitor. Bellow^ repeated earlier suggestions to review the entire operatiop^efier a certain amount of time. By reviewing the application for compliance at the City’s d^r6»ion at a certain point in time. Smith moved, Bellows seconded, to^c^ Application #02-2795, WJM Properties, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard, a con^o^rTi use permit for outside storage and open sales lot, having reviewed the staffryco^mendations on page 5 and found them acceptable, having reviewed. modlT>- * a|ul 63ded to the suggested conditions for approval on pages 5 and 6 as noted in the minut^sTvOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE ll:21p.m.-12:00 a.m. Gina Kosek, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant had applied for a variance to construct two lakeside decks and a w'alkway. The variance request is to allow hardcover of 5,882 s.f. (34%) where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%) exists and 4,230 s.f. (25%) is allowed. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being a second story. Currently there are three patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiting. The second story has a 9’ door and the ground level has a 9’ and 6’ door. The second story deck will be over the lower deck and slightly smaller thus resulting in no additional hardcover. In 2000, Bottenberg explained, the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence. At that time the applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be.located within 75’ of the lake. Bottenberg noted that the Planning Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the application. PAGE 38 OF 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. DRAFT At the time, the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone allowed 485 s.f. unused. However, since the house was completed, Bottenberg stated that the driveway and retaining walls have been constructed. The driveway is larger than what was shown on the original survey and the reuining walls did not show up either. Additional retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway and as edging that the applicant did not realize added to hardcover totals. (1102-2796 GINA KOSEK, Continued) Bottenberg stated that staff recommends denial of this application for hardcover. Even if the applicant removed the old south driveway (as required to by the original permit), all rock/retaining walls except one row around the north driveway it would still be over by 357 s.f. at 26.5%. If denied, the question regarding the patio doors remains, as well as, the requirement to remove the unapproved hardcover. Ms. Kosek stated that the driveway has not been enlarged from the original plan because it has always been there. The driveway may not have shown up on the survey, but it has been there all along, it has not been changed. With regard to the lakeside retaining walls, Ms. Kosek maintained that they also have been there since they purchased the home, and no one said anything about them. Prior to August 2000, there was an old existing deck. As she redesigned the home she moved the deck design out of the 75’ setback area in order to add it later utilizing the additional 400 s.f. of hardcover they believed to have had remaining. She stated that even in conversations with Weinberger, she was not aware that the retaining walls around the driveway used up this precious square footage until she filed a permit for her deck. Smith asked the applicant how they could help to make things right in order to obtain the variance. Ms. Kosek maintained that what she has proposed currently would hardly constitute a deck, it is more • like two sidewalks with a spot for a chair, not even a table. She stated that originally two separate building sites, they combined them to one in order to create a home*. There were no public comments. PAGE 39 OF 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. DRAFT Smith questioned how the applicant could get back closer to what was approved and why the 2nd driveway was not removed. She inquired about the retaining walls. Ms. Kosek stated that their intention was to remove and sod the old driveway after finishing their landscaping. She and her husband had done much of, if not all of the work themselves, from the design to the construction, and it takes time to do this on your own. Ms. Kosek maintained that she had been told that no permit was required for retaining walls under 3’ in height, but never was she told that they counted toward her hardcover when she made the inquiry. She added that if the retaining walls were removed near the driveway the grade would wash away, as would the side retaining wall if it were removed. Smith asked about the patio doors. Ms. Kosek stated that the plan was to slide the doors out of the 75’ setback, which would have worked with the excess 400 s.f. they had allowed if it weren’t now used up. Smith inquired how the hardcover could be brought down to compliance. (#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, ConHnued) Ms. Kosek found it difficult to accept that she could be denied the 28% ha. Icover variance she was requesting with a conforming lot, when earlier in the evening a nonconforming lot was granted a variance to allow 37% hardcover. She questioned the rationale and indicated that if hers were a nonconforming lot it might be easier to obtain the variance she so seeks. Rahn stated that he had visited the site and spoke to the applicants about getting rid of an old shed within the 75’ setback, removing the stone borders in front, and any nonessential retaining walls, although the *• majority are serving a need, and obviously the old south driveway. Bellows stated that she did not like the issue with the patio doors and believed the applicant had brought the hardship upon themselves. The original deck was denied. PAGE 40 OF 42 minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNHSSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. Ms. Kosek indicated that the patio doors were not added intentionally to cause trouble, they were moved with the thought the square footage was available. Bremer indicated that she did not have a problem supporting the request based on what had been suggested by Commissioner Rahn. The nonessential rock and old driveway need to be removed. She agreedjhat it was difTicult to allow a 37% variance for a nonconforming smaller lot and not allow this more isasonable request. Berg concurred. Rahn believed the driveway could not be reduced and safely allow the applicants to access Highway 19, he was in support of the application and believed it to be a minimal request, Frtizler indicated that he did not wish to see additional hardcover on the property and believed the retaining walls should have been built into the original request. Smith felt more concessions needed to be made before she could support the application. Ms. Kosek concurred with Commissioner Rahn that the old shed ought to be removed, in fact, she had suggested to him herself. Rahn moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the hardcover variance for Application #02-2796, Gina Kosek, 1875 Sbady^vood Road, on the condition that the old shed be removed, all stone borders and nonessential boulder walls be removed, and the original south driveway as required by the first permit. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. With Fritzler and Bellows dissenting for reasons expressed earlier. (#4) #02-2'SiJiEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, RENEWAL VARIANCES Smith moved, Bellows seconded, to table AppltcatiQQ.^-2776 Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, as no representatives for the Applicant were presentVOTEi^cs 6, Nays 0. PAGE 41 OF 42 Complete Date: 5/31/02 Application Deadline: 7/30/02 JUL ? 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF OHOmO DATE: July 18, 2002 ITEM NO.: / 0 Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02*2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Conditional Use Permit List of Exhibits A Letter of Application B 1997 Findings C Council Minutes of April 27, 1998 D Property Survey E Plat Map F Topo Map G Public Comments H Application Background The applicants have made a request for a conditional use permit to allow an additional horse on the property, making a total of three horses on the property. The applicants have noted in their letter of application that they have had two horses on the property since they purchased the lot in 1988. One horse is a 26 year old mare and the second is an 16 year old gelding. The third horse is a 4 year old that has been offered to the property owners. Zoning Code Review ’ The property is located in the RR-IB zoning district where horses are a permitted accessorv' use. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) is the section that regulates the keeping of horses on individual properties. This section has been consistently interpreted by staff as requiring 1 acre for the residence plus 2 acres of pasture for the first horse, or a total of 3 acres for 1 horse. The second horse would require an additional acre of open pasture. Each horse after that would require an additional acre. 5 acres is required to permit 3 horses as an accessor)' use on the property. The Smith/Murphy proper!)’ is appro.ximately 3.6 acres in size. • Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (\f) gives the Council the discretion to reduce the required pasture acreage if the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes (this is the reason for the Conditional Use Permit request). The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture land for feeding. #02-2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Page 2 of 3 ____________________ Existing Pasture Area/Bam The property contains a 0.4 acre pasture area and a bam. The bam was constructed prior to any or the current standards relating to bams. Current standards require the bam to be located 75 ’ from any property line and ISO* from any adjacent residence. The bam is located approximately 20 ’ from the Luce Line right-of-way to the south, and approximately 20 ’ from the west property line. The bam is more than 200 ’ from the north property line and SOO’ to the east property line. The applicants own the property to the west. The residential stmcture on that lot is approximately 60 ’. from the bam. The next nearest residential structure is 270 ’ and south of the Luce Line Trail. The Luce Line Trail is also a horse trail. The property being adjacent to the Luce Line provides additional opportunity to exercise the horses. Regardless of the size of the pasture, a proper manure management program is vital to the protection of nearby wetlands and to eliminate odors. In 1997 Smith/Murphy contacted the University of Minnesota Extension Service to conduct a site visit to determine if any potential pollution impacts were present on the property. A copy of the letter is attached. It was the opinion of Jeremy Geske, Extension Educator, specializing in Livestock Systems that due to the size of the operation and the way it is managed that any impact to the wetland from runoff from the site is extremely minor. The use of the property for 2 horses has been allowed to continue over the years as a legal non- confonning use and the location of the bam was legally established since it was constmeted prior to standards that required specific setbacks. The bam was allowed to remain on the property when the property was subdivided in 1978. During that subdivision process the status of the bam was not discussed and was not required to be removed. In 1987, prior to ownership by the applicants, the City received a complaint about manure storage on the site. The inspector did not find manure being stored on the site, but did determine there were 3 horses on the property and ordered the third horse removed. The property owner agreed to remove the horse because it apparently was not owned by the property owner. In 1997, a complaint was received from an adjacent property owner regarding the number of horses that were being kept on the property. The complaint was researched by staff and staff concluded the keeping of 2 horses on the property was allowed as a legal non-conforming use. A copy of staff s findings in 1997 is attached. The adjacent property owner had appealed the staff decision that the 2 horses were allowed to remain on the property as a legal non-conforming use. The Council reviewed the appeal on April 27, 1998 and afnrmed the staff s conclusions which allowed the keeping of the horses. A copy of the meeting minutes is attached. ^02-2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Page 3 of 3________________________ rfftntW^aahiu Reconiinendatioii The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application by a vote of 6 to 0 (Smith as the applicant did not vote). The Planning Commission inquired whether the property owners had a time period they would like to consider as an adequate time to allow the property to be used for 3 horses. The property owners concluded 10 years may be adequate. The Planning Commission agreed and included a suq$et provision within the Conditional Use Permit that would allow the property to be used for 3 horses for a period of 10 years. After 10 years the property would be back to allowing only 2 horses. The Planning Commission also requested the property owners continue the manure management program that they have been using. Public Comments Two neai*by property owners were present at the public hearing and both spoke in favor of the application to allow an additional horse. Attached u-.: comments that have been received by the City of Orono from adjacent property owners that had comments, but were not present at the meeting. Additional public comments are attached to this document. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application to permit the three horses to be permitted on the property per the reques. in the applicant’s letter of application. One additional horse will not be significant change to the character of the property and the applicants own the property that has the most impact. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the resolution to approving the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Council Exhibit fii 30 OronaOrchard/lload/ Vfay^atCLi MN 55391 May 30,2001 Orono City Council Orono Planning Conunission Orono Staff Members do Mr. Mike Gafffon City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Mike, Thank you for your help in our request for a Conditional Use Permit regarding our desire to have an additional horse on our property. The circumstances for our request are this: We have had the same two horses on our property since we moved to Orono in 1988. At this time, one of our horses is now an aged mare (26) and the other is an older gelding (16) with chronic lameness. Both are very comfortable and can be ridden lightly some of the time, but they do not offer the type of riding to which we have become accustc ed. For this reason, we would like to have an additional horse on our property. A family member would like to give us a four-year old geiding. Otherwise, he will be sold shortly. This horse is well trained and needs more riding that he is currently receiving. He would receive the same care as our other two horses and provide for longer, more frequent riding. We are not planning to make any changes to the property to accommodate an additional horse; there have been an outdoor turnout and additional stalls in our bam for many years. As you know', the City reviewed our property in 1997 and determined that having two horses here meet the requirements of a legal, non-conforming use. For background purposes only, a few discussion points that surfaced at that time are provided in a separate attachment. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Please contact us if you have any questions. We are hopeful to have resolution on this request as quickly as possible. Cordially, Sandra Smith James Murphy Attachment #2797 1 • Dr. Michael Murphy, University of Minnesota Extension Office, conducted a site visit and determined our use is in keeping with appropriate standards and the number of horses should not be an issue, especially relative to adequate feed for horses. City codes about horses are a little vague in this area, but it appears the primary concern is that horses have adequate food by grazing. Our horses are fed hay and grain that meet all their nutritional needs. The turnout area serves as an exercise area, not a source of food Numerous neighbors provided written and/or verbal support for horses on our property; adjoining property owners who have lived here since 1979 stated in writing that horses have been on the property at least since then • In fact, aerial city photographs taken much earlier show our bam and turnout, as well as an oval track that no longer exists. The bam has been here for more than 60 years and a variable number of horses has been on the property for the same period of time At the time of subdivision that created our property, the City Council tacitly approved the continued use of this p'-operty regarding horses by leaving the bam and its use intact. The only documentation pertaining to the number of horses occurred in 1987 when the city advised the previous owner that two horses were permitted. The bam was originally a nine>horse bam • In late 1988, when we purchased the property we were told of this documentation by our real estate agent and the previous owner when we were shown the property. Our use has not changed fi:om the previous owner, except for improvements This property is 3.68 acres, well over the two-acre minimum for RR-IB zoning district. It adjoins other two-acre or larger parcels and the Luce Line Trail (and horse back riding trail designated for horses only) and other open space, including a shared private driveway. The city flies on our property include a reference to 4.2 acres; this may be so, accepting at face value the previous owner's statement that it measures 4+ acres, “when you include the driveway ” • The turnout area used by our horses has vegetation of various plant types every summer (We even have to mow it!) and we have maintained the same-sized area that was used by the previous owners. 7; rr rej j i Council Exhibit 6 GITYof O. Municipal Oflkcs StrNtMdrass: 2750 Kelliy Parkway Orono, MN 55356 MaiUng Mdms: P.O. Box 66 ' Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 July 25.1997 John Dalbec 1565 Qrono Oaks Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Dalbec: In May 1997 staff received your complaint that there arc too many horses on the property at 30 Orono Orchard Road North owned by your neighbors. James Murphy and Sandra Smith. You indicated a concern that because of a lack of pasture area this use is resulting in destruction of vegetation, topsoil erosion and waste discharging to the nearby wetland. I have inspected the site on two occasions and I have discussed this issue with the property owners. They have consulted experts to assist in determining whether there is a potential pollution hazard. They believe that the current number of horses and bam location must be considered as a legal non-conforming use. I have spent considerable time researching City records to determine whether there is a basis for their contention. Your specific concerns as expressed in your letter of June 11 are: 1. Lot size does not meet code for maintaining two horses; 2. Pasture size does not meet code for two horses; 3. 'Sewage* drained directly to w*etland; 4. Stable does not meet 75* to lot lines; 5. Stable does not meet 150* to adjacent residences. Lbt of Attachments A - History of Property B - History of Pertinent Codes C - Plat & Topography Maps D - Letter from Jeremy Geske, U of M 6/23/97 Analysis of Issues Regarding concerns #1 and #2: Tdcpbooc («1D 473-7357 • FAX47M1510 John Dalbec July 25,1997 Page 2 Two horses are kept stabled on the property. The lot size is approximately 3.7 acres of which 0.1 acre is wetland. The fenced enclosure on the property in which horses are kept is approximately 0.4 acre in area, including the 2200 s.f bam. ♦ 0 Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3(M) as consistently interpreted by staff would require 1 acre for the residence plus 2 acres of pasture for the first horse, or 3 acres total. The second horse would require an addition^ acre of pasture, for a total of 4 acres. When they purchased the property in 1988, Smith/Murphy were under the impression that the property contained the required acreage for two horses. They have had two horses at the site continuously since 1988. City records indicate two or more horses were at the site prior to 1988, and in 1987 the City represented to the previous owner that the property contained enough acreage to house two horses. The City never attempted to enforce the pasture acreage requirements on this property in the past, and never indicated to the owner that the lack of pasture was a problem. Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3(M) gives the Council the discretion to reduce the required pasture acreage if the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. A legal non-conforming use does not require specific Council action regarding the pasture requirement. City files and airphotos indicate the bam had been used historically for housing horses since the mid-1950’s or earlier. City records do not provide any documentation whether the use of the site for keeping horses was ever suspended for any length of time. There is no evidence that this or any previous owner of the property ever had an intent to abandon the use of the property for housing horses. The City did not require that the horse bam be removed at the time the property was subdivided, suggesting that the City e.\pected that the bam would continue to be used for some accessory purpose when a new principal structure was built on the property. The City at the time of subdivision made no representations about the possible future uses of the bam. All of the above information suggests that it would be difficult for the City to refute the argument that the use of the property for housing at least two horses has been continuous since the adoption of the codes requiring a minimum lot area and minimum area of pasture. John Dalbec July 25,1997 Page 3 and should be 'grandfathered', i.e. considered as a legal non*conformtng use. Staff is unaware of any past formal requests in the City for pasture acreage reduction, hence there appears to be no precedent for reference. Regarding concerns #4 and US: The bam on Lot 10 is located approximately 20 feet from the Luce Line right-of-way to the south, and approximately 20 feet from the west property line abutting Lot 13. This relationship has existed for more than 40 years. The bam is more than 200 feet from the north line of Lot 10 and SOO feet from the east line of Lot 10. Smith/Murphy are ow-ners of Lot 13. The bam is approximately 60 feet from the house on Lot 13, and approximately 270 feet from the next nearest residence, which is south of the Luce Line. The bam was established in its current location many years prior to the 1968 and subsequent zoning code standards which made its location non-conforming. The standards for the 75' lot line setback and 150' "nearest adjacent residence" setback were established to provide a buffer between horse bams and neighboring residential properties. Except for Lot 13 which Smith/Murphy own, the existing bam location meets the intent of such buffering, in staffs opinion. On the other hand, if Lot 13 is sold to another party, the buffering might not be adequate. The Luce Line Trail is not only a pedestrian and bike trail but is also a horse trail by design, hence the adjacency to a horse bam should not be incompatible. Regarding concern #3: The fenced horse enclosure is approximately 40-50 feet from the apparent boundary of the 3-acre Type 2/3 wetland located within Lots 10-11-12-13. A gravel driveway is located between the enclosure and the wetland. The City has a 26' wetland setback requirement in effect for structures and other activity occurring near wetlands. The enclosure appears to meet this setback. John Dalbec July 25,1997 Page 4 The property owners do not let manure accumulate to a point where it w’ould harbor rodents, flies or insects. Staff has visited the site and has observed that such noxious conditions do not exist. During my inspections of the site on June 11 and July 2,1997 1 observed no excessive or malodorous aromas. * There was no accumulation of manure and water on the site that would indicate a chronic mucky situation that could lead to a continuous odor or runoff problem. During the July 2 inspection, which was the morning after a heavy rain, I found no indications that manure had been transported off the site to the wetland by runoff. While there was not a dense vegetative ground cover within the enclosure during both my inspections, about half of the enclosure does have some vegetative cover, and there was no indication on July 2 that the area enclosed was eroding over the driveway and into the wetland. I did observe that the driveway gravel had washed down hill from the east and was a potential source of sedimentation to the wetland, which should be resolved by the property owners who share that driveway. Smith/Murphy have consulted with an expert from the University of Miimesota, who indicates in the attached letter that in his opinion, "the impact to the wetland from runoff through this lot is extremely minor". He also indicated that with only two horses, this site does not qualify as a feedlot, and with only two horses the amount of manure to be dealt with is minimal. This site does not strike me as an eyesore, and while I could see no visible indications of runoff leading to the wetland, such runoff could possibly occur. Berming around the north and west fence lines might help control runoff to some extent, although I have no compelling information that leads me to conclude that it is necessary. Conclusions 1. The City would have a difficult time simply requiring that one or both horses be removed from the site due merely to not meeting the total acreage requirement (which is calculated on the basis of pasture acreage requirements) for the following reasons: a. Horses have apparently been kept at the site on a regular basis since prior to the codes which established minimum acreage requirements; b. There has been no apparent intent by the current or past owners to abandon r John Dalbec July 25.1997 Pages use of the site for horses; c. When the City allowed the horse bam to be within a 3.7 acre lot as part of subdivision of the property in 1980, the City did not require the barn be removed. d. In 1987, the City represented to the prior owner that two horses could be kept on the property. While that conclusion may have relied on incorrect infonnation regarding lot size, the current owners relied on this representation - and have had two horses on the site without incident or complaint until the current complaint surfaced. e. The City Council at its discretion can allow the pasture requirement, and hence the overall acreage requirement, to be reduced if it finds that the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. In effect, the City has tacitly granted such reduction by its past inaction. 2. The location and locational relationships of the bam were established prior to adoption of the codes which made the bam location non-conforming. The history of use of the bam for horses and the apparent intent by past and current owners to continue that use, plus the City's lack of action to restrict or eliminate the use when the subdivision occurred, make it difficult to require now that the use be ceased. 3. I find no compelling evidence that suggests the site is causing a pollution problem for the wetland. The enclosure appears to be kept in such a manner that manure does not accumulate to any e.xtent. While stormwater from the site would generally run toward the wetland there is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland (i.e. the wetland perimeter vegetation is not significantly different from that of any other wetland or from other locations around this wetland). It would be very dii.'cult to establish whether nutrient levels at the edge of the wetland near the enclosure are higher than 'normal'. Absent any definite evidence ot a pollution problem, and given the expert opinion of a Livestock Systems Specialist from the U of M that the impact of the site on the wetland is 'extremely minor*, I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is no evidence of an odor problem (and no complaint of one). There is no evidence that the site is harboring rodents, flies or insects (and no complaint that it is). To summarize, my conclusion is that the use of the property for housing of two horses based on all available information appears to be a legal non-conforming use, that the location of the bam and enclosure in relation to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required specific setbacks, and that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. My conclusion in this matter, therefore, is that the two horses and existing facilitieswill be allowed to remain on the property. 1 will recommend to the property owners that they establish measures to L JohnDalbec July 25,1997 Page 6 eliminate erosion of the gravel driveway toward die wedand. Thank you for your concern as well as your patience in allowing the City adequate time to investigate the issues of this matter. Per your discussion with City Administrator Ron Moorse, if you disagree with the City staffs conclusions, you should detail those concerns in a letter to the Council for their consideration as an appeal of an administrative decision. Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator cc:James Murphy & Sandra Smith Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor Jabbour and City Council aiadfciiiiinidllihiii m AandiiiiiiAttA /}-m7 Hbtory of Property 1. The existing horse bam has been at its ciment location and size since at least the mid- I950 ’s or earlier. 2. The horse bam in the mid-19S0's was accessory to the residence now owned by Mr. Struyk currently known as 40 Orono Orchard Road North. The property contained approximately 40 acres at that time, including the residence and the bam. The small house now known as 20 Orono Orchard Road N. (the "comer lot") was already on a separate parcel as of the mid-1950's, although airphotos indicate that driveways interconnected the apparent use of the two properties. The low area north of the bam (now the middle of the wetland 'in Lots 12 & 13) contained an oval riding ring. 3. The property, including the comer lot, was subdivide in 1978 to create new unsewered bull tng sites of two-plus acres each. In July 1978 the City approved two optional lot coiuigurations: - a 12-lot plat with the bam and the comer house platted together as a single lot; or a 13-lot plat with the comer lot separate from the bam, but the comer lot expanded to contain at least 2 dry-buildable acres The second option was ultimately chosen, and the City allowed dry-buildable credit for the wetland area that exists today but which was dry in 1978. As a result, the comer lot platted as Lot 13 contains 2-pIus acres of which only half is considered dry- buildable by today's standatrds and prevailing condition. And, Lot 10 with the horse bam contains approximately 3.7 acres of which approximately 0.1 acre is wetland. 4. In approving the subdivision as it was ultimately configured, the City did not address the accessory structure status of the bam, and did not require that it be removed, although it became an accessory structure without a principal structure. The City also placed no conditions on the future use of the property, even though it obviously contained a horse bam and fenced area historically use to keep horses. 5. A building permit was issued in November 1982 to Steve Neslund for a new ’ home to be constructed on Lot 12 which was constructed during 1983 and Certificate of Occupancy issued in January 1984. Curiously, the Certificate of Survey used to obtain the building permit did not show the then-existing horse bam, although that survey purports to show "the location of all buildings, if any, thereon...". 6. In July 1987 the City received a complaint about manure storage at the site. The inspector did not find manure being stored but did find 3 horses. The inspector somehow concluded that the site had 4.2 acres of land and ordered the third horse to be removed, which was done w’ithout question since the third horse was apparently being housed only temporarily for a friend of the owner. 7. In October 1988 Neslund requested information about how many horses could be housed on the property. Mabusth sent him the code but apparently did not define a number of horses, possibly because she did not have acreage figures for the property. 8.In December 1988 Smith & Murphy moved onto the property. Within a short time they started using the site for housing of horses. The City has no record of complaint regarding those horses until Dalbec ’s May 1997 complaint Council Exhibit C ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 #2353 Lett Busch, 1265 Shoreline Drive - Continued Jabbourotpressed his concern that the hardships be stated in the resolution and that the driveway be safe afterany hardcover removals. Kelley asked how^w City could be sure the next owner would not install a paved driveway up to the structure, which wUtuld add more hardcover, and make it a 2>car garage. Goetten expressed her concern about the size of the structure, indicating it was very large. Busch explained that woodworking reqtHres a large area to work, up to 24' when planing a board. Several pieces of equipment are used in m^ng cabinets. Peterson asked what the net effect of hardcover would be. Van Zomeren responded that it would be 300 s.f. She suggested that if garage door^ere not allowed, a building permit would be required to install them at a later date. Kelley commentechtljat garage doors would be needed to do the type of woodworking Mr. Busch was proposing. Van Zomeren added that the surveyor did not show any easbments for the sewer. In talking with the Public Services Director, these easements should be recordea\l'he applicant agreed to do so. Flint asked if there were no other possible location on the propert>- Kh;^e structure. Van Zomeren explained that a well on the other side of the garage limits that area. Goetten suggested that no more hardcover be allowed in the future if the mothm passes. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to amend the motion adopting Resolution No. 407J^include the condition that no additional hardcover is to be allowed. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Kelley ah^^Peterson voted against the motion. (#14) JOHN DALBEC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE KEEPING OF HORSES AT 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH Moorse explained that Dalbec made a complaint about the keeping horses of 30 Orono Orchard Road North and questioned the legality of it. Staff researched the issue and prepared a letter to Dalbec listing the findings and concluding that two horses should be allowed to remain on the property. Dalbec has asked that Council reconsider the conclusion. Jabbour asked Dalbec to comment on his position. Dalbec distributed a letter to Council and the owner of the residence. Dalbec stated the lot size is too small, the pasture doesn't meet the minimum size, and the building doesn't meet the setbacks. ■ ■ wy *-»■<»PrTid-«MI Jiirrii ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 (HI4) John Dalbec Request for Council Determination Regarding the Keeping of Horses at 30 Orono Orchard Road North - Continued Jabbour explained how the ordinances work. Prior to ordinances being adopted, property owners could do whatever activities they wanted legally. When they continue to do these activities after they are no longer allowed by ordinance, it is considered legally non-conforming. If the activity began after the ordinance was adopted, then it is illegally non-conforming. When an activity is legally non-conforming, it is referred to as "grandfathered in". Gaffron agreed that the keeping of horses on this property is legally non-conforming. Dalbec asked for clarification of legally, non-conforming. Jabbour explained that when horses were on this property many years ago, it was legal to have horses there. Gaffron referred to the staff review represented in a 6 page letter to Dalbec. Staff concluded that there has been a continuous existence of horses on the property, and therefore the use should be allowed to continue. No pollution problem exists as indicated in the report from Jeremy Geske of the University of Minnesota. After two site inspections, Gaffron also concluded that no environmental problems were created as a result of the horses. The fact that the property is less than 4 acres is not a factor in the decision to allow the horses to remain because they have been there continuously. Nothing in the information in the City’s files suggest that there was any intent on the City or the property owner ’s part to not have horses. The horse bam and corral were allowed to remain when there was no house on the property. Horses have been on the property since at least the mid-1950 ’s. Jabbour asked how many hours staff has spent on this issue. Gaffron responded that he had spent at least 25 hours, and probably another 10 or 15 hours with other staff members anu the City Attorney. No members of the Council or Planning Commission have been involved in researching the issues. Jabbour mformed Dalbec that the City has concluded that the horses are a legally, non-conforming use of the property. Many ta.xpayer dollars have been spent to reach this conclusion. There has been no interference from the Council or Planning Commission. If there is any bias, it is toward Dalbec since so much time has been spent to research the issue. Flint questioned the ownership of the property. Gaffron confirmed that Muiphy/Smith own Lots 10 and 13, and Dalbec owns Lot 12. Flint noted a supportive letter from Mrs. Bordson, a neighbor to the north. He also asked what would happen if one of the lots were sold off. Gaffron responded that Lot 10 is 3.7 acres and Lot 13 is 1.5 acres. ft ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 (1tI4) John Datbec Request for Council Determination Regarding the Keeping of Horses at 30 Orono Orchard Road North - Continued Dave and Barb Struyk, 40 Orono Orchard Road North, share a common driveway with Mmphy/Smith. Mr. Struyk stated they had lived in the residence since 1979, prior to Murphy/Smith. There were horses boarded there at that time; they like the horses and fmd it unfair that the Murph^/Smiths are being questioned about the keeping of their horses. Jabbour noted he had received several letters supporting the continued use of horses on the property. Kelley asked if the property were limited to 2 horses, not 3. Gaf&on responded that in 1987, the City limited the use to 2 horses in a response to the prior owner. Jabbour added that if the horses were removed for more than 1 year, the use would become non-conforming and no longer be allowed. Attorney Barrett commented that in the current circumstances, the use is allowed. If the property were to lose its legal, non-conforming status, a variance could be applied for to consider the previous use of the property. Council has discretion to address the issue of pasturage. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to affirm staffs conclusions which allow the keeping of horses at 30 Orono Orchard Road North as outlined in the letter of July 25,1997. Murphy stated they felt this was an unfortunate set of circumstances and would like to have the same relationship with Mr. Dalbec as they had the first five years of being neighbors. He commended staff on a well done report. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2354 KONRAD KRUEGER, 520 HANLON AVENUE - VARIANCE The applicant was not present. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2354, providing the application be extended an additional 60 days by letter to the applicant. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short recess was held.) T-* ... 1.02. t^ovs'irs., i N t ^.0 4*•if iMi ^ • Council ExhibitExhibit ^ Hennepin County Taxpayer Services #27r^ - ciiy Parcel Information noParc«l ID 3511823331 Houm Numbar 30 Straat Nam* ORONO ORCHARD RD H This is not a I»ga9y ncofdta msp. ItnprsssntsacompastionofMonnslion and data from CHy, Counfy, and Stats road authorttiss ami oOm souKOS. Council Exhibit & City of OroBO 2750 Kclky Parkway P.O. Box 66 OronOf MN 55323 Phone: (952) 294-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 MEMORANDUM DATE:July IS, 2002 TO:Planning Conunission FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Public Comments Regarding CUP for Smith/Muiphy Heidi Hust 45 Smith Avenue Stated horses are well cared for and her children enjoy the horses. She supports the request to add the additional horse. Nancy Bordson 1290 Orono Oaks Drive T Stated she has no problem widi the request She also stated it was an asset to the neighborhood to have horses. Peter and Geri Scherer IS Orono Orchard Road (Written Comments Attached) John Dahlbec 1S6S Orono Oaks Drive (Written Comments Attached) '.i'l 1 Paul Weinberger - Sandy Smith / Jim Murphy Request Page 1 From: To: Data: Subjact: "Scherer. Pete" <PScherer@8chererbro8 com> "Weinberger Paul (E-mail)" <pweinberger(3ci.orono mn.us> 7/12/02 10;03AM Sandy Smith / Jim Murphy Request SCHERER BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY PETER SCHERER President & CEO 9110 83rd Ave. N, Brooklyn Park. MN 55445 direct 612.627.0871 fax 612.627.0838 email: pscherer@schererbros com Dear Paul / City of Orono Planning Commission: We are the neighbors perhaps living closest to Sandy Smith and Jim Murphy. Over the course of our first year as their neighbors, we have had great experiences with the presence and condition of their horses. They have maintained their property well and the upkeep of the animals is wonderful. We have no concern about another horse (3) on their property and would heartily welcome the addition. We strongly support their request. Peter and Geri Scherer 15 Orono Orchard Road Orono. MN 55391 952-249-1566 Scherer Bros. Yards: Albertville. Arden Hills. Minneapolis. Shakopee * Scherer Bros Cabinet Distributors * Scherer Bros. Marketing Services Scherer Bros. Installation Services * Scherer Bros. FarNorth Windows * Component Systems Incorporated * Truss Manufacturing Company July 15,2002 Jim Murphy and Sandy Smith request for additional horse 1. The current smell being generated by the raw sewage, which is not being removed from property is almost unbearable in the summer. 2. The rainwater run off, washes the raw sewage from corral into the nature wetlands on my property, a permanent silt fence should be installed. 3. Downgrading of the neighborhood, which is made up of higher end homes with neatly groomed yards. They have a horse corral the size of a postage stamp with no grass and two horses. 4. Doesn’t meet current set back requirements. 5. Doesn’t meet lot acreage requirement for the number of horses. 6. Doesn’t meet acreage requirement for pasture even for one horse. 7. Current pasture approximately 5,000 sq feet. One horse requires 87,120 sq feet. Two horses require 130,680 sq feet and Three horses would require 174,240 sq feet. Today they fall short by 125,680 sq feet 8. All residents should be held to the same standard no matter what their position may be. With all these requirements they are currently not meeting, 1 find it hard to believe they have been allowed to have even ONE HORSE on this properly. Our neighborhood is one of finer homes, as is all of Orono. These developments of smaller lots sizes weren’t intended for the raising of livestock in this manner. Nobody should have to live ne.\t to a barnyard. This request should not even be considered and 1 feel it is inappropriate to continue to have any horse on this property. Current conditions should be revaluated and all horses removed. As a member of the same development, neighbor, and the President of the Orono Oaks Homeowner Association, I request that their application for an additional horse be REJECT Thank you John Dalbec 1565 Orono Oaks Drive, Long Lake, Mn. 55356 Submitted to the Planning Commission On This Date. Written Response Requested. Council Exhibit A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (M) FILE NO. 02-2797 WHEREAS, Sandra Smith and James Murphy (hereinafter “the applicants ”), are owners of the property located at 30 Orono Orchard Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block I, Orono Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) to permit the keeping of 1 additional horse on the property, keeping a total of three horses on the property; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15,2002, 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. Sm • 3. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2797. The property is located in the RR-IB zoning district. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this appli. ation on July 15, 2002 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The property is located in the RR-IB zoning district where horses are a permitted accessory use. Page 1 of6 1 5. B C. E. F. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) gives the Council the discretion to reduce the required pasture acreage if the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes (this is the reason for the Conditional Use Permit request). The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture land for feeding. The property contains a 0.4 acre pasture area and a bam. The bam was constructed prior to any of the current standards relating to bams. Current standards require the bam to be located 75' from any property line and 150' from any adjacent residence. The bam is located approximately 20' from the Luce Line right-of-way to the south, and approximately 20' from the west property line. The bam is more than 200’ from the north property line and 500 ’ to the east property line. The applicants own the property to the west. The residential structure on that lot is approximately 60' from the bam. The next nearest residential structure is 270’ and south of the Luce Line Trail. The Luce Line Trail is also a horse trail. The property being adjacent to the Luce Line provides additional opportunity to exercise the horses. In 1997 the applicants contacted the University' of Minnesota Extension Service to conduct a site visit to determine if any potential pollution impacts were present on the property. It was the opinion of Jeremy Geske. Extension Educator, specializing in Livestock Systems that due to the size of the operation and the way it is managed that any impact to the wetland from runoff from the site is extremely minor. The use of the property for 2 horses has been allowed to continue over the years as a legal non-conforming use and the location of the bam was legally established since it was constructed prior to standards that required specific setbacks. 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 property values and that the proposed level of use of the Page 2 of 6 1 k r.r property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. .6.I1ie 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) to permit the keeping of I additional horse on the property, keeping a total of three horses on the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. This Conditional Use Permit has is valid for a time period of 10 years from the time of Council approval. Such approval allows the property to be used for 3 horses for a period of 10 years. After 10 years the property would revert back to allowing only 2 horses. Such use for two horses would continue to be a legal non- conforming use. The non-conforming use shall be allowed to remain until such time the use ceases for a period of 12 months. Any future use shall then oe in conformance with all zoning regulations. The applicants and any future property owners shall maintain an adequate manure management program. The City of Orono reserves the right to review this conditional use permit should it be determined there is a significant environmental concern related to the approvals granted by this Conditional Use Permit. Authorities granted by the conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 7 6.The undersigned property owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _______ ____________, 200 ____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of7 “ ii i n iii iTiiTrirrn ■ r n jn. * ^1 A*-i- -• ------- 1 , A STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .20 personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me . whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation witness . a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed.iJ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20. personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basfs of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation witness a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 1 Application Date: 7/03/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/30/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 'JUL 2 2 2002 CITY OF Ohumu Department Approval: Name Wendy Botlenberg Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planncr DATE: 7/18/02 ITEM NO.: // Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2798 Fred and Karen Shearer 140S Park Drive Variances Zoning District: Lot Ana: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) 22,356 s.f. (.Sucre) Listof Eihibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and Exhibits of 7/15/2002 Application Summary: The applicant has requested side yard setback, front street yard setback and hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone variances to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence. The garage addition consists of an IT x 23' third stall. The proposed third stall addition (253 s.f.) to the garage is on the street side of the existing residence. I'he garage is to be lined up with the existing garage and residence which is located 9.8' from the w'cst property line. The existing residence and other items located in the 75-250' setback zone comprise 4,363 s.f. (28.8%) hardcover. The garage addition (253 s.f.) and added portion to the driveway (109 s.f.) increases the hardcover to 4,726 s.f. or 31.3%. The residence was built in 1968 in its present location. The only improvement to the residence was a three season porch addition in 1983, which was over a patio already considered hardcover. Also, in 1988 the present owners requested and were granted vacation of Forest Boulevard. 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B); Side Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 9.8' from the side lot line where 10' is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Front Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 27.9' from the front lot line where 30' is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 3. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) (2): Hardcover in 75-250’: Within 75- 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 4,726 s.f. (31.3%) hardcover where 3,779.75 s.f. (25%) is allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: w * To approve application subject to the following condition: The applicants remove a 6’ x 40’ portion of the driveway to bring the hardcover in 75-250’ setback zone to 4,376 s.f. (28.9%). The garage stall is an increase of 253 s.f. minus the 240 s.f. removed from driveway is a net increase of 13 s.f. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution, I A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5(B), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(LK2), FILE NO. 02-2798 WHEREAS, Fred Shearer and Karen Shearer, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1405 Park Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 1, Block IS, Saga Hills Revised, including the adjacent part of vacated streets, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants ha\e applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B). Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to permit construction of a third stall garage to the existing residence to be located 9.8 ’ from the side property line where 10’ is required. 27.9 ’ from the front property line where 30’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district and to permit 4,376 s.f. (28.9%) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback where 4,363 s.f. (28.8%) hardcover exists and 3,779.75 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File ff02-2798. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .51 acres. I of6 1 3. 4. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed t’ is application on July 15, 2002 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. The topography of the land limits where additional buildings can be located. To the east the land drops significantly making it difllcult to place a structure there. B. I hc lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. C. I he lot coverage b> structures is well below the allowed 15%. D. 1 he lot is undersized for the LR-1B zoning district. There is not additional land to combine with the property. It was increased to its present size in 1988 with the vacation of Forest Boulevard. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air. nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propert>; would not merely serve as a convenience to tlie applicant, but is necessarv' to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the clYect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLl’SIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B), Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to permit construction of a third stall garage to the existing residence to be located 9.8 ’ from the side property line where 10’ is required and 27.9’ from the front property line where 30 ’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district; and to permit 4,376 s.f (28.9%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 4.363 s.f. (28.8%) hardcover exists and 3.779.75 s.f (25%) is allowed. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 2 of 6 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the iq)plicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.The 6’ X 40 ’ section of the driveway shall be removed from the property prior to final inspection of the garage. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the tq)plicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 22,2003). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adcrted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MnsfNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 3 of 6 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 July, 2002 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 On this before me. day of ,2002,jsersonally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity I prove.j on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of .,a credible witness 'I and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/'she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notar>’ Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .2002,j)ersonaIly appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of .a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public 5 of 6 \ V ------V /o TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: July 8,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2798 Fred Shearer 1405 Park Drive Variances- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 22,356 s.f. (.51 acre) Lbt of Exhibits: A Application B Survey C Topographic Map D Garage Plans and Elevations E Hardcover Calculations F Photo of Property Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd.S(B): Side Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 9.8’from the side lot line where 10’ is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Front Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 27.9’ from the front lot line where 30’ is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) (2): Hardcover in 75-250': Within 75- 250’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 4,726 s.f (31.3%) hardcover where 3,779.75 s.f (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant has requested side yard setback, front street yard setback and hardcovei in the 75-250’ setback zone variances to permit construction of an attached garage to the e.xisting residence. The garage addition consists of an 11 ’ x 23’ third stall. The proposed third stall addition (253 s.f) to the garage is on the street side of the existing residence. Tbe garage is to be lined up with the e.xisting garage and residence which is located 9.8’ from the west property line. The e.xisting residence and other items located in the 75-250’ setback zone comprise 4,363 s.f (28.8%) hardcover. The garage addition (253 s.f) and added ^rtion to the driveway (109 s.f) increases the hardcover to 4,726 s.f or 31 .3%. #02-2798 Fred Shearer 1405 Park Drive Variances 7/a'2002 Page I of3 The residence was built in 1968 in its present location. The only improvement to the residence was a three season porch addition in 1983. Also, in 1988 the present owners vacated Forest Boulevard. Neighborhood History In 1997, the adjacent property located at 1399 Park Drive was granted approval to construct a three stall detached garage in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. The variances approved weic for side yard setback and hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. The side yard setback was to allow the detached garage to be located 8’ where 10 ’ is required. Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone was approved to be increased from 25.32% to 30.08%. This adjacent property is similar in size and shape to the subject property. Statement of Hardship: Tlie applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. The topography of the land to the east limits where a structure can be constructed. The land drops off sharply making it difficult to construct a detached garage there. The other possible location on the property would be on the lake side of the residence, but access would be nearly impossible. Issue for Consideration: 1. The topography of the land limits where additional building can be located. To the east the land drops significantly making it difficult to place a structure there. 2. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 3. The e.xisting re<^! Jence and accessory items in the 75-250 ’ setback zone have the hardcover at 4,363 s.f. (28.8%). The garage addition and additional driveway will bring it to 4,726 s.f. (31.3%). 4. The lot coverage by structures is well below the allowed 15%. 5. The lot is undersized for the LR-IB zoning district. There is not additional land to combine with the property. It w as increased to its present size in 1988 with the vacation of Forest Boulevard. 6. Is there any hardcover on the property which could be removed to bring it more into conformity or to at least keep the hardcover at its present level? It would seem that substantial areas of existing driveway could be removed. 7. Is there sufficient hardship to grant the street setback variance? 8 Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. ^02-2798 Fred Shearer 1405 Park Drive Var ’ances 7/8 2002 Page 2 of3 Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends approval ofthe side setback variance. Planning Commission c uid recommend approval of the street setback variance if it finds sufficient hardship exists and finds there will be no significant negative impacts to the neigh jorhood. Staff recommends that removals of existing hardcover be required to result in no net increase above the existing 28.8%. Options for Actions: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. i \ 1 . I t I I #02-2798 Fred Shearer 1405 Park Drive Variances 7/8/2002 Page 3 of3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 22,356 s.f. (0.51 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Structural Lot Coverage: Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover 0-75 ‘5,918 s.f.0 s.f.0 s.f.Os.f. (0%)(0 %)(0 %) 75-250 ’15,119 s.f. 3,779.75 s.f.4,363 s.f.4,726 s.f. (25%)(28.8%)(31.3%) 250-500 ’1,319 s.f.395.7 s.f.212 s.f.212 s.f. (30%)(16.07%)(16.07%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,356 s.f. • Allowed: 3,353.4 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,283 s.f. (10%) Proposed: 2,537 s.f. (11.3%) i k I ^ 1 a-U II. . a . % •1 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $25C.OO Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received" Amount Paid .^3 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ParL Dv". Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) y7 /)d/L> ^ •a* ▲ ••a* • ^ M. • % % % ^ • •Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired t'ftio_______________________________ I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of lar.d. ,(month/year) Present tSeofproperty: vf residential Zoning District: __________ other (specify). APPLICANT IL •• - Name Fre.<l Address: /tyoK- Dr Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) 1 City: /yfouxjJ Zip:_£X2ii£. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_______________ Describe request in detail: adJ ^ iV --------" _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________gjtt: (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width 'JS-^S'O Hardcover ,Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ,'k1 ga.<r^Q^<e «; nfahach additional Wets i' eecessary) TiL^A^a^jelt'c.) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of th* Ic Id 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form List of owners within 150', labels and plat map fyou Of Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover <■> “«»' X "■ to To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) codv 8'/," x 11- fnr «« Sheiches or pl.^ of floor & eieLion List of the leg^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest ^ the property. This would mclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s) As an addend^ to this application, please attach a separate list of anv oAer persn^ you wish notified of this application. ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour yariaace gpplicatwn h imt eempleie If the ahov> info rmation h.« .o, i,..„ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoninn Admrmstrator. agrees to pay additional fees (stafT time not covered by original fefpayS md/or consultant expenses rncuried in review of this appheation. and cenifils information supplied is true and correct to the best of histiier knowledge. Applicant's Signature.^.^r^ JA/-/J ,( /,< .. j OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable by C,ty staff consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council r^embers for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signanire y]/)Date Applicant must have dl submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planninrt m5TppSj;jr^ Commission and Council. If m. applicant is unable to anend a sched^ed meeting Te!S & Z^iSTS^e^ fl^7h “g“X"rt rm“ting." ^4 L O)¥ 4.:' 07/03/2002 08:24 S529300921 SAM AT SELA PAGE 01 6 r B L. VD.»*M5 -'*»• * cjmw^(w;eo) -i—^ _ 1^ 0• • • N'i t N \ &I \ i I j| \i U /^1 \l j «> *-» .a-wTI Vii£rra.-i(j I i« ^__** I** tf ^ —_C a<v»iv 11^- • • f^r \Ioajlouv^ U^n ■ 3^ 3hi( 140^P u^^m ____ ..«.fe*l??-„ -=rr. - Dnwiniit. __ ________ [CunlncUjr ff lUM J Seal*:.________ =fte^ 1 t) & Is iiiim§i •.. '\ • . •'* t , ‘ ■ . ’ y ^ . • : . i\ >*' *V-t '•' »: >:. V •i 'ik*., ^ A/ : --> t ''V* \ fSJs: 8’ ^ ^i.r!. ,ij^.K^‘ j^. arjj lT^mu>j^ ■.•‘:.%ir.-!Si^ . •.. .* , « I&'-'' s:^••f. .2. .5^ ■.mr *■ . D r • ' U-* »r** •.<'<• •*'«* > r^ ^J tT'-■>^‘.'1^ • ‘ W ■. .••; v ‘l ^« 4 .*i •t^ . »^ •« r-'f*'. -y-.. SAsS.!^ m m ' jr. — . i . iil'M p^ -M W^-'. • ---* r^ Jll'M t/ ry^i y i'^ \ T - 7*r,-i:-:rr*,>^^/,iir^ Bjjcors^ ‘ '• «««- r ««nLM T r‘ ^»:vTi ^4iiiw^twa am^.n* m- i-m cj *55f>2' Gil .•^ry^OM.s'r^Tcr*;;'•r"S;F?feTis nn jkgatf tscr.'t iWCUfOQliVMMlSClV _________________________R^;•« 1 «n wB ■■ «u: r««B» r ^ * r «iKn.M \;j|^'f 1 r' ' 9lA «tV tkl' i'*Ti Ciiicr.'» iiewfCT^ - :rfc**^im IS ■nH merasBSPrarrd!CS1^ mim f{?i«iKSl ; KV5r-jti-r rt- / ’-.xia 1^. EASDCOVZR CALCXLATIO?< WORXSE52T 7»S0 ‘SETBACK ZONZi (CIKO^ OtNZ) C O.T«>> rvTiCTTNf: gABocoysa iy zo-nz A. K«3t____________ Lss**Tsru± X X X B. Gsngs • • • • C Dnvew^X X D. Si^swijc X X E. Pattc/Ucdc X X F. Landscape Underiaia By Piasdc X X X C. Other TOTAL KARDCOVEK IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B X ICO PROPOSED If^RprnVFR IN ZONE A. House X X X B. Caisge C. DrivewBy X X D. Sldsvruik X X E. Padc/Deck X X F. Lacdsespe LV.dsr!sin By P!asd: X X X C C±er total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B ___ 53O.:CC0‘ t?. s^. s^. CP 5S. S-F. ss. &F. SJ. SJ. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. A ss: B o % S.F. ST. SS. ss. SS. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. ss. sffir :4 pi,r i]> ^ - t J V iss. A ST. B £ •/ t \\^ 0\l3f3 ____^l^9JL . HARDCOVER CALCL*LATIO^* WORKSEETI SbTBACX 20NZ: (CmCL£ OiNZ) 0-TF z:rSG FA^DCOVga TV ZQNT A. Kcat _____________ u=r2» X X X B. Cange • • • V C Dnvew^X X C. oldcwilk X X Cj>arcii X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plasdc X X X O. Other ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B ____X ICO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Vagi ViOX X X A B. Girage C DrWcway X X D* SIdrvilk X X E fctfSTDKk ^cre^ X X F. landscape Underbis By Plasda X X X a C±er TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B ____ 53C>:CCQ* xlCO - 2.0 S». • SJ?. s*. SJ. s.?. .i5. •. s-=. jr?Cr S'. # • of •S'. Sj. ^23*;S.F. SJ. SJ. •SJ. l(j>.SJ. ^2.0^SJ. ir//f sr 3y.f H S.F. ST, S.F. S.F. s.S'H-S.F. \577 S.F. ST. 5'-3Co SJ. ST. • ST. •2.3*1 ST. m ST. ST. ST. .76 ST. <•)^^x(a •ST. lSU*i ST. -~ 3/,3 % . e »■ V I O'O AaVi *5- r HARDCOVER CALCLXATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIKCLS ONE) 0-TF * 7S.23*50O-10C0' jsn PAapcQVSR rv zont : A. Kcust ______________ X SS. Ls=r5i X X X B. Gangs • • • C Dri'vcmy X X D. Sidcwxlk E. Pntio/Cedc F. Landscape Underiaia By Plasdc C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER tN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA tN ZONE + B ____X ICO PBOPOSED HABnrOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________* v^est X X X B. Cange C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Padc/Deck X X F. Landscape Ur.deriain By Piasrie X X C. C*ef total hardcover in ZON c TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZON& ♦ B ____xlCO S^. ss. SJ. SJ. ■ ,ss. /3/t lL>,f 2.1'Z- iin. lU.I s^. ss. S£. SI. S.F. SI. SI. SI. SI. A sj: b % SI. SI. SI. SI. S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. •SJ. A SJ. B H ^ / I I XT' M:r"‘''', v±^ ;'M -v-' r .-TX *JC^sr. r'^ >f'';- I /W-^jf». ••.;> i t ^ ■ '7^' . V ; hi,\ : •• . - :M ••. . . i.., ^' *. ’ y - V ►! . „•. . * J j ,r . •'!•• 1^ /I /( ‘ j * I f O/ P»="-T: - ' : “** ■, r -' ■ . .V\; - ........' ^.-r; •- ' V > ^ rjy<i.ii'u Ar>J*r? /. ' ' ■.... ' ■' .;.U' • .*' A . ■ . .,• - \. ^ -.'\V. ''% ■ ■ ■■ 'A -V- iWr ■ IfCC'ftMG JUL 2 2 2002Application Date: 6/13/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/12/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CtTY OF OROiyy Department Approval: DATE: 7/18/02 Name Wendy Bottenberg ITEM NO.: Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:MI2-2799 Teresa Koch 222S Bayview Place Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family LakesKore Residential District (.5 acre) 7,515 s.f. (.173 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and Exhibits of 7/15/2002 Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting to renew lot width and lot area variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1900 will be demolished. Most of the lot is in the 500-1000' setback area. A small portion by the street is in the 250-500 ’ setback area. The applicant is also requesting a hardcover variance to allow 314 s.f. (42%) in the 250-500 ’ setback area. The additional hardcover is to allow the driveway to be straight to the street rather than tapered. The tapered driveway would meet hardcover requirements for 250-500 ’ setback area. The hardcover would be 224 s.f. or 29.99% where 224.1 s.f. or 30% is allowed. The lot is approximately .173 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is .5 acres. A lot area variance is required to construct a new residence. The lot is approximately 50 ’ wide where 100' is the minimum lot width required. A lot width variance is required to construct a new residence. This property is serviced by sewer and water. 1. Section 10.25 .. Subd. 6(B): Lot Area: The lot is 7,515 s.f. (. 173 acre) where 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Width: The lot is 50' wide at the shoreline where 100' is the minimum lot width for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 250-500': Within 250- 500 ’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 314 s.f. (42%) hardcover where 224 s.f. (30%) is allowed. t •. * ' ! * ♦ PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: To approve application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To ^prove the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10J5, SUBDIVISION 6(B), SECTION 10^2, SUBDIVISION 2, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION I6(L)(2), FILE NO. #02-2799 WHEREAS, Teresa A. Koch, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2225 Bayview Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 25, Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision ^B) to permit residential construction on a lot that is 50 feet wide where 100 feet is required, on a lot that the area is 7,515 s.f. (. 173 acre) where 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) is required, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone of 314 s.f. (42%) where 224 s.f. (30%) is allowed to permit additional driveway. 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 July 15,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2799. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where .5 acres is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .173 acres or 7,515 s.f. Page 1 of 6 1 1 3. 5. 6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15. 2002 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The property has been developed with a residential use since at least 1900. B.The site plan indicates the proposed setbacks 10' to the side property lines and the house would be outside of the 75' lakeshore setback. The entire house would be located appro.ximately 550' from the lakeshore. which meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new structures. C. D. There is no additional land to combine with the property. Tlie hardcover in the 75-250' zone will be 314 s.f (42%) to allow for additional driveway. The additional driveway will allow for ofF street parking. The new residence will be located closer to the street than existing residence, minimizing driveway hardcover on the lot. E, The existing 1 O' x 12' shed on the rear of the property will be removed. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air. nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Citj’ Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Stafl', comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 J CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS ’ Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit new residential construction on a lot that is SO feet wide where 100 feet is required, on a lot that the area is 7,5 15 s.f. (.173 acre) where 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) is required, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, SuMivision 16(LX2) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone of 314 s.f. (42%) where 224 s.f. (30%) is allowed to permit additional driveway. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 22,2003). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The under ^igned applicant has read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, her 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 22nd day of July, 2002. Page 3 of 6 1 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing insmunent was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ,2002, personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of Page 4 of6 J whose identity I proved on the oath/affimiation , a credible witness . and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her /their act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of , 2002, personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation . a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public f 1 [ Page 5 of 6 Exhibit A CERTiriCATE OF SURVEY FOR THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25. WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINI 7 ^ //.V. 7^ 0 Z f V V./ c; LEGAL DESCR'PTiON OF PREMISES : Lot 25. WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF KU.\n TC h \<a r-ilH • 7cS,3 •97$. 3 o : denotes iron marker set o : denotes iron morker found (9oa.3): denotes existing spot devotion, mecn sea level datum Bearings shown ore bcsed upon cn ossumed datum. denotes distance cs shown on the plot of WALLACE* S ADI *;0v *aznijThis Survey intendsSrvey^lntends'ic show the boundaries of the above cesc«'Te: property, tne locotion of cn existing shed, the locotion of on visible "hcrccovt'end the preposed tocotion of o proposed house thereon. It does not purport ;c s*:*v coy other improvements or encroachments. icuv i vwt ftrrf OOmH k OROHBERa IHC eMinc OBCDii uw n lUNa mvmanoa tocMutaosi «-47>4t4t I WO/ Id lis sn#| ■> prpeti 4/ ri r vtr ::fc: t$e« wftvi eU Id I n • AJ)^ ri^teii Cm Cv<v lx: r7.«;x vCe le e*s of Iht Sldt d lirr4Mt:. ^ A Page 6 of 6 1--^* 3xTr 4-12-Ot M M. 01-100 ^ ..r•O iiwrariim-ihmii 1 *• / TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: July 3.2002 SUBJECT: #02-2799 Teresa Koch 2225 Bayview Place Variance Renewal— Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Rural Residential District (.5 acre) 7,515 s.f. (.173 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application B Resolution C Site Plan D House Plans and Elevations Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B): LotArea: The lot is 7,515 s.f. (.173 acre) where 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Width: The lot is 50’ wide at the shoreline where 100' is the minimum lot width for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. <6 (L) (2): Hardcover in 250-500’: Within 250-500’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 314 s.f. (42%) hardcover where 224 s.f. (30%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant has requested to renew variances to permit construction of a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1900 will be demolished. The applicant applied for and was granted these variances in June 2001. The plans presented for this application are the same as were approved in 2001. Most of the lot is in the 500-1000’ setback area. A small portion by the street is in the 250-500’ setback area. The applicant is also requesting a liardcover variance to allow 314 s.f (42%) in the 250-500’ setback area. The additional hardcover is to allow the driveway to be straight to the street rather than tapered. The lot is approximately .173 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is .5 acres. A lot area variances is required to construct a new residence. #02-2799 Teresa Koch 2225 Ba>-view Place Variance Renewals 7/3/2002 Page I The lot is approximately 50’ wide where 100 ’ is the minimum lot width required. A lot width variance is required to construct a new residence. This property is serviced by sewer and water. Statement of Hardship: The applicant should be asked for ineir testimony regarding this issue. Issue for Consideration: 1. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. The residence currently exists on the property in a non-conforming location too close to the side lot line, and will be removed. 3. The new residence will meet all required setbacks. 4. There is not additional land to combine with the property. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to renew the variances to construct a new residence on the property. «02-2799 Teresa Koch 2225 Bayv'iew Place Variance Renewals 7/3/2002 Page 2 , > 0e/)3/2002 14:19 FAl 952 844 3359 ► • • — “ ■ J«rM>2002 lltlOM frarCilV OF ORONO SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES MSn484818 Q003 ^ ] mn P.0I2/D0S Rtl CirV OP ORCWO - VARIANCE APPLICATION IbhU AppUcilioa Fee S250.00 ii-eeiJU ■JiEtnaiMtBfence) AataemU 0;X':i.n^‘> Date Recdred Ammmt P!9id y/g? .QO Fee IIMXW ) fioni nDlimlvfmlr v. /fldgtoil eppligfl ygmite lin iwu»UiUfllUliliig^u««M S25G.00 Alter'^Fsct Fees CE)onble applicutfon &e) PROPERTV IMFORMATIW __Dt V«A-u-\-7g. Mo^oQ-ijv Axtadi leal desciiptieD to mpUeatioB if not induded ra xequixed suivesr.n«. »rt >«an^ \<ty\—----------- I (do) 6o n!)Q)sl»o ovm. the a4jacoit pircels of land Rresentuselicrpiopeity: j^irridcntid . Zoning Dish let:______* rlT^ - Xmonth^rear) odier (^peci^). Address:yip-- OV9NER 01 dlBecent tfasn spplicaa) Name____________________ Address:City:. Phone 0>oide). Phone O^odO. Zip:, DESCRlFTICiN OF REQUEST estimated C^nstnKtion Cost S KX\^'^o'f4 O Desedbe miuest in detail: VA-g.^/" ^On<■flv/ V\9i\k*je. (ahadi eddidonal sheets If necessary) VARIANCES REQ y Lot Area • 111 IN y I Setbaidc: _s^Loivridfli Fkoot __Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Avenge Lakeshon Other (q>ediy) hardship /i>escripiion of dnusual property conditions Describe ixidue harddup or piscdcal ^fScolQr or nnnsual proper^ conditioDS previ <-^p«anffi» Zoning Code wanlianaits; « cih eddittonal Sheea ifs^ssaty) i UW/13/2 002 14:lfl FAI #52 844 3359 ||:1Qm Fr«-CiTY OF ORONO specialty risk services 41112414111 81004 THOI F.OOI/OOS F-22i REQUIRED S^UBMITTALS All rf the fomwInglnforniRtlen must be mhmHted hv rti* annUggHnn ^«niHng Amim In arJw far vniir ■pplfeaHow_fo_he gonridawd eomplafif* 1. 2. Cocaplcted Application Faxm CertiSed Fropeity Ownen Usi of owmen wfihin 150*, labels and plat mi^ ^ mst obtain and map fiom Hame|^ CoimQr Depanmeot of Cerdiicate of Swvey (signed by a licensed surveyor) aod Include baidcover calculations as required In addition, provide one (1) copy 8J4" x II* for leiooduction. To(cgra{diic survey (existing and proposed elevadoiu) if any changes in rfflttfre gnide are pooposcd. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8>4" x 11* for iqiroduction. Skiicihes or plans of floor St elevation views Oitovide one (1) copy 8h" x 11*). Litr. of the legal names (incliide marital status) of all persons with an mterest in thii properly. Thfa would indude name(s) of applieaut(s) if not current owncx(f). As an addendum to this applicadon, pleasa attach a separate list of any other perions yon wish notified of this applkatiotL Addicioiial hems as may be requested by CiQr staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign tills application. Please remember that zbok MriaDaUinBlUattOB b not CPItmlae If the above infonnaHnn not 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The appU^t Iterel^ agrees to provide all infozmatioo required or requested by the Administrator, ngrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original &e payment) and/or conraltaoi expenses Incuaed in review of this application, and certifies^ the infhrmation susplied is true and comet to the best of biowledge. AppUcanfs Siniatiire Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner herrby odcnowledges and agrees to ibis application and iuitiier entry onto the property by City sipf^ consuitants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for imposes o£ Invesdgaiioa and verification of tills request. Owner's SignaPJxe QgZPAtxQ Dote 0^ Applicant must have all aubmlttals into the City ofiSees 2S days before the Piaiming Commission Meeting. Planning Commisnon Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applfcanto most be present at an scheduled review meetings of the PlannlDg Commission itnd CounclL If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please nake anangenirsits to have an autiiotized agent attoid iu your place aod to advise die BoOtfrue & Zoning Qfili.;e of tills change prior to die meeting. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 1025, SUBDIVISION 6(B), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(L)(2), FILE NO. #01-2684 WHEREAS, Teresa A. Koch, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2225 Bay view Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally describtKl as follows: Lot 25, Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit residential construction on a lot that is 50 feet wide where 100 feet is required, on a lot that the area is 7,515 s.f. (. 173 acre) where 21, ''80 s.f. (.5 acre) is required, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone of 314 s.f. (42%) where 224 s.f. (30%) is allowed to permit additional driveway. 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 June 18,2001, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as 2U)ning Fite #01-2684. 2. The property is located in the LR-1 C Zoning District, where .5 acres is the minimum Page 1 of 5 B 3. 5. 6. 1 required lot area. The property consists of approximately . i 73 acres or 7,515 s.f. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 18, 2001 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The property has been developed with a residential use since at least 1900. B.The site plan indicates the proposed setbacks 10' to the side property lines and the house would be outside of the 75’ lakeshore setback. The entire house would be located approximately 550' from the lakeshore, which meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new structures. C. D. There is no additional land to combine with the property. The hardcover in the 75-250' zone will be 314 s.f. (42%) to allow for additional driveway. The additional driveway will ^low for off street parking. The new residence will be located closer to the street than existing residence, minimizing driveway hardcover on the lot. E. The existing 10' x 12' shed on tlie rear of the property will be removed. The City Council finds that the conditions e.\isting on this propert)' are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessaiy to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission,'reports by City Staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit new residential construction on a lot that is SO feet wide where 100 feet is required, on a lot that the area is 7,515 s. f. (.173 acre) where 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) is required, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 1 6(L)(2) to allow hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone of 314 s.f. (42%) where 224 s.f (30%) is allowed to permit additional driveway. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 . Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (June 25,2002). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, his successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of June, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 5 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) •8 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 2Sth day of June, 200 1 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of, for said County, personally appeared 200I , before me a Notary Public within and ___________________________known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA Notary Public COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) On this day of. and for said County, personally appeared ., 200 1 , before me a Notary Public within knowu to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of5 1 Exhibit A certimcate of survey for THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25, WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA: BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA h' / ;-i -(§)- 0\v; LEGAL DESCRIPTION or PREMISES : Lot 25. WALLACE’S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE Of Kri>„\KK<\ 7(s.3 * '....................»7f. J o : denotes iron morker set o : denotes iron morker found (90e.3): denotes existing spot etevotlon. mecn seo level datum Georir.gs shown ore based upon cn ossumed datum. --f/iT.’ distc/ice os shown on the plot of WALLACE’S a QIiTjC n A‘«a /4«*ffrW I “ This'iJSfvey'Intends'Ic show the boundcries of the above ce$c<''re: jrcpefly. the Ion of cn existing shed, the loeotion of on vijlb:e "ho-ccov*' ’. end the orcc<loeotlon or on cxixiin^ sr.eo. »ne locouon or on vijio:e "hcrccov*' ’. end the proposed loeotion of o proposed house thereon. It does not purport xz s^-;* cny other ________________ Mvsioiaiaiatr^tarrsiimprovc.’Tients or encroochments. H OOrPIH k dR0)(BERa IH& O6in$tQG^Vt0%iimXTlKmOi mwnauM locui^iHSsssi I Wd| orQJf let tit sm; ra i/ n »-jtr •• wwv ed MI SB i ADr ngitrii Cw tv«f r-l ir: wCir ee Itti si SUU ICre^MU. 01-106 PaeeSofS r-^<' «• XO. 01-106 ___RJ ^ •) i’ '-vC 'ft CERTiriCATE OF SURVEY FOR THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25, WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA % / imuf LEGAL OESCR'PTION OP PREMISES : ^ frs.t, ' • • ?7J. J Lot 25. WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OP kC>wNTC.vCA rii.**' o : denotes iron morker set c : denotes iron morker found (90a.3): denotes csistlng spot devotion, meon sea level dotum Beorings shown ore based upon cn ossumed datum. : denotes distcnce os shown on the plot of WALLACt* S -0*:Ti0^4 his survey intends to show the bour^dories of the obove cesc^Tf* property, the locotion of on existing shed, the locotion of on visible "hirccove* '. end the preposed locotion of 0 proposeo house thereon. It does not purport s^:.v cny other improvements or encroachments. oomi(*dROHBeita.»|c OHIM OOflft IMIMOL n UNOS MiaMOMNC lOCUKIKaM niAitO * y.f 9utt% 11^ ceBjr M ie irwf potu 1/ n r -jts :.ic wm ed M I ^ • A^ rigdMi Cm tijtit w lx: mSt lelm sf tte Stdi ef UnMiota. SCM.C 3ATi 4-12-01 jom m. 01-106 __ru > ..." •: ■.•2 1 . 01-106 CERTIhiCATE OF SURVEY FOR THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25. WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA: BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINI ^i^uma I ') r.V - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ; Lol 25, WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MiNNTC.v<A zZ-lH o : denotes iron morker set o : denotes iron morker found (90a.3): denotes existing spot elevation, meon seo level dotum Beorlngs shown ore bosed upon en ossumed datum. . - frx.o *......................97S.J __• : dtnotei tfitonce os shown on the plot of WALLACE' S AOCiTiON.ir* This survey intends ^o show the beundories of the obove cttt'-Tii property, the locotioo of on existing shed, the loeotion of oO visfti:e "hcrccov*-'. end the preposed locotion of 0 proposed house thereon. It does not purport :p s-':v» ony other improvements or encroochments. ■ fK09m mm • trvr sivf t H oomil k OROlIBBRa IHC CBUiKogc« we ucntsuMi MMC IOCU(IR» MMfHMI llve|€efibedMitnei«spee<j|,r«9'iXe~. wMAedMIeMetrniMmiMCiipMr xj u: m9* Se kM if fet SM« W UrMMU. ei-to# SCAU 1-i^ 9*T( 4-ti-fli 01-10C ___fU' V! :'ai- / * 'f) • .v: >2 i.• ^ U3 a fi•• • C/12 MICH CM House ROOT ARIA RgfMN6 mONf to lACR I IJ I I I ^5'!«K w!iwjS^ ■> injaaHfa FrpaaHraanB™DaCTac5roaa!■■■ FRONT ELEVATION i: :: '? i J!>/ 9 •. ) •< ' ' ' v\ v:. f.. r-iU, \hJ D SECOND FLOOR PLAN %CM£i l/4••l*-^r UJ RRST FLCX}R PLAN SCMX V/CACTa UAIUJCOVEU CALCULATION WOKlySUELT SETBACKZOr<E: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-73* 75 25i>- x^l1o-500> EXISTINC HARDrOVFR IN TONF ^ SOO-1000* A. House X ■1 S.F. Length X _ _ VVaJUi m S.F. X m SF. %•m S.F. B. Oerage X m S.F. • C. Driveway X m S.F. X m S.F. D. Sidewalk X m SF. X m S.F. E. Patio/Deck X m S.F. • X m SF. ,F. Landseaoe X .m SF. Underlain X m S.F. By Plastic X c S.F. Or Fabric 0. Other X B S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •3^9 S.F.A total property area in ZONE •747 S.F.B A B \ 100 •s?.<-V. • proposed hardcover in ZONE' A House •• •n SJ. • • Lfngth X \ViJih at S.F. X m S.F. X m S.F. B. Garase X S.F. C. Driveway X m ■■ S.F. • • X m S.F; D. Sidews'.k X m S.F. X m S.F. • • • E. Patio/Deck X m S.F. •X m S.F. F. Landscape X m S.F.Underlain X SJ. By Plastic X m SF.Or Fabric • • 0. Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOV'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •224 S.F.A •747 S.F.B +c,o sV.A ♦ B .X100 -29-99 H #2684 MaPb 4o j4rA’.5U44rt SETBACK ZOiVE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House TY/^AffA kOQH UAiu)COVER CALCULA I iON WOIUCaclEET S“-2i-o/ 0-75' Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck 3.7 X X F. Landscape Underlain ByPlutic Or Fabric X X X C. Other total HAlU)COVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A ______________ ♦ B PROPOSED HARnCQVER IN ZONE’ A. House _____________ X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plascic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER W ZONE total property area in zone 08 75-25(r Width 250-500 ’ ^^OoTtO^ "711 s F. - H^U5E .. x 100 Width X too - iii 6^ 2Z.it 69 lij 147 ^j2. \60 SF. SF. sf.-shsd S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. sj.-y^o VX9PS S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S F. -CPN6££TC S.F. A S.F. B Va _ U 6^ S.F.-Mois: SF.-P<>AC« S.F..A Trfrr S.F.-5«tD S.F. S.F.- OAvEU/AT SF S.F.- SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. S F B 2A.27 ~ V« SJoA^O J G K;' J/ ^ V •-'I: K'^"^-'. ':iv->3 '».?.■; a'iSiiiSrssKjtSf ftlsifsiij M'-^^’ V,-.- * -'• S&ss -^’ ■= ' ^l^:^'.' .•- ■ ■ z '*•. ;•• * Vi ^ c •: ^ ' I r •■ _> ■• .'I / ^>t- • ;. 1 « V -< nllTfpIG^m mm Application Deadline: 6/17/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/16/02 **cct ING JUL 2 2 2002 CITY 0»- OHOmU REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottcnberg Title: Zoning Administrator DATE: 7-/Z- ITEM NO. /3 Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: /^02*2800 Marlys McCarty 225 Tonka Avenue Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (2 acre) 22,736 s.f. (.52 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and exhibits of 7/15/02 Application Summary': The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting front yard and rear yard setback variances to construct a new residence on the lot. A residential structure exists on the property. The structure was built in the 1950’s. The residence will be demolished and replaced by the new structure. The proposed residence is a three bedroom, one story structure of approximately 2,100 s.f. footprint. The property consists of three lots and a vacated street legally combined to form one lot. The 20’ X 100’ portion of Brook Street was vacated by the City of Orono in 1984 per resolution No. 1619. A condition of the vacation was that the property owner grant to the City a Utilities Easement over the northerly 15 ’ of the vacated Brook Street for future use by the City. In 1999, the property owner acquired the property north of the vacated Brook Street. The 15 ’ utility easement was vacated by the City of Orono in 2000 per resolution No. 4545 and moved to the south 15 ’ of the property enabling the property owner to redevelop the property. The proposed residence meets City ordinance standards of 15% for structural lot coverage. The property is allowed 3,410.4 s.f. for structure, the proposed residence is 2,072 s.f The property does lie in the 500-1000’ setback area from Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover for the project is 4,756 s.f (20.9%). The property is allowed 7,957.6 s.f (35%) hardcover, therefore it is well below the allowed amount for hardcover. 1. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Front Yard Setback: To permit the residence to be 40.5’ from the front lot line where 50’ is required for the LR-1A zoning district. 2. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Rear Yard Setback: To permit the residence to be 30’ from the rear lot line where 50’ is required for the LR-1 A zoning district. 3. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Area: The lot is .52 acres where 2 acres is the minimum lot area for the LR-I A zoning district for new construction. I • 4. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 181.88 feet wide where 200 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-1A zoning district for new construction. PLANNING COMMISSION: planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: To approve application as presented. STACF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. Note: The front yard variai;ce of 40.5 ’ from Tonka Avenue the Planning Conunission recommended approval of is actually 16.2’ from Tonka Avenue due to a small portion of Brook Street not being vacated. When Brook Sueet wa^ vacated the small portion was left to allow access to the property to the north. The applicant has since acquired the property to the north and the City would not object to vacating that portion of Brook Street left. The applicant should request to vacate that remaining portion of Brook Street. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. . ,■« A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 5(B), FILE NO. M12-2800 WHEREAS, Marlys McCarty, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 225 Tonka Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5(B) to permit new residential single family construction on a lot that is 181.88 feet wide where 200 feet is required, on a lot that the area is .52 acre where 2 acres is required, a front yard setback to be 40.5’ where 50’ is required, and a rear yard setback of 30 ’ where 50’ is required. 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 July 15,2002, 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 #02-2800. 2.The property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District, w here 2 acres is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .52 acres or 22,736 s.f. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15, 2002 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. Page 1 of7 — *---—....----— 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The property has been developed with a residential use since at least 1955 B. 1 he existing residence on the property is in a non-conforming location too close to the front lot line, and will be removed. C.There is no additional land to combine with the property. The property owner acquired property to the north of Brook Street, still extremely undersized for the LR-IA zoning district. It is similar to other developed lots in the neighborhood. D. E. The residence meets City ordinance standards for structural lot coverage. The residence meets City ordinance requirements for hardcover in the 500- 1000 ’ setback zone. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preser\ e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5(B) to permit new single family Page 2 of? residential construction on a lot that is 181.88 feet wide where 200 feet is required, on a lot that the area is .52 acre where 2 acres is required, front yard setback of 40.5’ where 50' is required, rear yard setback of 30’ where 50’ is required. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 22,2003). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, her 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 Qrono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENTJEFIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota Page 3 of? 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 22nd day of July, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this dav of 2002, personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity 1 proved on the oath/affirmation , a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she^they executed the same as his/her /their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of , 2002, personally appeared before me. Page 4 of?'v ' < •' *A V>'.! . .1 who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of >i^ose identity 1 proved on the oath/affirmation ,, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknow ledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Exhibit A l>ESALJ2CS£iUEILQli Aho. iht ^!L* Mimctonka.' Sircct, "Bayside Addition to Lake Northeriy along a line which ii^Non^L Minnetonka; thence BayiM. AddiuSn to >. .^Ihwoterly line of the hCnnesoia Weetctr? Iro^ln.^ S~«»>w««erly ftom the angle* therefrom; thence SouthewterW alol!, "*•'* "**«"«« •» S«.thw«terly line of ^.id MinncTa S^n"?. P*?"** ‘® ^MHot Southwesterly iher eBon.. measured at fios/°***i ^®'"*’“’f "S*>* of way and 40 ftet uid Gna with the Northerly proieetion of ihe ,*"i^*** *® **®*'‘ ®f fa«*ne«ion of Lake Minnetonka;'thence Southerly alone said NorthJir* ®*>*»de Addition to Block 3. Bayside Addition to uS»’~J*?^®" ®'‘>« Bo* of Northerly line of Bayride rVddSon toSr^^^ o: denotes iron marker Page 6 of 7 Exhibit B LOT SOUTH IK or iOl S. MA M NO 101 2 Kfl IK or aooi a. o**i«x AConoM roUUC IMCTOMU SaiT IK tf lua UC tM4 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR marlys McCarty IN LOTS 1 & 2. BLOCK 3. Sc PART OF VACATED BROOK STREET BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA & PART OF LOT 5. AUD. SUB. NO. 203 C«iST»4G fA»^i;KNT OvtH VACATtO S1R£Ct ro Ot MOVtO TO T»c SOUTH ty c»* LOT 2. Nw CO" c* P*»vc« •TLY iK nr OAfSCC AOQfMt to LAHI MM<T(»«A I 8 .CUSIK, •CAiUGC * T $ ar«roo* c R r^VACAItO BROOK ST. A.C b SThc KAfSC nil BROOK R ST. ISII .. N OTM OO* V -Cvsrtc M.0 I i 2 PROPOSED EASEWF.NT N 89*46'00* H 12525 3 UJ > < < zo ULUALC^KAtrirKN L«U I A 2« I. 'tUitnlt A U :>c« lu I Mf AtM. tl" vAuial ICO fm *.< 0«wu4 $4fcn Aha. iN m yart of L44 1. XMAcf 2C). m bu^ at Ow NonA*««l canw <4 Oa>tia« AlAtm la Lilt Mratiwiti. iktaca ti€*% • iI ik« NcfiVily twcHCOM aTiJw ). 0«rtH« U^xM 101 Ai KUoKiriua. to • gmmt ««kcA i* 40 (M SoHiltatalwly Ion dn Snak*«tt ntf bM p# AL omocm Woino ■. iioaO Conpao) ot mtf, mtmmti M ngM •of'ci tkcrcfrcn Sowthctimly Mn*t a hw 4r*M pnMM la «a SmlkixtAttfh Im o/iW IL^wcnu Wnirfo RaAcW Conpai| oTa«y nH 40 lb« *«4al tNcrtAaa^ ncuufH M r>«N «<olc^ M i4a paa^ af aMrni aoa al uHLat wLS'lMr'gnlaffTfraiacuooriiio laMfthrlnoo<PloU I.BayaOt A^ La Im Mnaotaaka. i^wa Saa;!Mitf liaag ia< Narthoty proi«ctHa of iha laHnfy bn •laU J. Ba«u3« UAtaataLaLf ^MiMioMaaioiAoaMfnctnaalMObninfcika HmftmH tmvfBtr^ .ULana u Lakt Miamo^i. ilnna W«MHp HniBn NaidHitf *4 PtyWa AiAtiOo la La Io MxMrtaaAi 10 lAa pa I AM AorlH •emar tress ’ 00316 anov'ca COrPIK k CROIjBBRC. II(C caa&K OKMUl UK Mctoi^ «lum «•! tAMHUOl A«|IK. IM UK. m MJM •»2-4y>-4iti • •€«** ccarrr imr mi mrwfumk m•*M "mm» §f m m «aau a* met •ml I an a m* icmn fycnvmm •mm wm m uai v ac »•« • mau Mta imtrtamm y fj* KAiC Oi/17/OO JO0 HO MJtt Peae 7 of 7 800 . • • TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: July 3*. 2002 SUBJECT:#02-2800 Marlys McCarty 225 Tonka Avenue Variances ~ Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 22,736 s.f. (.52 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application Analysis Worksheet Survey Hardcover Calculations Views Photos of Property B C D E F Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Front Yard Setback: To permit the residence to be 40.5’ from the front lot line where 50’ is required for the LR-1A zoning district. 2. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Rear Yard Setback: To permit the residence to be 30’ from the rear lot line where 50’ is required for the LR-1 A zoning district. 3. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Area: The lot is .52 acres where 2 acres is the minimum lot area for the LR-1 A zoning district for new construction. 4. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 181.88 feet wide where 200 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-1 A zoning district for new construction. Request: The applicant requests front yard, rear yard, lot area and lot width setback variances for construction of a new residence on the .52 acre lot in the 2-acre zone. The lot is sewered, and the proposed residence will be in character with the neighborhood. Application Summary*: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting front yard and rear yard setback variances to construct a new residence on the lot. A residential structure exists on the property. The structure was built in the 1950 ’s. The residence will be demolished and replaced by the new structure. #02-2800 Marl>3 McCarty 225 Tonka Avenue 7/3/2002 Page I ■cmui a The proposed residence is a three bedroom, one story structure of approximately 2,100 s.f. footprint. The property consists of three lots and a vacated street legally combined to form one lot. The 20’ X 100’ portion of Brook Street was vacated by the City of Orono in 1984 per resolution No. 1619. A condition of the vacation was that the property owner grant to the City a Utilities Easement over the northerly 15’ of the vacated Brook Street for future use by the City. In 1999, the property owner acquired the property north of the vacated Brook Street. The 15’ utility easement was vacated by the City of Orono in 2000 per resolution No. 4545 and moved to the south 15’ of the property enabling the property owner to redevelop the property. The proposed residence meets City ordinance standards of 15% for structural lot coverage. The property is allowed 3,410.4 s.f. for structure, the proposed residence is 2,072 s.f. The property does lie in the 500-1000 ’ setback area from Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover for the project is 4,756 s.f. (20.9%). The property is allowed 7,957.6 s.f. (35%) hardcover, therefore it is well below the allowed amount for hardcover. Statement of Hardship: The applicant h^ included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also DC asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: I. The property owner acquired property to the north of Brook Street and the lot is extremely undersize for the LR-1A zoning district, but similar in size to other developed lots in the neighborhood. 2. The adjacent properties are developed, therefore there is not any additional land available to meet the zoning requirements. 3. The existing residence on the property is in a non-conforming location too close to the front lot line, and will be removed. 4. The proposed residence does meet City ordinance standards for structural lot coverage. 5. The proposed residence does meet City ordinance requirements for hardcover in the 500-1000' setback zone. 6. The property is in a neighborhood w4iere lot sizes range from approximately 0.15 acre to 0 45 acre. If the '/a acre standards were applied to this application, all setbacks would be met. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. 402-2800 Marlys McCarty 225 Tonka Avenue 7/3/2002 Page 2 4 - • . T . uiL Staff Rccommendatioii: , a Staff recommends approval of the front and rear yard setback variances as well as lot area and width variances to construct a new residence on the lot. 4 «02-2SOO Mariys McCiity 22S Tooka Avenue 7/3/2002 Page 3 __ # / CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U 0 2 0 Date Rccehc^ t/h/e i. Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address _______^35“ 'TotxkeL /I /3 DOS-IProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired -------------A uau <4- _____________L_(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent pdfcels of land. Pnsent use of property: ^ residentid ___pother (specify) Zoning District:_________________________ APPLICANT Name AddressT'.^JI g- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____ Address: Phone (home) ^ ____ Phone (work)_2fa3j;j22/^3«LZ/ City:_. ___- Zip: SS^SU Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail. PJe^St, /ninimiam m:tk (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___L Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage y Setback: Front Side X Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zonmg Code requirements:________________ ________________ Zoy K»T Qggy KUikUAu TO Aiggy (attach additional sheets if necessary) #28 00 required SUBiMITTALS ■deadline 1. 2.Completed Application Form must “<* ?•« mv (you Ftnance, A-603. Govt Center. 34»-59I0).®^ Hennepu. County Depaitnent of calculations as tequfieA'*';^ ^iUon”^‘'d“™’'“^ “** Itmlcovcr reproduction. ’ one (1) copy 8‘/4" x 11" for • proposed!^ “ *’^8 Sketches or pl«„ of Hoor & ele»atiorv“^^rir^ «P«xloction List of the legal names (include marital statute!?’ *'<”)• the property. This would include namefsi nf J v •’*'*’"* 'wth an interest in As an addendum to this application, pliaL ^ch “'® you wish notified of this appliS «« °f m oter Addmonal .terns as may be requested by City steff. TIk Applicant and Property Owner must .i,„ ,u- , . APPLIC^rs SIGNATURE ■nemnffl. The applicant hereby agrees to Drovir1#» aii : c A^ninistrator, agrees to pay additional fees ("steff tTmTno??'^* "quested by the Zoning and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of tSi, 7*" Payment) information supplied is true and correct to the best of^s/JIr Applicant's Signature _ OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^ ^ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ----- Applicant must have all submitialQ in»« .t. ' Commssion Meeting. Planning Commission Meet'in«^^''Sirf ^ Planning month. Applicants must be present at all sch#/1 ^ ^ Monday of each Comruisslon and CocU. If „ .^pliciifL^te rf .T*? «■« 'hnSI* make arrangements to have an authorized ageni attend in v * scheduled meeting, please & 2oning Office of this change prior to 2e ^ •!» BtSS^ #2800 • . •I ■ • ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; Hardcover Calculations; Structural Lot Coveraee: B LR-IA Lot Area Requiied 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) Actual 22,736s.f. (0.52 acre) Dbtance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500-1000'22,736 s.f.7,957.6 s.f. (35%)4,756 s.f. (20.9%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,736 s.f.Allowed: 3,410 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,131.6 s.f. (4.98%) Proposed: 2,072 s.f. (9.1%) li n *! 11 4 ^ LOT SOUTH Li€ Of LOT 5.Auo. sua NO. 203 WtST LK Of BLOCK X BAYSOC AOOTION TO LAKE IMCTOKA o» to iri I CM tt S SWLY LWC Of LUCC L*£ TRAL CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARLYS McCARTY IN LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 3, & PART OF VACATED BROOK STREET 3AYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA & PART OF LOT 5. AUD. SUB. NO. 203 EXISTING EASEMENT OVER VACATED BROOK STREET TO BE MOVED TO THE SOUTH 15* OF LOT 2. Nw con. Of nAYSOc addition too N'LV LNE or OAYSIOC ADDITION TO LAKE MMNETONKA S BDMB'DO* f CO00• iO 5 V- 25.21 8g 25.21 .... N 00*46*00" W 88 -------------------------«j--------------------<*1 '53 < .^EXISTNC / SHED s a plh - J 1} 50.00< f PROPOSED EASEMENT—< i i \ 10•• • f 1 0 0r o t— 8 N 89*46' 00" V/ 125.25 3 ^ ^ # LF.GAL On.SCRfV riON Lois 1 St, 2, Uloch 3, "Hayside Addllioii (o c Minnetonka,** Also, the vacated Wcst«:rty 100 feet unirouk Street, "Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka.* Also, that part of Lot $, Auditor's SiiUJivisioii Number 203, deKribed as foUowv Beginning at the Northwest comer orUayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka; thence Northerly along a line which is the Northcily projection oflhc Westeiiy line ofDlock 3, Dayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, to a |>oint whicit is 40 feet Southwesterly fiom the Southwesterly line of the Minnesota Western R*/.lroad Company rig.ht oTway, measured at right angles therefrom; thence Southeasterly along a line drawn parallel to the Southwesterly line of said Miniiesoia Western lUilroad Company right of way and 40 feet distant Southwesterly tlicrcfron;, measured at right angles, to tlie point ofinterscc4ion of said line with the Northerly projectiun of the Easterly line of Block 3, Dayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka; thence Southerly along said Northerly projection of the Easterly Une of Block 3, Dayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka to the intersection of said tine with the Noflhcriy line of Dayride rVddition to Lake Minnetonka; thence Westerly aloitg the . Northerly fine of Dtyside Addition to Lake Minnetonka to the point of bcgMng. o: denotes iron marker > BROOK o CM ST. IxJ > UU^O ACV6I0N OAtC OCSOtfTION OfunM.OOmH k GROHBDIG. IHC •C0N9JITN6 OCICDtS; lAM) WtVm, 9TC PUSHK I iciCBv cchtty tnat t>« puk SPCcrcATOK cn kpout WAS piCFAiico er 1C on umn my opcct stmwaeN aio 1HAT I AM A OtlY ICCNSCO PHOnSSONai INGSCOI AlO LAM) Mcvfii tun nc lAfi cr nc suic or insiiofa OATf ll^jjjll|22l| mum miiii i s ri OF SURVEY FOR McCARTY & 2, BLOCK 3, ATED BROOK STREET TO LAKE MINNETONKA 5, AUD. SUB. NO. 203 o ST. ifTT imT IMS njK wercAim at «fonT » iv ic OR MMR m OMce? wvtmm m MLY ucoisco monvsom, cmmcr m um> I Rf USI Sr RC SUM Sr lMSBf4 SCALE LOT I SOUTH IfC Of LOT a. Auo. sua NO. 203 WEST liC OF BLOCK X 8AYSOC AOOinON TO LAKE IMCTOMCA mam OCCXCO 00316 MVStfN OAIC OVER VACATED NW con. Of OAYSOC ADDITION —-T-.........MOO"-' N* LY Lie OF■daysoc addition TO LAKE UMNETOMLA S S9*40*00" E / If I EXSTMC^ -GARACe* VACATED BROOK ST. 8 s * 25.21 BROOK s ST. N «D*46*00” W I'S- ^.-EXISTNC / Sl€0 If i- PROPOSED EASEMENT^ S? 1 1 ^ 1 2 ; O ■ 'U----4— . 1 1 N 80*46'00" \t 125.25 K 3 40 i.r.CAt.nn.srnn»TioN Lots I & 2, D!ock 3, "Haysitlc A'lilition to L.tl.c Minnetonk*,** Aho. the vacjicil Wwl-jly 100 fed urDfook Slicct, "Oaysiile Aildilion to Lake Minnetonka. * Alio, that part of Lot 5, Auditor's SuMivision Number 203, described at follows Deginning at the Northwest corner om.nysi(le Addition to Lake Mirmetonki; thence Noftherly along a line which is the Nonlicily projection of the Westeily tine ofDlock 3, Dayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, to a point whidi is 40 feet Southwesterly fiom the Southwesterly line of the Minnesota Wcstcni P%« Jroad Company right of way, measured at right angles therefrom; thence Southeasterly along a line drawn parallel to the Southwesterly line of saiil Minnciola Western Kailroad Company right of way and 40 feet distant Southwesterly lliercfron*., measured at right ingles, to the point of intcrsctlion of said line with the Northerly projection of the Hasicrfy line ofDlock 3, Dayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka; thence Southerly along said Northerly projection of the Easterly tine of Dtock 3. Dayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka to the intersection of said line with the Northerly line ofDayride iVddition to Leke Minnetonka; thence Wctterly along gi# , Northerly tine of Da3fside Addition to Lake Minnetonka Co the point of begbming. o: denotes iron marker ocsaw»iioN COmH & GROIjBERC, ll(C ’C0N9L»C DOtWS, LWO SUNETOML SIC rUNOB 482 TMJAKACK AVENUE. lONC LANE. k«L 38356 612-473-4 K1 JFCCnCAMK M IKMIITWAS MCPAWo iv 1C M wau MY OKCi swnvsaN ami THAI I AM A DULY tCOlSCO PWriSSnNAL CNCMIR AMI UUO aMn« urn nc u«s cr nc hak cr wksoia MTC m ucooc luan scale '■■K DATE 00/17/00 dOB NO. 00310 O SETBACK Z( Exisnwc H, A. House B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado/Deck F. Landscape Undcrlaia By Plastic G. Other PROPOSED B A. House D. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other SEIBACK ZONE! ‘ ^2S0-S00* EXISTING HAWnrOVER IN ZONE A. House V Lcfifth Width 871.L. X X X B. Garage yv/ C. Driveway JO X X /OO D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck 18. X X yy F. Landscape Underiain By Plastic X X X G. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - - * B c!?J73 jT* X 100 - - B __ _ _ _ _ _ X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X /oo D. Sidewalk 5o X X E. Patio/Deck >3^X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE jf '7KU * h ~% too /OR 3(o/Sl 28£L ^5(p 80D ^*735" Sf. zs. sj. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. A SJ. B % SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. S.F. SJ. SJ. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. A SJ. B % 00 Tonitm. /|v«. ;^Uv:i ftO^' CC c^3-5 To^io. AtC feswfeSRi? -,-.< J <-<r • . ^ ■;^• •^•,0 ' * •• • "**^ ■'■ ••• ■ ,.• ^ i‘ ^s - V '-1 * ' A • ---- . • *.-r^v y . ..:: :.;-'.'.;.;a *;'/';;'^*-v* ?.•:. ’.•vV “ . • • •- ->:m -■M C.rsi »«ccTING Application Deadline: 6/19/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/18/02 JUL 2 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottenberg Title: Zoning Administrator CITY OH ORONO DATE: ITEM NO. /H Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: /^02-2804 Phillip and Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 20,484 s.f. (.47 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution ' B Staff Report and exhibits of 7/15/02 Application Summary: The applicants have requested front yard and side yard setback variances to construct a front porch and an attached garage to the existing residence. The existing single stall garage will be turned into living space. The existing driveway will be removed and a new one will be located in from the new garage. The proposed porch will be 4’ wide, 21 ’ long, and 26* from the front property line. The existing residence is 30 ’ from the front property line, where 50 ’ is required in the RR-IB zoning district. The attached garage is proposed to be on the south side of the existing residence and 25’ x 36’ (900 s.f.). The front of the attached garage will line up with the porch and also be 26’ from the front lot line. It is proposed to be located 15’ from the side lot line where 30 ’ is required in the RR-IB zoning district. The lot directly to the south is vacant and has been for many years. The property is located in the 500-1000 ’ hardcover zone. The existing residence and the proposed additions are still well within the allowed 35% hardcover at 14.9%. The property is sewered. 1. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B): Front Yard Setback: To permit a porch to be 26’ from the front lot line where 50 ’ is required for the RR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B): Side Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 15’ from the side lot line where 30 ’ is required for the RR-IB zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: To sqrprove application as presented. *• t .. -V STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28« SUBDIVISION 5 (B), FILE NO. 02-2804 WHEREAS, Phillip Martin and Constance Martin, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1230 Arbor Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 8 and 9, Block I, Maxwell’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of a front porch and an attached two stall garage to the existing house to be 26’ from the front lot line where 50’ is required and 1 S’ from the side lot line where 30’ is required in the RR-IB zoning district. 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 July 15,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2804. 2. The property is located in the RR-1B Zoning District, where 2 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .47 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15, 2002 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. The existing residence was built in 1957, prior to city adoption of the current 2 acre zoning standards. 1 of5 B. The hardship is the existing house location in relation to tront and street lot lines. C. The hardcover in the 500* 1000' setback zone is well below the allowed 35%. D. Lot coverage by structures will be 10.6%, well below the 15% limit. n. The front porch and attached garage are in character with the neighborhood. 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 dismet; that granting the variance will not adversely alTect 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 substanti.il property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent cthe Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28. Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of a front porch and an attached two stall garage to the existing house to be 26’ from the front lot line where 50’ is required and 15’ from the side lot line where 30’ is required in the RR-IB zoning district. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within 2 of5 J L one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 22,2003). . 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument w as executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public 3of5 i f STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this____ 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 July, 2002 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On tliis before me, day of .2002,.personally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of . a credible witness end who exected the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESO FA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this__day of ., 2002,personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of ,a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknow ledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public 4 of 5 FRANK R. CARDARELLE Land Su (612)941-3031 Exhibit A L&nd Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For Phillip Martin 1230 Arbor St. Orono KN Book aiePaqe 41 nie_fii?^ . # o 00 0} =tfc licele: 1*‘»40* ® Denotes Iron Kon, Found .*- * * *• • V • • ' • ^ • •*• }. • •;"C *•:;/* i.-' •' •• r e • •• l'"'- I taraky M •* b • *«* tn< To Crystal Bay —.k, 25th March_ _ _4» 1993 • Rev. 6/ 10 02 Page 5 of 5 rank R. Cerdaretie TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:July 8,2002 SUBJECT://02-2804 Phillip and Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 20,484 s.f. (.47 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application Survey Topographic Map Hardcover Calculations Views Photos of Property B C D E F Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.28, Subdivision S (B): Front Yard Setback: To permit a porch to be 26’ from the front lot line where SO’ is required for the RR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.28, Subdivision S (B): Side Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 1 S’ from the side lot line where 30’ is required for the RR-IB zoning district. Application Summaiy: The applicants have requested front yard and side yard setback variances to construct a front porch and an attached garage to the existing residence. The existing single stall garage will be turned into living space. The existing driveway will be removed and a new one will be located in from the new garage. The proposed porch will be 4’ wide, 21 ’ long, and 26’ from the front property line. The existing residence is 30’ from the front property line, where SO’ is required in the RR-IB zoning district. The attached garage is proposed to be on the south side of the existing residence and 2S’ x 36’ (900 s.f.). The front of the attached garage w ill line up with the porch and also be 26’ from the front lot line. It is proposed to be located IS’ from the side lot line where 30’ is required in the RR-IB zoning district. The lot directly to the south is vacant and has been for many years. The proper!)’ is located in the SOO-1000' hardcover zone. The existing residence and the proposed additions are still well within the allowed 3S% hardcover at 14.9%. The property is sewered. tl02-2804 Phillip/'Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street 7/8/2002 Page 1 of3 L Discussion: The existing residence was built in 1957. The property is located in a two acre zoning district. However, the neighborhood is more in character with half acre zoning standards. If half acre zoning standards were applied to this property the existing residence would meet the 30 ’ required front setback. The proposed front porch and the front of the proposed garage would encroach 4’ into the front yard setback. The side of the proposed garage would meei the required 1 O' side yard setback. The topographic map (Exhibit C) shows where neighboring residences are located in relation to the Arbor Street. In general, homes on the west side of Arbor Street are 50-60 ’ from the traveled road. On the east side, they average about 40 ’ from the paved road. The proposed 4’ addition puts this house about 42’ from the paved road. History of Arbor Street: Arbor Street is zoned RR-IB, most of the properties in the area arc half acre lots. The residences in the area were built prior to the current zoning classification. Because of this, many variances have been applied for and approved in the area. Staff researched only Arbor Street. Three were found for Arbor Street. (Two of these 3 properties are located on the southerly section of Arbor Street not shown on the topographic map.) 1. 1185 Arbor Street - 1993. Approved to permit construction of a 10’ x 24’ 8 ” addition to the north side of the existing single stall garage which is located 27’ 3” from the street lot line (50’ required). 2. 1365 Arbor Street - 1996. Approved to permit construction of a partial second floor over the existing residence which is located 3’ from detached garage (10” required) and 29 ’ from the street lot line (50’ required) and 18’ from the side lot line (30 ’ required). 3. 1380 Arbor Street - 1996. Approved to permit construction if a 10’ x 14’ three season porch which is located 12.3’ from the north side lot line (30 ’ required) and 10’ from rear lot line (50’ required). Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. II02-2804 Phillip/Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street 7/8/2002 Page 2 of 3 Issues for Consideration: 1. Docs the Planning Commission feci the front porch and garage addition are in character with the neighborhood? 2. Would the Planning Commission rather have the front porch be smaller and the proposed garage be in line with the existing residence? 3. The residence to the north has a small front porch, and its attached garage is setback from the front of the house. 4. The hardcover in the 500-1000 ’ setback zone is well below the allowed 35%. 5. The existing residence was built in 1957. 6. The property to the south has been vacant for many years. If and when it will be develope-i cannot be predicted. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: If the Planning Commission concludes that the addition as proposed will be in character with the neighborhood, and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and if Planning Commission also concludes that there are adequate hardships present, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval of variances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3 . Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. #02-2804 Phillip/Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street 7/8/2002 Page 3 of 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: RR-IB Lot Area Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) Actual 20,484 s.f. (0.47 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Structural Lot Coverage; Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500-1000'20,484 s.f.7,169.4 s.f. (35%)3,050 s.f. (14.9%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 20,484 s.f.Allowed; 3,072 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,196 s.f. (5.83%) Proposed: 2,180 s.f. (10.6%) ll J • • Application U CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Recehed Amount Paid •ed fojWfdT. id PROPERTY INFORMATION- Site Address t Z.30 ^ 5T", Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) IQ /17 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PropcityAcquired_________/S :TUt^E 1^9 A________L_(month/year) I (do) nojpalso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present property: X residential Zoning District:, other (specify) APPLICAOT Phone (home) - *V7.5~-6^ f H Name rHtt-uP &, fCpiJiTA^c^ />!> M AAT/a/ Phone (work) 7^3 Address: t 'Z.30 s7", City: QftOAJg_______Zip: SS’3^ / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work) City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost S HO.COO Describe request in detail: vH*?<ANce. t-q tS" t=r, ^AkP A/0t> YaAJ> aAc-f< (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Sid< Hardcover .Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions pr.% .nting compliance with Zoning Code requirements: SEE A-TTAcrteJ) SHE-£.T~ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2804 I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All .Of tht following information mmt bg siihmitted hv th^ application deaAUn. i» order for vour application to he fomidwd 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owmers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. ----To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing . ^ are projwsed. In addition, provide one (1) copy m” x 11" for reproducUon. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11") List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicantfs) if not current owner(s). ---- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must-sign this application. Please remember that vour YarianCt PPPlKalion I? not-complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) Md/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date ^jujuyyJL. tS. ZOO Z OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date CApplicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comnussion 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 Councii. if an applicant is unabic to attend a scheduied meeting. pteaM make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. AttacII 1 M II We are requesting two variances from the existing building codes. align the garage front With this 4ft wide porch. A. " *** houses in the JSSlZ^' ^ ^1?“^ ®" *“* ® P®'®** in front of the house.Granting th^ variances will overcome practical difficulties in complying with zoning h®'^**h« proposed improvements with the most affected neighbors and beUeve they would welcome the improvement to the area. • t •7 L "•-CL-n J ■P. */ f/ : FRANK R. CARDARELLE Land Surveyor, Inc. (612) 941*3031 Flying Cloud Drive Land Surveyor Eden Prairie. MN 55344 Survey For Phillip Kartin \ *) 1230 Arbor St. Orono KN Book 33^Paoe 4i File .. • • -• 15^.5 'Scales 1***40* O Denotes Iron Kon. Found ■/. ... •• • • • ‘V V,' V.- .. • • • • . a . • V. . • •• . • • t J*. '• V rT"- I, v~' ‘T V*"C ^ -rvr-**^***^~~*"~^-L Oyolock/l Haxw^^*i*'*~$ Additiont Mflf «)fV M •* k • *** To Crystal Bay 25th March Rev. 6/ 10 02 •*. Vank R. Cardarelle rrm- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET EXiSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZQWF. A. House _____y ^ 75-250'250-500* /5PO-l6oy]^ Ufiftfi Uldih /I9A S.F. X X X 04 B. Garage C. Driveway X X X ------ ■i an m (D SJ. lO Z^O S.F. f S.F. D. Sidewalk 3'/i_X m <7i SF__3V&--,X m 7H S.F.« E. Patio/Deck lO X 2. 1 m Z / 0 SF 10 X Zo e 2.U n S F F. Landscape X a S.F.Underiain X m a S.F.By Plastic X m o S.F. G. Other X .m SF• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE Z03 w • V S.F.TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m Z O. *^PkJ S.F. A + B X 100 m 9.C7 % A + B X 100 m -------------L S, .7 Vq PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___fUu__X zu m S.F. Lenfth Width --------------------------------X m S.F.¥X ^1 m >r*r S.F. X m S.F. B. Garage zr X 36 m nOD S.F. C. Driveway X Z 0 m HbO S.F. X m S.F. D. Sidewalk X m S.F. X m S.F. E. Patio/Deck ____4iS_X 2LI m ?,\0 S.F.iO X 2.0 m ZC'O S.F. F. Landscape X m 0 - S.F.Underlain X m 0 ^ S.F.By Plastic X 1 m 7)—SJ. G. Other X m SJ. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m 20Sd1 S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • m Zo,\SF.A 30^0 G1 2.0.H8H X 100 -__/v/y 1 % S.F. S.F. S.F. TI/cK A B . . • • A t'- I r ~ t *1 '.. _ .ir i!i is £ J • -lA r ryrcr unu<r As £qBUL □tewi AVrIi' QQH ^ . 5 ^ mi jiff uii ir^ } .J. ■vV t .; £Wl** . * • • 1 *• ii. • •• jf !^*a>U*‘p<Ma ..iS.rO. • I j rtooft PLAN O .Q O jvwijcjw^nc5^[^'»^crt. 1 »*• •• ••..#•««•» 11 ni IMiiii Nauru CLcyATinw S •• . d ’ / i E L _ _ EAST rLE.ATlM i •< ±/. CJ) CJ) ■ X f-<}> V\ ({ r^rnrMrr=jia2£fM^t/#4il#A I ff ttl »ri^ nr^rr.M ^ . . . ... ..* ■•• • * •• • ■.................../ *• • 0-3C rViUc-i ST • > • '^'' $ ' ■' ■ <'. ■ wy^^-mw m?. •'-■ -v^ - v-w'V‘^ «;* .;i^ ;j «r^. n /^1#' • . V ^ • t f \ •' '.3^ * «P V u j» > .v»s' «■%, -f,-i ;5 ' '•*>* . rf" »'C 5-y" / \ i’ > ■ n : ■: ;■:'..<•'1-. /-. . t; m ■•'V ■>*»•** ^ > j-r^ f* --1 - lU,m-:. \ :'K 5^—*• • • *5 '• • :^> r- *.y^^ ^ . .1 * V • :*•' '• '•• ^..._-.;^^rT^;?‘V . • . ..■• . • .* I ..^4 • .* ••.% • .. ;* .■ • . - * '• ^* * '• / ‘ . • : ; •.•V V V- - :r:- - ••• .: ^ '•• ' • • * - • * V*. . *! ^ - '> . * .i’^^ :.T\‘.*-' • -:cv ' - Vf. %• “*<*■ V*i -* • . .- . • r'> •'^ . • A • . ; • •*•] •i • vr-i *•/. .* 'V% • ........... ‘ ,V. •.,:V;V'4«\ ..»r -m,n>fc .\4.ttawi.^aiaii<l<m ifei Wif' ■ ■l'^ ''■. V. JS,. -• . • .r- ••.^- ■ /'■- •'" . Sfi.‘ «• •?? J/: ■ ■ V ■ ' f0 -. ' xP h. Im : S^' ;6i?3i . -'^V , 1 , ^.. ■:ifisr^-> y.<r^ * .V»i> r ■ Ft '^ '^'*U 0"^^ r- ■ iM L- ' 5^ ^'v';. - rrc*:’’- vT^, V * j- • -r. 5 : ^ Application Deadline: 6/24/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/22/02 taccTlNn JUL 2 2 2002 CITY OF OflONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottcnberg Title: Zoning Administrator DATE: 7- / 7 - O ITEM NO. /5 Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2809 Rick and Kristine Sterling 1300 Vine Place Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 56,846 s.f. n .3 1 acre) List of Exhibits: A B Resolution Staff Report and e.xhibits of 7/15/02 Application Summary: The applicant has requested an average lakeshore setback variance to replace a portion of the existing upper level lakeside deck (8’ x 42') and to construct a 2’ x 10' addition on the lake side of the residence. Average Lakeshore Setback: All of the residence and deck are w ithin the average lakeshore setback zone. The subject property is a point located on Forest Lake. The existing topography, the layout of the neighboring houses and existing vegetation screening all suggest that the proposed addition and replacement of deck wrill not be w ithin the visibility of either neighboring property and will not encroach on any existing view of the lake. Hardco\er: Although the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone is over the allowed 25%. the replacement of the existing deck and the 2' x 1 O' addition are over existing hardcover, therefore the improvements are not changing the amount of hardcover in the setback zone. The property docs have a boat house located by the lake shore. The boat house appears to be in good condition and is not an issue at this time. However, the applicants are on notice if repairs are needed in the future, the boat house may need to be removed, subject to the pertinent zoning code sections. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. Variance Requested: To encroach 105 feet into the average lakeshore setback. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: To approve application as presented. r-» - « •* STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B), FILE NO. 02-2809 WHEREAS, Rick J. Sterling and Kristine E. Sterling, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the ovviiers of the property located at 1300 Vine Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Tract B, except the easterly 35 feet thereof parallel with and measured at a right angle to the easterly line of said Tract B; Tract C, and Tract D, except the southerly 28 feet parallel with and measured at right angles to the southerly line of said I'ract D, all in Registered Land Survey No. 488, files of Registrar of Titles. Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to allow encroachment of 105 feet into the average lakeshore setback to replace a portion of the upper level deck and to construct a 2’ x 10’ addition to the lake side of the existing residence. WHERE.AS, 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 July 15.2002, 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 Oiono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^02-2809. The properly is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 1.31 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15, 2002 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1 of5 4. 5. A. The shape of the shoreline makes it impossible for any structures on this property to meet the average lakcshore setback. B. Neighbors views of the lake will not be negatively impacted by the addition. C. Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone will not change. D. Lot coverage by structures will remain at 7.4%, well below the 15% limit. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser\ e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preser\ e a substantial property right of the applicant; and w ould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision I (B) to allow encroachment of 105 feet into the average lakeshore .setback to replace a portion of the upper level deck and to construct a 2’ X 10’ addition to the lake side of the existing residence. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within 2 ofS i one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 22,2003). . 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 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 3of5 i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of July, 2002 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 On this before me, day of ,2002,jiersonally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of.., a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN before me. On this__day of . 2002,personally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of.., a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public 4ofS CERTIFICA* Exhibit A FOR L. CRAMER COMPANY IN TRACTS B, C. & D. R.L.S. NO. #488 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA FOREST LAKE f 2fCOMTO* tt€ z,* 'lur 8 • MO «U legal D£SCRIPT»CW or PRCMISCS Trod B. OMCtpl Iht fosttrly 35 foot thtrtof pofolltl -ith ond nvoturtd oi o fichl o*^Qlf to th# ojiterly lire pt I3»d Tfoct 9; Troct C. o«d Troct 0. thf toutntfly 2d left poroMol with ond ot ^‘9^* ®''*5*f*lint of foid^Troct 0. oil in Rtgifttrtd Lond Sufvty No. 4Sd. filtt nf Rtgittror of Tints* Mtnntpin County, MinntSOtO. o : dtnotts iron morktr (9093): dtnotts t«isting spot titvotion. fnton sto Itwtl dotiin Storings sho»n ort bostd upon an ossimtd dot^. Thi* »gfv#y int*ndt t* *hoi. th* boundofi** of th* obo»« d*»cf ib*d of on txisting houst boot boost ond sbtd. ond tht location of oM hordcovtr thtrton. It dots not purport to show O'^y othtr inproiitmtnts or tncroocnmtnis. iCttOM S4Tt HsemtON 1 CCD -----1--------|0€M9 1 Mse ----1----------1------ GRONBERG & ASSOatTES. INC hCaiSltlC CWKDQb USB UNDOdL m RMCK 445 H «UC« OR lONO lAiC. IM. 993M •52-471-4141 I KALkf a*f#f nc ttKisi VAS tKtAKO tr « Qt I4CC4 ttf 0«U1 Sl^«SiOM 4^ TiUiT I m 4 OlAV tCUOO MOriSSOoi 440 1440 •Mfti ten tt iM o sc r*« o yTTIJ Page 5 of 5 f-oy os-itt I f 1 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: July 3,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2809 Rick and Kristine Sterling 1300 Vine Place Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 56,846 s.f. (.1.31 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application Survey Site Plan Hardcover Calculations Drawings Plat Map Property Owners List Photos of Property D C D E F G H Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. Variance Requested; To encroach 105 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicant has requested an average lakeshore setback variance to replace a portion of the existing upper level lakeside deck (8’ x 42 ’) and to construct a 2’ x 10’ addition on the lake side of the residence. Average Lakeshore Setback: All of the residence and deck are within the average lakeshore setback zone. The subject property is a point located on Forest Lake. The existing topography, the layout of the neighboring houses and existing vegetation screening all suggest that the proposed addition and replacement of deck will not be within the visibility* of either neighboring property and will not encroach on any existing view of the lake. Hardcover: Although the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is over the allowed 25%, the replacement of the existing deck and the 2’ x 10’ addition are over existing hardcover, therefore the improvements are not changing the amount of hardcover in the setback zone. t<02-2809 Rick/Kristine Sterling 1300 Vine Place 7/3/2002 Page I i The property does have a boat house located by the lake shore. The boat house appears to be in good condition and is not an issue at this time. However, the applicants are on notice if repairs are needed in the future, the boat house may need to be removed, subject to the pertinent zoning code sections. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has inc.iided their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . The shape of the shoreline makes it impossible for any structures on this property to meet the average lakeshore setback. 2. Are any neis^bors' views of the lake negatively impacted by the addition? Is the shape of the shoreline sufficient hardship to Justify the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance? 3. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will not change. 4. Lot coverage by structures will remain at 7.4%, well below the 15% limit. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 2 ’ x 10 ’ addition and to replace the existing lakeside deck. #02-2809 Rick/Kristine Sterling 1300 Vine Place 7/3/2002 Page 2 h Application U 0Z>2,l<iy Date Received to-20 Amount Paid A Z So CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION o/iy/c - Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 ARer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFOR.MATION ^ Site . ‘ ddress_____/ OO \J(' ML r \ ac e _____________________________ Props.;ty Identification Number (P.l.D.) DH-/t:^oo3L,______________ Attach legal description to applicatiori if not included on required sur\ey. Date Property Acquired ^/6I ___________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own tlie adjacerlt parcels of land. Present use of property: K residentird ___other (specify)______________________ Zoning District:__________________________________ •Si^APPLICANT , Name t Address: f?eo v/f'^w P’1 Phone (home) ^ _____ Phone (work ) 6 fJL’ 50i~ oSS ’~ City: _________Zip: O^^^S’ER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (\vork)_ City:.. Zip:. Estimated Construction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST . ^ cduinaicu v^unsirucuon \_osi j ^ Describe request in detaih V 1/2^ . (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSHir/DESCRIPTlON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) rf,<o U required submittals AM of the folhning informafion m...> \v 1. 2.Completed Application Form Certified Properly Ou-ners List of owners within 150- l.hMc ^ . must obtain this list, labels and map from Henn^ ’ ^ ^ Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). County Department of calculafioL°L^requfre?'^7n additionhardcover reproduction. ^ O <^opy 8'/,» x II" for grade are proposed^ \n addlfio^'ljrSTol^O^c^^^^^^^ Sketches or plans of fioor & election viewer!, ^production. List of the legal names (include mthaSs^^^ " "">• the property. This would include name(s) of appLLsTif 00^'^^ ^ As an addendum to this application please an^rt, current owner(s). persons you wish notified of thi, appliwtion. ^ separate list of any other Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomnfmn • 1 Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees fstaff time requested by the Zoning and/or consullan. expenses ineurrrL "vtf o L"1nT''" .nfomrarion supplied is^^„ec. ,o ,he best of his/^eft^lTedA"" ^ Applicant's Signature - f-7^ 'Kf^yr -------- Date 3. 4. 5. *K6. 7. 8. OWTVER'S SIGNATUlvi:, --- --------- entry onto the propeij^°by Chy sUff^consuhait! Ss“ reasonable members for putpos^mesligaUon and verin^ation of 11, "™^^" ^ Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must ha^ all submitt;ih-int7ih7citv office 9^ ,, Commission Meeting. Planning Commission MeLgs are held on rtfe ^TL "if month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled rLs^ ^ Monday of each Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable m attend^^S^H®^ make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in voJ! nil meeting, please & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting ^ Building * ’W' •V'"' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FcR L. CRAMER COMPANY IN TRACTS B. C. te D, R.L.S. NO. #488 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA e> FOREST •JMCeNTOW legal DESCTIPTION PREMISES ; Troct 0. tactpt Iht fcsttrly 35 ftft t^trtof poroMfl •Uft ond mtaiu'ffd ot o right onqit to th« tcittrly lir^t of toid Tract 6; Troct C. or^d Troct 0. ttc^pt thi touthtrly 26 fttt porolltl with ond rmoiurvd ot right or.gltt to trt loutntrly lint of sold Troct 0. oil in Rtgitttrtd Lond Survey No. 455. filti of Rtgittror of Titlos. Mtnntpin County. Minnosoto. o : donotit iron nnorlior (ICS3) : dtnotfi flitting spot titvotion. mton tco lt»tl dotun Bforingt tho«n or# bottd upon on otti/ntd dotijn. Tnitturvty inttndi to t^O* th# boundoritt of thi obovt dfscribtd proptrty. thf locotion of on oiitting houtt boot houtt ond thtd. end the locotion of oil vitiblo **hordco«fr** thtroon. It dots not purport to %hom ony othtr iirprovvntntt or tncroochmtntt. §«:«OCtOVTO* npiA*ii coo 0€00 MSG GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES, INC. cMiTic oocm uro ttNom. vt fiom MS H «UCo OR lONC UUC Mi 15196 §52.473-4141 1 i*«ki n«i ycc^Ckio^ «A nc*CM •AS MCfMCO tt l€ ot tfOCt MV tout ft^£4v>p» 4*0 wr 1 AM A p«,f UMCf MsrtftM MO* MC IMO •Mioi iMO tc u«i or tc itAR m Mseuw f-CW 6-05-02 iOt Ml 02*ti2 JXrti o n-.ui -V • • \! %'«,' I ?/ iWUf\ (MU) <«M.7)i -’*•75' SETBACK LMC (MM) RATIO ^ (miT^ >0/ ^ ^5>^o m (Mzil N t (M2J) EXISTING EXSTMC SHED 5 HOUSE [960.6) (*««> r.«*' /A /(MU) / / CONCRETE DRIVEWAY (MU) / '^^(Mi 9;> ^3'(M^> \0 V OO PoiS* ^ MUS ^ EXISTING' HOUSE (»MJ) -nr-5 A ' *^L\{ % •• • %/ %I •• - 4 AJtnj 2' 2^/1^-S/W. /l/A/ ^/cU . ■ *.••. y; ■• ■ ■ OF PREMISES ::#9, • • * •. V L..*—••••- •• K • m- 0 • ^ HARDCOVER^LCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ ^ ROAT A House 30.1 Z4.0 72^S.F. Length VVidUi Housf -X B S.F. X a S.F. X m S.F.- B. Garage X a ••' S.F. C. Driveway X a S.F. X a S.F. D. Sidewalk X a 2-7 SF X a gP 6iR£y.v«LK E. Patio/Deck X a • • SF. • rnmm • * •• X B SF. F. Landscape X m S.F. Underlain X m S.F. By Plastic X m S.F. Or Fabric coMOirrf V ftJ^T LA v NC 0. Other X m 537 •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE laafo S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -Z<?.S.F. B A + B X 100 8 4-, 42.%• •• « «• PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE'• • A House X 8 S.F. -Length Width X 8 S.F. X m S.F. X a SF. B. Garage X a S.F. C. Drivevvay X a • • SF. • X a S.F. D. Sidewalk X B S.F. X SF. E. Patio/Deck X a S.F. X S.F. F. Landscape X a S.F. Underlain X a S.F. . . By Plastic X a S.F. Or Fabric G. Other • X a S.F. '•e •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •S.F. A total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •S.F. B A ♦ B X too a % ./ L.1 i'-/2 *C»2. SETBACK ZONE: (CmCLEONE) EXISTING HAWnCOVER IN ZONE A. House HARDCOVER CALCULATIONWORKSUEET 0-75' Ltnfth X X X B. Garage • •• > C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk . •• X X E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B PROPOSED H.4RDCOVER IN ZONE' A House ____ _______ X Length X X X B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B 2S0-S00'SOO-1000* 33S6 SF VVidih 107 26^ 1.S6Z 8c»o| X 100 Width B.05- _ X 100 'f \ --- *. : .7 -W.7l7S(T SF. SF. SF.-SHfD SF. SF. coNce gre OCNfiz7/sy AfjQ <rr. SF. SF. S.F.- S.F. coHcse-f • PATIO S.F. S.F. S.F. ____SF 2 7,73 7 _S.F. % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.E SF. SF. SF SF SF. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. A B 1 I 5 ( . a t\ ill W\CXISTING DECK TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING DECK ■— r II r AREA OF NEW ADDITION / / REMOVE BUILT IN BATHTUB —-fl REMOVE EXISTING WINDOWS. REMOVE WALL PER NEW WINDOWS. 1 MASTER BEDROOM ! 101 REMOVE CARPET AND PAD DASHED LINES INDICATE ITEMS TO BE REMOVED. / V •IttREMOVE SINK AND TOILET W REMOVE GWB Z'-----------REMOVE EXISTIN / VERIFY STRUCTL rM-----r-^T----------r Ihjizrjhj________I — REMOVE EXISTING STONE T REMOVE EXISTING RAILING. REMOVE EXr ^ FIXTURr^ I EX S'in :: 1-EA OE « 1 “•3/4)■}V 1 VL * OUNDATION WIIH ARCHITECT t -------rSr 1 irtTiTf ilnifiiMiif iiai n n.-Hrriir witfii«i*MM ■niinnnVffiTiina ti<li*aiiiiii iin ftTiiitti niliriaiiiiiilM<iiallTrf'liriiitfTt III laiTiil f ffl^Seiff^Ounty T^payer Serv|c^iC^F«i|f^ cn- u~7- :z-3-(S^ • r. J V ■ -Cr(\Y rt \ 'V / Ni (:•1,1 Parcel Information . . u fj f. ■ • : : ^'^Pareal ID 07^4723^20002Parcel ID 0711723420«tt, , House Number 1300' Street Name VINE PL •' This Is not a legally neorded map. Mrepresaidaacompllalioh^Miimallen and data from City. Cawdy, and State road-authorities and olfter sources.; VV mm DATE AA/lf/iZ BATCH 5t2 NCNNCPIN COUNTY PBOPCIITV INFOBNATION SYSTCH PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXASSAil PAGE 5 PROP AOOR ONNCR NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOCNI ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AODR OHNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR to o CO SO 17-117-23 A2 1001 IISIB VINE Pt N R I J A SHIELDS HICHAEL R t JUDITH A SHIELDS 1310 VINE PL NQUND NN 55304 30 07-117-23 42 0002 01300 VINE PL R J STERLING 0 X E STERLING RICK J t KRISTINE C STERLING 1300 VINE PL HOUND NN 55304 30 07-117-23 42 0003 01325 VINE PL * D D CARLSON 0 N J CARLSON DON D A NARY U CARLSON 1325 VINE PL HOUND NN 55304 SO 07-117-23 42 0004 01345 VINE PL NARGARET N DAVIS TRUSTEE NARGARET N DAVIS 1345 VINE PL HOUND NN 55304 SO 07-117-23 42 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY Of ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 30 07-117-23 42 0034 01300 VINE PL HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 30 07-117-23 42 0037 01300 VINE PL T D LONDON 0 ANY E LONDON TIHOTHY D i ANY E LANDON 1300 VINE PL HOUND NN 55304 TOTAL BATCH !f02 00007 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIONi TO THE BE] OF NY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE hnufM ■rc l^i-C PU-C M I -^♦J4 ^ ^ ,,V a;M«i r\ ,V5*C-. »;*'^?*>'r-iv V#' ipJr'’^ I ¥m r ''isrilf' •TS_. —~~ ^ - • ’ Imifcnl^^Ht 'J -ft l5r.'C' v.rv'- vVA 1 v>-J p ' * ■ V.- -■r. u • sy • '-''' . • sF'^-Cv j£> •N .t*'L m^iW^ A . m ••' ■ ' ■ i. - - •< J ■> ' V «' ri t.iir,P'.l V- '■i ■ ‘V ^ ? ’’ '^V-> r J. . ^ ’C'^ - T } -fTFr' •: ' • >\' ? Vt'^ .' 3^ .- - za •- iA-- -- ><■^1 ‘^- fTi^“ " ’ ••■’T' '-’t •' • ■ 4+ •rs- • »• »-\jfc c A \ .^f r ■' :'-■' Jpu-f -..f r- v: ••r*' « ' ' if! > %«,2j (-i 'r . / i! M\ . ^ Lx . L V 1 i F REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL ? 2 2002 CUY u^ unutvu DATE: July 22,2002 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Director ’s Report Item Description: Schedule Public Hearing for North Arm Lane Paving Project We have received a petition from three residents on North Arm Drive requesting that an assessment paving project be completed for this street which is currently a gravel surface. There are seven residences that have access from North Arm Lane. The City Engineer has completed a Feasibility Study for this project and the estimated project costs are $31,835 which results in an assessment of $4,550 per property, fhe annual cost at 6.5% interest over a 5-year time period is approximately $1,100 per year. Since receiving the petition, we have sent a letter to all seven of the property owners with the proposed project costs and assessments based on a 5-year time period, four of the seven owners are interested in the project. Another owner may be interested in this project, but thought the annual costs were too high. We have talked to several other owners and are they are agreeable to a 10-year assessment time period to reduce the annual costs. The annual cost at 6.5% interest over a 10-year time period is approximately $650 per year. One of the elderly residents was not interested in the project, but this person may be eligible for the Senior Citizen Deferment. We will send information on the Senior Citizen Deferral with the Public Hearing Notice to this individual. No conunents have been received from the seventh property owner who lives out of state. The residents in favor of paving this street are very interested in attempting to move forward on this project. Several of these residents have a lot of gravel and dirt from the road washing into their yard and driveway which is not a desirable situation. The next step in the assessment project process would be for the Council to conduct a Public Hearing to obtain more information in order to make a recommendation on the feasibility of this project. Our staff recommendation is that the Council holds a Public hearing to obtain resident input on this proposed project We are recommending scheduling this Public Hearing for the August 12"* Council meeting at 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the North Arm Lane Paving Project Approve Resolution Receiving Report and Calling for Hearing on the North Arm Lane Paving Project ■ nr-*rri« ly A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PAVING OF NORTH ARM LANE WHEREAS* the neighborhood residents have presented a petition requesting an assessment paving project for North Arm Lane, which is currently a gravel road. WHEREAS, the City Engineer has provided a preliminary cost estimates for completion of this paving project; however, additional information is needed in order to establish the feasibility of such a project; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the benefitted property(s) be assessed for all of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study, and that he is instructed to report to the Council with ail convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 22nd day of July 2002. ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Cleric h_____ u - A RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON NORTH ARM LANE PAVING PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No.of the Council adopted July 22, 2002, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer in reference to the North Arm Lane Paving Project and this report was received by the Council on July 22,2002; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 1.The Council will consider the paving of North Arm Lane in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $31,835. 2.A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 12th day of August 2002 in the Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, at 7:00 p.m. and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 22nd day of July 2002. ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk -’■*'**" !■« I 1 26S3.I7 RES PETITION 3{0 3 \Date: April 26.2002 i4S X i To: Ororip City Council I >, \ ..._:. \» X PETITION FROM PROPERTY OWNEf^S REQUESTING THE COMPLETION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PAVING OF NORTH ARM LANE. WE ARE I. .TERESTED in HAVING AN ASSESSMENT PROJECT COMPLETED TO HAVE NORTH ARM LANE PAVED. j (/ PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE ADDRESS Print Name Signature Print Address ^ ^AP-IA- ^tPPfiit -it>A ^ K)6\tSo»4 Ins' tvori{ /4/0 Lamc V a >4c MoftK AiW I lait#- Wk 11- fr Vi I " - T i*fflll >-| Bonestroo ^yjitosene Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects July 17.2002 ■on«iiroo. Roicnt. Anderlih snd Aitoci««ti. Inc. is sn Aflitmstlvw Action/!^«f Opporlunliy fmployor «n<f f mployct Owned Principals; Otto G. Bonestroo. PC. • Marvm L Sorvala. PC. • Glenn R Cook. RE • Robert G Schumcht. PC. • Jtttf A Boiirdoa PC Senior Coniulcanis; Robert W. Rosene. PC • Joseph C Anderlik, PC • Richard € Turner, PC • Susan M Eberfm. C.PA Associate Principals: Keith A Gordon. PC. ■ Robert R Pfefferie. PC. • Richard wy foster. PC • David O lothota. PC • Mark A Hansoa PI- • Michael T. Rautmarm. PC. • Ted K. field. PC. • Kenneth P Anderson. PC • Mark R. Rolfs. PC. • David A Bonestroo. MBA • Sidney P WMIIamson. P£^ LI • Agnes M Ring. MBA* Allan Rick Schmidt. PC • Thomas W Peterson. PC • James R. Maland. PC • Miles B Jensea PC • L Phillip Gravel W. PC • Daniel J Cdgertoa PC • Ismael Martir^/. PC • Thomas A Syfko. PC • Sheldon J Johnson • Dale A Grove. PC. • Thomas A Rooshar. PC. • Robert J Devery. PC Offices: St Paul. Si Cloud. Rochester and WtUmMi, MN • MilMrauSee. Wl • Chicago. A tBbbslie: www bonestroo com Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323-0066 Re: 'Feasibility Report North Arm Lane File No. 139-02-000 Dear Mayor and Council: As directed by City staff, we have reviewed the existing conditions on North Arm Lane in Orono. The roadway is located north of North Arm Drive in the northwest quarter of Section 6. North Arm Lane is a public dead end street, 14-feet wide and approximately 950 feet long serving 7 properties. The southerly end of the roadway is paved from North Arm Drive to approximately 300 feet north, the remaining length is gravel. Several residents have expressed an interest in improving the roadway. Proposed improvements include paving the existing gravel surface to I4-fect in width. Work would include patching several potholes in the gravel road and reclaiming the existing bituminous surface at the south end. The roadway would be graded and paved with 2-inches of bituminous base and I inches of bituminous wear course. Once the paving is completed 2-foot wide gravel shoulders would be installed to protect the edge of the bituminous road. The street improvements on North Arm Lane are feasible fron\ an engineering standpoint. The project is necessary to provide a safer and more uniform driving surface. The capital cost as well as operation and maintenance costs have been considered in determining that the project is cost effective. The costs of these improvements are interrelated and should be assigned equitably to the adjoining property owners. The following recommendations are presented for consideration by the Orono City Council: I. That this Report be adopted as the guide for improvements to North Arm Lane. That the City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project prior to the public hearing. 3. That a public hearing be held on the proposed improvements. The total estimated project cost of $31,835 should be incorporated in the public notice. The total estimated cost of $31,835 includes a 5 (tercent contingency, a 25 percent allowance for design, inspection, legal, and administration costs, and a 5 percent allowance for capitalized 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 5SII3 • 651*636*4600 . Fax: 651*636*1311 interest and bonding costs during construction. The per unit assessment would be $4,548 based on a total of seven units. The project will be constructed within the City right-of-way and no easement costs are anticipated. A detailed cost estimate for the proposed improvements is attached for your review. We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Council or City staff at any mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSCX:iATES, INC. Tom Kellogg >9^ \ II r i/’. CITY OF ORONO NORTH ARM LANE STREET PAVING BRA FILE NO. 139-02-C STREET IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMA TE ■ ■ ■ .' -w • ITEM UNIT EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ■ Mobilization Reclaim bituminous surface Aggregate base, Cl. 5,100% crushed Aggregate base preparation Aggregate shouldering, Cl. 2 Type 41 bit. wear course Type 31 bit, base course_________ LS SY TN SY TN TN TN Estimated Construction Cost •I- 5% Contingencies Total Estimated Constniction Cost ■f25% Engineering, Legal, Administration Total Estimated Project Cost 1 415 SO 1640 110 150 200 $5,000.00 5.00 12.00 2.00 15.00 35.00 32.00 North Arm Lane Paving Coat Estimatojds EST. COST III$5, 2,075 600 3,280 1,650 5,250 6,400 $24,255 1,213 25,468 6.367 $31,835 A wtxss»Kir>-' ' — - -V — Kzj-.ai »»cpT>NG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL 2 2 2002 C»TY ue OHONU DATE: July 22,2002 ITEM NO.: / -7 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services's Directors Report Item Description: Lee Carlson Ballfields Expansion- Trail Introduction The Orono Baseball Association was granted a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an additional baseball field at the Lee Carlson Complex in September of 2001. This new field will be a combination baseball and soccer field The new field will be constructed east of the existing fields with an access road on the north side of the existing field. A copy of the resolution for this approval is attached for your information. A trail connection needs to be completed across this property to connect the existing dead end trail from the Willow View Subdivision to the Old Crystal Bay Road trail. The attached plan shows the conceptual layout for this trail. The trail will be parallel to County Road 6 on the north side of the Lee Carlson site for the eastern portion. A retaining wall will be required in the vicinity of the existing ballfield to allow for construction of the new access road and trail. This wail is required because of the ten-foot elevation difference between the flat area at the top of the hill and the county highway. There is not enough distance for a slope without encroaching into the drainage ditch on the County Highway Right of Way. The western portion of the trail will be located along the berm between the stormwater pond for the ball fields and Painters Creek. The easiest and most cost effective method to have the trail cross Painters Creek appears to be adjacent to the access road to take advantage of the access road culvert that crosses Painters Creek the trial would then connect to existing Old Crystal Bay Road Trail just north of the access road intersection. This trail alignment eliminates any disturbance to the creek and wetlands located further north. The property is owned by the Orono School District and a condition of CUP approval was that the school district will provide the necessary trail easements. Orono Baseball Association Request The baseball association plans show the retaining wall and trail and the plan was for the baseball association to construct the trail and retaining wall as part of the ballfield project. The baseball association has received quotations from contractors for this project and the cost for the trail and wall was approximately $100,000. The association has raised a little more than $200,000 for the entire Page I of 3 ballfleld project, and this money is all needed for the new field and related improvements construction, so they do not have adequate funds to complete the trail portion of the project. They would like to complete the ballfleld construction this year because Holbrook Field in long Lake is being relocated as part of the Highway 12 project and may not be available for their use next year. We have received a letter from the Treasurer of the Baseball Association discussing this situation, and they have requested to be on the agenda to discuss this issue further with the City Council. We have discussed the engineering and construction staging issues relating to construction of the wall, trail, access road and new ballfleld with representatives from the association. A summary of these discussions is included in the attached letter. The intent of these discussions was to ensure that the construction of the ballfleld improvements does not preclude future construction of the trail if the project is staged and not all completed at once. If a staged construction option is considered the City requested that available fill material be stockpiled on the site, so material does not have to be trucked into the site. It appears that this provision is possible and the Baseball Association is willing to work with us to provide a source of fill material that would be available for future trail construction. Options In order to provide information on possible options for consideration by the Council, we have investigated possible sources of City funding for the construction of the trail portion. One possible source would be Park Dedication Funds which are available for use in constructing new park and other recreational facilities. However, right now there are not sufficient Park Dedication Funds available to complete this project. Another option is Hennepin County cost sharing funding for trail construction. This is a program that provides County funding for 50% of trail construction costs with the City responsible for the remaining 50% of the cost. Our understanding is that the County has $100,000 per year of funds available for this program. We have discussed this possible project with Hennepin County staff and they have indicated that this trail is on the County Trail System Plan and would be a high priority project, and funds may be available in 2003. A possible option for funding of the City's share of trail costs would be to use our Municipal State Aid Funds. The City receives approximately $350,000 per year in State Aid Funds w'ith the option available to receive an interest free advance on this funds. Although there are already several state projects planned for the next several years it appears there is adequate funding available for completion of this trail project when county cost sharing funds are available. The City has not, in the past, provided funding for facilities being constructed by organizations such as the OBA. However, the City has provided funding for trails. Although the trail was included as part of the ballfleld project, it would not be contrary to City policy to provide flmding for the trail. When the initial two ballflelds were constructed, the OBA committed to constructing a retaining Page 2 I 10 f A</i‘iLOMmut \i/^u C0(iHCa id {WJI. iw^u z::rzv^-7k’ii^ __,j—» . ——. ——^*n „—j. m, ♦*•• “ T*~ .r**1 *v •ir|v ’ ' -•• ~ . :->.in:SS^ '» =: » / fiK ^'J ■r^.-•; « ifrBi i[^ni A V / t *AS.« \•s » I // W'li * ^ ^Vrti: '/N.\/> .r l&is:*.;?5i---j- EMSHM6 HfSMNAl. TRAM. isoo'Ntw ULML OMUO BAJtW^VP.C/MU ^'•'V .t-^ y j 10 ONH. LUe£ UMf 1BA\L <—*•** / . . IT ------------------------lUisa r 10 ’d IdiOi orono baseball association p.o. Box SO} Long Lake. MN S53S6 President/ Kui Bocmcr/ 763-4754)789 Vice Ptcsidenl / Doug lerde / 763*479-M68 Tieasurer / Leith l>inias / 763-479*3634 July 17,2002 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Attn: Mr. Gteg Oappa VU Faclmile 952-249-4616 RE:Ball Held Construction Expansion of Lee Carlson Fields 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road Dear Mr. O^a; The Orono Baseball Association has, over the past three or four years, raisedj^ttle over $200 000 in private funds to construct a youth baseball (and soccer) field on Orono Public School property directly east of the existing Lee Carlson fields. While we are supportive of Ac City policy goals with regard to bike trail extension, there is a limit to what we can accomplish wiA our limited funds and the Orono Baseball Association does not have adequate resources to also construct Ae bike trail and associated retaining wall along Ac norA edge of Ae property. As discussed, we would like approval at the July 22,2002 Council Meeting to proceed wiA Ae construction of the ball field as previously approved, wiA some minimal moAfications Aai would facilitate Ac future construction of Ac bike trail and associated retaining wall along the north edge of the property by oAer patties as fun Ang became available. Specifically we would propose to relocate Ae new access drive to Ae parking lot as far souA as possible and follow Ae outfield fence for Ac existing field as closely as possible. This would iiiaximize the area available for the future trail, and would minimize Ae size of Ac future retaimng wall. We would Acn construct Ae embankment down toward County Road 6 at slopes ran^ng froin 3:1 to 1.5 to 1. Slopes over 3:1 would constructed wiA erosion grid reinforcement and planted with eroundcover. We would also propose to create a low earth berm stocl^ile norA of Ae field if Luested to do so by Ae City. This material would be used to fiU behind Ac retaining wall in the future bike trail construction, saving Ae cost of importing the fill. players, so we need to get Ac new field constructed this year. Sincerely, OROhO BASEBALL ASSCQATION u02Q)— [th/T. Dumas ^52)484-4623 1 te/T0*d tT;E2 2002-it-Tlf -ilt / GITYofORONO ^ <j//RESOLUTION OF THE Cl TV COUNCIL NO. 4 6 89 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 FILE NO. #01-2703 WHEREAS, the Orono Baseball Association in cooperation with the Orono Soccer Association (hereinafter "the applicants") have an option to lease property from the Orono School District (hereinafter "the owner") located at 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road North for the purposes of constructing a third baseball field, with a secondary use as a youth soccer field vrithin the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") the property is legally described as follows: See Exhibit A, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 20, 2001, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 to permit construction of a combined baseball field and youth soccer field on the northeast comer of the property. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. 3. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #01-2703. The property is located in the RR-IB rural residential zoning district. Schools and associated uses accessory to a school are a conditional use in the RR-IB zoning district. 4.The baseball field would be constructed on property owned by the Orono School District and leased to the Orono Baseball Association. 5.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 2001 and recommended approval by of vote of 7 to 0 to permit construction of a Page 1 of 12 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A R R 9 baseball field, storage building and batting cages based on the following findings: A. B. C. D. E. In 1994 the Orono Baseball Association (OBA) constructed the two existing baseball fields, known as Lee Carlson Fields, on the property. A Conditional Use Permit was not required for the west */i of the property. The City of Orono has leased the west '/j of the property from the Orono School District and further leased the property to OBA. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that as long as the City w-as leasing the property from the School for a period greater than ten years that the baseball fields would be considered a permitted City park use. The Code permits municipal uses in the zoning district. The east 'A of the property is the proposed location of the new baseball/soccer field. Since the City does not have a lease for this portion of the property and it is owned entirely by the School District a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) is required for the construction. Schools and their associated facilities require a CUP. In 1999 a CUP for Middle School construction was approved and the school opened the fall of 2000. A condition of approval for the new Orono Middle School required the individual properties located east of Old Cr>’stal Bay Road be combined into one ta.\ parcel. That parcel includes the baseball fields and Middle School. Access to the new baseball/soccer field would be via an extension to the existing access from Old Crystal Bay Road. The road will lead to a 48 stall parking area west of the ball field. In addition, the parking area will include a turnaround with a 65' radius. The 65' radius is 15' narrower than a typical cul-de-sac width. The City Fire Marshal has approved the turnaround width. The width meets the standard for basic emergency service. City Code requires parking for athletic fields as 1 parking space for each six seats of capacity. Each 22 inches of bleacher space devoted to seating is couiited as one seat when determining design capacity for the bleachers. Any bleacher space devoted to aisle or any other purpose is Page 2 of 12 m PI F. H. I. J. K. L. GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 8 9 not considered seat space. Code would allow seating up to 288 based on the 48 spaces shown for parking. Pedestrian access would include a sidewalk that would be located adjacent to the new parking area and provide access to a future trail e.xtension along County Road 6. OBA has requested the trail connection not be constructed, and only the corridor established at this time. The Park Commission reviewed the request at their meeting on August 6, 2001, and commented they are supportive of a set aside of land that could be used for a trail connection in the future. The land would be designated for trail use by granting of an easement along the proposed trail corridor. The trail corridor would be determined following concept approval of the site plan and trail easement would be granted by the School District to the public. The baseball field e.\pansion includes batting cages, a 24’ X 36' storage building, play lot and announcer’s booth. West of the existing fields the OBA is proposing to replace an existing storage shed with a larger shed and expand the parking area along the entrance drive. A wooded ravine separates the baseball fields from the school property. The ravine is a designated wetland. The proposed improvements do not encroach within the protected area around the ravine. The City of Ororn’s 1974 wetland inventory did not classify any of the wetlands on the property as protected, however the ravine and wetlands are protected by WCA regulation and do appear on the National Wetlands Inventory. A wetland basin is located at the northwest comer of the site where County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road intersect. The new ball field does not impact that wetland basin. There are no lights proposed for the field. Code docs not permit any source of tight be visible at any property line. The property is located adjacent to the Willow View development. The most impacted properties would be those in the northwest comer. At the Page 3 of 12 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 89 time Willow View was developed an open space and ponding outlot was created. The open space outlot would provide an additional buffer zone to the athletic field use. M. Properties north of the site, across County Road 6, are zoned for 2 acre residential development. All land south and west are owmed by the School District (Ice Arena and Middle School). The use of the property is consistent with other uses on the School Property, N. The City Comprehensive Trail System Plan has established the corridoi along County Road 6 as a necessary trail connection. The future trail along C.R. 6 would provide a needed link to the east to provide a connection to the regional system. A trail is located east of the property to Willow Drive and continues south to the southern end of the Willow View Development. O. The additional use of the property for a baseball field is consistent wlih the types of uses normally found on a school campus. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions e,\isting on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the conditional use permit would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plaruiing Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section lO.SO, Subdivision 3 to permit partial use of Lot 3, Block 1 for outside storage use, subject to the following conditions: 1. Property shall be developed as shown on the approved site plan attached hereto Page 4 of 12 • • • m GITYof ORONO 'll 5£SHO 2. 4^ '3. 7. 8. 9. Exhibit B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._____4 6 8 9 The final road grading and stormwater management plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final approval. The MCWD shall be consulted to determine if a new permit or amendment to the existing permit is required. Bleacher design capacity shall not exceed 288. OBA, School District and City of Orono shall work with Hennepin County to determine the appropriate trail connection. A trail easement shall be .granted by the School District to the public for a future trail corridor to connect the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road to the trail in the Willow View Development. No parking signs .shall be placed along the new road and in the drop off zone to not block vehicles from entering or exiting the new parking area. Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the propert>' not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by completion of paving and striping of all parking areas within one year of the date of Council approval, or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (September 10, 2002). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned owner and applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 5 of 12 I • • ‘ i M >i1 /V/ GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 89 adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, Cit>- Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ProDcrtv Ovfcutr jy Property (Representative of Orono School District) Applicant ' / ' (Representative of Orono Baseball Association) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of September, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said insmunent was executed on behalf of the City. « . mm RACHEL0006EiioTMvrMue-iMKMm Notary Public rnr***** Page 6 of 12 -------Mhr^ ttMi, U tnm STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 4689 On this of ♦ 200/ before me a Notary Public withinjuid forCm inis pay Dciore me a iNoiary riiDiic wiitun^uici lor said county, personally appearedL)r\ci to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing ins^wnent, aii^cknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. RACHaOOOGE NOMtrPWUC'MWCrOTA Notary Public ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ______, 20g/ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared LaufSen. known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. J. Notary Public UNOAaVEE MTMV wauc .WMfSOTAII^CaMluiDn Ei9«n Jw. 31, am PftgeTof 12 I. *5X CO BALL FIELD CONSTRUCTION ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION ORONO COMMUNITY SOCCER ASSOCIATION ON ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS' PROPERTY VfCIMTYMAF -H 5 I OCNERALNOTUS IMMHMitiwa M4 mmm mmmmmmmmk ***#•**«•■»!« —— »■—mnw BVfltMl M9MX •aSAiMikti ORAWWOINOCX i.___ fel .•u il* II I I i H c < •0 <ia -tr iV —*---------------- — -■ -J --- Exhibit B 4689 • v' •• • • V -------- l >• v> \np^.. ■■ \W,|fiJ,lf\*» - ■' ,* >• .\T ;;.K. i’*'T M «» ■V 'i t .* % •».« ^-4* ** •* I •M. '•‘"b • v.V-n;I-..---- . ••-\ \ vaV T ....••'t^^^ ........r.i-nvirt • ■” ■ 'A’-Av \ \' ^^'^\' '\' '^^<rJ^II''^^.^, i:' •»v *. ol I‘•'Y \V\ \ ' • \ iv* ' / II ••• • ~'\v'm\'T7^r %!■r-• •\vV\ \ x A i ti ra* ’i V . . t ..•'> l\v>|*V * \ * \ , ■ ■' ^ I • . . «• ♦ ' *. '••. — •■ ' iiJ%.• • V «■■■ • • mmm • • «■» • • mi^m • ^ « w—« > • * mm • • mm • • • • mb» • ^ s^m • • m« • fc—4 .> • . ■ \ .. •!• - * .n*- // . •• V. • r» / • • . '. . •• •• . •; 11 •‘•^1 ^ I l~•ALL miLOt CONtTMUCnON ttS»:S8S^. * 9&r^ * masmm1 2 1i!OHAOMOPIAM fc-TE-."" 1 • //- u^jbftfT^ O Exhibit B 46 89 •» r--:*"—v-7TT-r-—C ■‘H:------^------—»-iV. v ■’ -,i-.fk?, ^ * C^'T ri». ■.'‘^ ’ ■- ;. wi— ••♦I•* ^ • .,* ‘ '’"^ ***^**'*^ ** *'^**TrT ‘ *r^ ** — »v|^»« i~*^ -----------r— ~ ■*»!.*;rt W- • ... .*ji &'I '• ' *h • r -o ■•;•■ ''■: ■ •• •. ; tv.'• ■ •. » v. t** ■ '»•.•••.'••. '— I I'-. «•■ .5 •.• J •> PiS^ ir of.'i2-. O IM ■ALU niL0t CONSTflUC7lO*lasaiA MMCMtPIBa irTf RtPmCMCI ^LAMo-S'"----*no-. 10 •• •• - ... „ ^ - • ••• • %•Boulder Retaining iilil Soccer Fields Announcer's Booth/ Overslorage !i ki! Ii!l!! I I I Baseball Field (75*.90' Baselines) Bullpen (2) >' Ougout (2) N Bleacher Seating Skeef House Batting Cages (3) !i i ATotlot/ Play Area Sediment Pond/ Water QsrdenG^ii illA ORONO Minm P 5u>inni u 44 O e oflm 04 kjn.iBini.t^. .isAAk^L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION rAiittMH ttcpTlNQ JUt- 2 2 2002 cityoforono DATE: July 16,2002 ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval:Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Nanc RonMoorse /•I City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Payment Requests-Long Lake Fire Station The City has received four invoices for payment. They are as follows: -Kiric Program Management (Project Manager) for May services: $4625.00 -Kirk Program Management for June services: $4660.00 -SEH-engineering services related to the platting of the property at 340 Willow Drive to create the fire station parcel. The total invoice amount of $ 1,354.55 is to be paid 50% by the City of Orono and 50% firom the Joint Fire Station Fund. -Hennepin County Surveyor-this is the plat check fee charged by the County Surveyor for review of the plat creating the fire station parcel. The total cost of $300.00 is to be paid 50% by the City of Orono and 50% from the Joint Fire Station Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of $4,625.00 and $4,660.00 to Kirk Program Management, to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund; $1,354.55 to SEH, to be funded 50% by the City of Orono and 50% from the Joint Fire Station Fund, and $300.00 to the Hennepin County Surveyor to be funded 50% by the City of Orono and 50% from the Joint Fire Station Fund. 1 r.Ms Page 1 »00/l00*4 I6Z9*9N01 iO Alia ZZ96 9Lf Z96 LZ^tZ Z00Z»90'*UIT r-.' Ilfs STATBIEWT FOR SERVICES KirkProarm Manafluwnt ioc. 1179 Sextant Ave. Vtf. Ro»wille. MN 5S113 11001-02lata; Proiact Wawe; Attantion: a -• • KPMI Proiact Numbar: Long Lake Hra Station Pariod: Miehaita Morse To3 Jun-02 I . * Chtffloa For Tha Currant Billina Pariod QSSfi Il-JIL-Ii Pfotaaaional Serylcata June aaa *«t ^a 4.590.00 »• «B* • • • O 0««Zap. a* . _Jotal Profaaaional Sarvicaa _______........................................................................... Raimbuiaabla Expenses: Mileage _ 4 tripe O 50 Mi. x .35/mi. 4.590.00 0 « 0 70.00 Total Relmburaabla Expariaaa Total This BWIna Pariod 70.00 4t.660^00 Recount Ar^vHy. Total Hourly Fees Billed To Date: 1 $47^5_2_q.M_ Total Reimbursables Billed To Date:$' esTeod Total Billed To Date : --------------T' .................... S 48.216.95_ Td^ Paid To Date: < 1 $ i i 38.931.95* Total Amount Oua $9.285.00 (Includaa $4,625 oast duo amount from Aorll)i f 4,625.00 Pagel i©SSffi JUL 1 5 2002 COO/eOO’d 0C/.9#axvi ONoi io Jixio ZZ96 9i> ZS6 c»:ao zooz.srinr J F INVOICE 9lOMahAvinwWKt,P.O.S«77e.6ayte(«.imSS3l4Hin« 807^7^4 807J37JS16MX trcAiUttHrt • • tMtinnmtMtMl IMIPUMMU: 3S3S VUdnait Cimv Mm. 8l Pm, MN SS110-S1M • 651.4902000 • 100.325^ CITY OF ORONO ATTN MIKEGAFFRON POBOX66 ORONO MN 55323 • • I P • • • •» April 9,2002 Project No; AMGLSU0201.35 Invoice No; 0085974 PRELIMiflARY & FINAL PLAT PART OF SV/1/4 OF SEC 34, TUB. R23. HENNEPIN COUNTY SERVICES TO DATE -PARTIAL INVOICE- Profeeelonal Servicee; March 1.2002 throiioh March 31.2002 Profoaaional Peraonnel Hours Rate Amount LEAD TECHNICIAN 1 3.00 90.00 270.00 SURVEYOR 1 5.00 71.00 355.00 SR WORD PROCESSOR IV 1.00 69.50 69.50 PRINCIPAL 1.50 178.00 267.00 LEAD TECHNICIAN 4.00 98.00 392.00 Totals 14.50 1,353.50 Total Labor Reimburaable Expenae REPRODUCTIONS 1.05 Total Raimburaablea 1.05 Billing Limita Curmnt Prior To-<fate Total Billings 1.354.55 2,157.75 3,512.30 Limit 4.000.00 Remaining 487.70 thia invoice jfy tBld-fitM Start EHoaHtndrielaM Inc.VburTiwMRMOimt Eeal Otaortunly Efflpi^ 1,353.50 1.05 GITYof ORONO Manldpal Ofliccs SkMt AMrtu* 2750 Wkt Parkway Oroflo, MN 553S6 Manat Mdran: P.O. Boa 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323^ June 27,2002 Hennepin County ^ 'veyor A-703 Govemmei ^enter Minneapolis, MN 55487-0073 Re: Plat of Willowfire Addition Dear Hennepin County Surveyor: Enclosed please find check in the amount of $300.00 for the Plat Check Fee for the proposed plat of Willowfire Addition which 1 believe SEH delivered to your office for review in April or Mav of this year. ^ I am also enclosing a copy of the Warranty Deed indicating the City of Orono’s ownership of the property. If you have any quesUons, ple^ contact me at 952-249-4622 (I will be out of the office from , June 28-July 8; if questions prior to July 8, please contact City Administrator Ron Moorse at 952-249-4600). Sincerely, *. Ohfiron, PlanniMichael P. Ohffron, Plarming Director e*((X fiCe: oo end.^ 3 CO, cc: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Tom Stems, SEH ‘Mcphooc(BS2)2«H|60t • flu(9S2)24M6M mmcLoraaojaaou Mi 4» REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION >*rcT|NQ M ? 2 2002 Cl IY Oh OHONO DATE: July 16,2002 ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorsc Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3-Long Lake Fire Station Rochon Corporation, the General Contractor, has submitted Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3 in the amount of $103,750.50. This application has been certified for payment by both the Architect and Project Manager, and a lien waiver related to the amount of this payment has been provided. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3 from Rochon Corporation in the amount of $103,750.50, to be funded from the Joint Fire Fund. BKV Date: Jul7 5.2002 Attantionr^Mkhcbe Projact No.: 15 15.01 CROUP AfChMMur* gingin—ring Address: City of Long Lake' 1 19Mhrk Avenue ........ 222 North 2nd Str««c MifinsapoUft. MN SSdOl Phon«6l2039-37S2 Fmx 612039*6212 P.O. Box 606 Long Uke. MN SS356 Re: Long Lake Fire Station WE ARE SENDING YOU: D S*’®? CD Print* D Plan* CD Samples Q Specifications Q Copy of letter Q Change order [3 Other □ Messenger Q Fax Q Othertransmitted VIA:□ Man COPIFS DATE NO ‘ ■ ' DESCRIPTION ADDllcatJOn ana \»eruriuEe tor raymeni i^u. ^ A ..... ........ ..................... ............... ........... ■.......................................— pew ■------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ these are transmitted as cheeked Wow "1 For approval I] For your use J As requested For review and comment FOR BIDS DUE _--------- Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections Other Resubmit Submit_ Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints □ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Enclosed are two copies of Application and Ce^cate 'or work performed on the Long Uke Fire Station application has been certified in the amount of $103,750.50. Please process for payment to Rochon Corporation. Thank you. Nan Gustafeon COPY TO: Bill Wolters. Constructive Ideas. Wl Jefferson Avenue. Suhe 3M. St. PauL MN 55 102 Bill Hays, Rochon Corporation.3650 Annapolis Lane North. Plymouth. MN 55447 route COPY TO: CABK. 1515.01 Q;\PROJ\l5IS.OI\BUS\C*«r-036.own«*^"n l.dee If anclMurts trt not u nottd. kindly notify us at onca.PrintMl; 7/S/02 r-.TTtnlLliii5i>.ir.rj iSi-fiT WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN, PAYMENT BOND AND LIEN FUNDS July 1.2002 For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives and releases any and all (a) rights and claims for a construction or other lien on land and buildings being constructed, altered, erected or repaired and to the appurtenances thereunto, (b) rights and claims on any payment bond(s) furnished in conjunction with said construction, alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver is owned by City of Long Lake (owner), is located at 340 Willow Drive, Long Lake. MN is described as Long Lake Fire Station and this waiver pertains to a portion of the work to be performed by Rochon Corporation (prime contractor). This waiver covers all labor, material and supplies for construction, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the undersigned under a contract with City of Long Lake through the date of this waiver in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY & 50/100 DOLLARS (S103.7S0.S0). This lien waiver is not valid until the amomit listed above has been received. > VV* V\A.VSAAAAp I GP.‘ .: 1. L'J.'.GHAROT \ ,...rrv:'JC-f.:i.\NES0TA C: r.m C.'ip Jan. 31.2005 Company Name Rochon Corporation f Contractor Waiver Form JeirweHman Its Vice President i k AmiCATION AND CillTIFICATC FOR FAYMENT (SUBSTITUTE AIA DOCUMENT 0702)OM 2 »AOf f TOKMrNllUt Cirr «t unt Ufe« 1964 Lon9 Lafea. MN 99399 raOJfCT; Ufif Uka Fb« Statian 340W«owOrtva Long taka. MN 99356 AmJCATlON MO: 3 moo TO: X JUV02 PIHMMCONTIIACTONI) Noct«n Corpofam 3690 Aivtagala Una N oma . Suna 10I Plv«nawlfi. MN 99447 VU lARCNmCTI: MV OfOiip 223 North 2na Scraat MmapoiM. MN 99401 ANCMITICrS MOJfCT NO:191901 C0NTIIACT60II.ralCaaoM C0NT1UCT OATf: CONTRACTOR S AFFIICATION FOR PAYMENT CNANQE ORDER SUMMARY Changa Ordart tppw id n pravous moncha by Ownar total AOOirioNS DEDUCTIONS Apdrovad ihM Month Numbar Data Adprovad totals 000 000 Nat changa by Changa Ordart 000 Applicacion it maOa for Pavmam. at thowrt baiow. «n coonaction with tha Convacu Conunuation Shoot. Subttituta AlA Oocumont G703 it attachad Tha i^HMrttgnaO Contractor eartifwi that to tha Oaat ot tha Contractor's knowiadgo- «i>ormat«n and oakat tha Work covarad Ov ttwi Aopacaion for Paymant hat Oaan compiatad n cccoroanca with tha Contract Documantt. that at amowntt ha«a Oaan pa<t Ov tha Contractor tor Work for which f’.yMvt Cartificatat for Paymant wara itauad and paymantt racamau from tha Owrtr, and that currant paymant shown haran it now dua CONTAACTOII: Nachoa Carparatian yn Jaff V Data July 1. 2002 1 OAlGlNAL CONTAACT SUM ................ I 2 Nat Changa by Changa Ordart ................... I 3 CONTPACT SUM TO DATE lUw 1 a/.2} ............... I 4 total computed a STOPEO TO OATS.................• iCoUnn G on G703) 9 PE tannage a of Compiatad Work iCokMin 0 ♦ E on G703I 0 of Storad Malarial iCoMnn F on G703' Total Aata«iaga (Lna 9a » 90 or Total n Cokimn I of G703I ..................• 6 total EAPNEO U5S AETAiflAGE ............... I (Lma 4 tail Lra 9 TotaU 7 LESS WEVIOUS CEHTiflCATES FOP PAYMENT iLna 6 from pror Car|if>cital .. .. I 8 CURRENT PAYMENT OUE • 9 balance to finish , plus RETA.NAQE ......... . • _________ILna 3 tan L<na 6l__________________________ Stata of Mamasota County of Harmapm Subtcribad and sworn to tMfora ma th*s 1 st day of Jufv. 2002 1.981.000 00 000 1.981.000 00 206.971 98 10.348 98 196.623 00 92.672 90 103.790 90 1.784.377 00 V' -ri. 3t.2CC5^■^c Cc My CommisSMn aipaas January 3t. 2009 APCHTTiCrS CCPTVICATl EOP PAYMENT In accordanca with tha Contract Oocumants. basad on orvsita obsarvat«ns arxt tha data compnaaig tha about apoKat«n. tha Aicrutact cart.fas to ma Ownar that to tha bast of Iha ArcNtact s knowiadga. aiformston and bakaf iha Work has prograssad as aid<stad. tha QuaMy of tha Work is <n accordanca wim Iha Conuacf Oocumants. and ma Contractor m ontitMd to paymant of tha AMOUNT CERTiPiCO AMOUNT CiPTIFiCO............................ (Attach arpianaton •! amount eoft>fad d>ff#rs from mo amount apo*'#d for I . /o \ 7S3. SO APCHinCT: ST ClRTiFtCO aTNs c4ti'<sA ‘t not ntgotabM Th# AMOUNT CtRTiFtCO M payabM onry to tr^TCornractar namad hartn issuanct paymant and acctotanca of paymant ara without prt|ud<a to any rights of mo Owr^ or Contractor uidar tNs Contract FACE 2 OF 2 CONTINUATION SHEET Subttitutt AIA Oocumtfic G703 lONG LAKE FIRE STATION AmiCATIOKi NUMMII: AmiCATIOfl DATE: nmoo f AOM: TO: CONnUCTOAt FAOJECr NO; 3 IJvM)! lvlufi-02 MnI iia-02 020« coot 01000 01 ISO 02200 02600 02S1 02S1 02460 03300 03410 04200 034S0 05100 05600 06100 06200 06400 07530 07160 07 08100 06360 08300 0881 0880C 09250 09300 900 C 09500 09650 09800 09900 10350 10160 10800 10500 10200 10520 10100 10440 11500 12490 12690 13100 111X 15500 15400 I530C 16000 otscmmoN GEN L AQMTS aONO EAArHWOAK SITE UTlUTlES 3 asphalt paving 5 SITE CONCRETE'SiOEW landscaping CONCRETE PRECAST CONCRETE MASONRY ARCH PRECAST STEEL FABRICATION STEEL ERECTION CARPENTRY carpentry mat LS MiLLWORR ROOfiNG WATERPROOFING AUUUNG HM000RST40WR SECT OVERHEAD DOOR COlUNO DOORS 0|w000 WINDOWS GLASSGLA21NG drvwalleifs CERAMIC quarry Tile acoustical ceiling t CARPET/VINYL tile EPOXY FLOOR painting vinyl FLAG POLES TOILET PARTITIONS TOILET ACCESSORIES LOCa ERS LOUVERS FIRE EXTINGUISHERS Chal K/TACA BOARDS identifying devices residential equip WINDOW BLINDS floor mats vehicle curtain PROJECTION SCREEN MVAC PLUMBING FIRE PROTECTION electrical subtotal FEE SCMtOUUO VALUl 71.824 00 15.6070C' 122.232 00 36 102 00 76 600 00 15.530 00 47.500 00 84.400 00 173 663 00 113.050 00 5.877 00 72.345 00 26.100 00 27.525 00 9.740 CO 32.800 00 114.960 00 600 00 7.075 00 23.514 00 40.000 00 3.865 00 28.555 00 14.280 00 49.200 00 13.795 00 8.776 00 22.797 00 28 239 00 31.380 00 1.512 00 2.766 00 2.73- 00 23.675 00 1.095 00 458 00 1 11200 3 51200 500 00 1.800 00 2.315 00 4.095 00 1.000 00 132.500 00 156.000 00 31.680 00 183 000 00 1.868.305 00 112.695 00 mcvxKrt AmJCATKM 21.698 27 15.607 00 55.000 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ooo 000 ooo 000 ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo 800.00 93.105 27 4.655 26 TMS A^nCATUN 6.335 69 000 52 732 00 1.652 00 OOO OOO 000 19 000 00 OOO 7.000 00 OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo 000 ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo oco oco ooo oco ooo ooo ooo 2.000 00 ooo ooo 000 88.719 69 6.614 38 iroACO MATIAMa TOTAt. TO OATI 000 OOO OOO OOO ooo OOO OOO oco occ ooo 5.877 00 ooo 000 ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooc oco oco ooo ooo ooo 0 CO oco ooo oco oco oco ooo oco ooo ooo ooo ooo oco oco ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo 8.000 00 13.877 00 ooo 29.033 96 15.607 00 107.732 00 1.652 CO oco OCO OCO 19.000 CO OOO 7.000 CO 5.877 00 OCO 0 :o ooo ooo oco ooo oco ooc OCO ooo OCO oco OCO ooo oco oco OCO OCO oco oco oco oco ooo ooo oco cco oco ooo oco oco ooo ooo 2.000 00 ooo ooo 8.800 00 195.701 96 11.269 62 39 100 88 5 0 0 0 23 0 6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 10 10 TOHMAiM 43.790 04 OOO 14.500 00 34.450 00 76 600 00 15.530 00 4 7.500 00 65.400 00 173.663 00 106.050 00 OOO 72.945 00 26. ICO 00 27.525 00 9.740 00 32 800 00 114.980 00 600 00 7.075 00 23.514 00 40.000 00 3 865 00 28 555 00 14 280 00 49.200 00 13.795 00 8.776 00 22.797 00 28 239 00 31.380 00 1.51200 2.766 00 2 734 00 23.675 00 1.095 00 458 00 1.11200 3 51200 500 00 1.800 00 2 315CO 4 095 CO 1.000 00 130 500 00 156.000 00 31.680 00 174.200 00 1.672.603 04 101.425 38 NtTAlMAOt 1.401 69 760 35 5.386 60 82 60 OOO ooo ooo 950 00 000 350 00 293 85 OCO oco ooo ooo ooo ooo oco oco ooo ouo ooo ooo ooo ooo oco ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo 100 00 ooo ooo 440 00 9.785 09 583 49 TOTAL «! ’■m mmmi ■irnn miuuii i ci am-trci mrssn L.Tip n 11^ nfr fTVTr mm r ntl iniltfcf i * J t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION xrcTlNQ JUL j) 2 2002 ClIYUhUHUfvu DATE: JulylS, 2002 ITEM NO: 0 Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Joint Fire Station Account Excess Funds The Cities of Orono and Long Lake have agreed to place approximately $4.2 million into a joint account, to be used to fund the construction of the replacement Long Lake fire station. If the entire amount placed into the account is not used for the fire station, the balance will be owned 50% by Orono and 30% by Long Lake. Based on co't estimates and bids received, it is clear that a substantial portion of the funds will not be needed to complete the fire station project. The total cost of the project is now projected to be S3.25 million. If we are conservative and assume a cost of S3.35 million, the unused amount would be $850,000. Staff recommends this amount be withdrawn from the joint account at this time, to be divided evenly between the Cities of Orono and Long Lake. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the withdrawal of $850,000 from the Joint Fire Station Account, to be divided evenly between the Cities of Orono and Long Lake. JUL 2 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ciTYOh OROwo DATE: July 16,2002 ITEM NO: JL I Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Renewal of Maple Plain Fire Service Agreement The cities served by the Maple Plain Fire Department (MPFD) have been very satisfied with the high quality of fire service provided by the MPFD. However, the cities have a number of concerns regarding the magnitude of recent cost increases, and the lack of information regarding the cost increases. In addition, the cities are interested in pursuing the fire district concept as a more cost- effective method of organizing for fire service delivery in the Lake MinnetonkaAVest Hennepin County area. Because the process of pursuing the fire district concept will take a considerable period of time, the cities are interested in renewing the fire service contract with Maple Plain for 2003..The cities have agreed that the renewal is to be subject to the costs to the contract cities for 2003 remaining at the 2002 level. If the City of Maple Plain does not agree to this condition, the cities are prepared to obtain fire service from alternate providers. Because the cities must provide written notice of non renewal to Maple Plain by August 1, the cities have requested written assurance from Maple Plain by July 23 regarding maintaining costs at the 2002 level. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize non-renewal of the Maple Plain Fire Service Agreement for 2003, if the City of Maple Plain does not agree to hold the 2003 fire service costs to the contracting cities at the 2002 level. 4 I ^ Afci^tNQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 2 2 2002 cirvut^OHONu DATE: July 16,2002 ITEM NO: ^ ^ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator ’s Title City Administrator /I Report Item Description: Resignation of Marc Davis Marc Davis was employed by the City as a Building Inspector for approximately three years. Marc submitted his resignation elective July 9, 2002. He is pursuing other opportunities in northern Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the resignation of Marc Davis from the position of Building Inspector effective July 9,2002. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: JUL 2 2 2002 CITY Ut OHUNO 7- / 7- Item No: 3 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Stephany Good Chief of Police / Item Description: Bad Check Program Agreement Exhibits: Draft Agreement Attached DISCUSSION The Orono Police Department is currently the investigating agency for dishonored checks which are issued in Orono, Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park. Issuing non-sufficient fund (NSF) or account closed checks are misdemeanor thefts for which minimal sanctions are levied by courts.' The volume of bad checks exhausts the police department’s investigative resources. Area merchants submit checks to the police department for processing, but are often unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to prosecute violators (obtaining identification, identifying subjects from phuto displays, providing formal statements, training clerks to testify in court, etc). Retailers are primarily interested in receiving payment, not in prosecuting violators. The Orono Police Department would like to formalize an agreement with a company known as the Retailer’s Protection Association (RPA) that provides diversion for first time check offenders. RPA will work with businesses, generate demand notices to bad check writers, provide financial management education classes for offenders and set up restitution where the business will be reimbursed. Offenders will pay the cost of the educational program. RPA will refer otTenders who fail to participate in the program for prosecution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve bad check program agreement between Retailer’s Protection Association and the City of Orono. 'Forged checks are felonies and do not qualify for diversion. • ^ 1*. • _ _DRAFT BAD CHECK PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF ORONO, MN Conifaciuat Agreement - This Agreement is nude and entered into this day of 2002» by and between the City of Orono, Sute of Minnesota, and Retailers Protection Association TRPA** hereafter), of P.O. Box 981, Anoka, Minnesou. Purpose - The purpose of this Agreement shall be to implement a Bad Check Program for the City of Orono. This program provides an altrmative to criminal prosecution of individuals who issue dishonored check(s) to merchants and businesses. The program will assist the Orono Police Department and other law enforcement agencies in obtaining records to assist in the investigation and prosecution of individuals issuing dishonored checks. This program will provide that the victim is paid full restitution from the offender who has issued the dishonored check along with fuiancial training for the first-time offender. First-time offenders who participate in this program will be diverted from prosecution. The Bad Check Program will bo administered by RPA. RPA will assist the Cit)' Attorney in obtaining full restitution for victims of non-sjfficient funds (NtJF) checks and account closed checks. RPA is respons-*'»le for managing pertinent case files and conducting financial education classes for first time offenders 3,Contract Terms • This Agreement shall be in force for a period of three (3) years, beginning upon the date of city approval. Termination provisions ot this Agreement arc provided in sections 9 and 11. ‘ Definitions: A. B. D. I tenm - the business or person w ho accepted a dishonored checks for goods or services and surTered the financial loss. The vicnm must be in good standing with the City of Orono licensing Department. Offender - the mdividual who has enrolled in the Bad Check Program voluntarily or has been ordered by the Coun to complete the Bad Check Program. Restitution Recovery - Dollar recovery of face value (or wnnee amount) of ihe dishonored checks as well as administranve fees, civil penalties, bank fees as appropriate and iaw cnibrcemem cosia Financial Education Class Fees - The fees associated with the training classes the offender anends as part of their restitution Agreement. Version I Apiil 2002 r •DRAFT City Support - The following is needed for the implementation of the program: A. City Attorney and Police designees will assist RPA in organizing and implementing the restitution program with courts and law enforcement personnel. The designee will also provide guidance in publicizing the program to the business community. B. City Attorney and Police designees will conduct regular meetings with key RPA staff to OiTer procedural guidance, evaluate program performance, and provide support and direction. C. City Attorney and Police Department shall implement departmental policies that are consistent with the fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement. Performance Agreement • RPA agrees to provide the following professional services to the City of Orono in a timely and efficient manner. RPA will provide the follomrg level of administrative services and offender education classes: A. Perform daily operations and management of all clerical and accounting functions related to offenders of NSF checks (o be included in the Orono Bad Check Program. B. Generation of demand notices to bad check uriters, and follow through with respect to the collection and disbursement of victim restinition. administrative fees, and RPA education training class fees. C. Provide necessary correspondence and follow-up telephone inquiries to victims and offenders. D Properly mainiain all physical files, financial records, documerutior.. reports, computer files, etc. for a penod of no more than si.\ (O) years E Provide voiuniar. (unless mandated by su:e statuies* bad check offender fisancial iTunagemer.: educanon classes RP.A will corduc: classes designed to teach and provide nranngful iniormanon to offender or. cnirural consequences of virinr.c bad checks, as well as focus on personal finance manageiticn:. Class size will vary igcnerally 15-20 offenders) F. Schedulmc of all classes will be coordma^cd with the City. The sung will require 6 to 8 hours of class time. Sessions will be held ir uie City* uf Orono and <or surrounding area. These training sessions may be jointly held with other metro communities. This vill help to ensure IS to 20 offenders can be scheduled in a session. G. .Maintain records of offenders making restitution, payment of fees, attendance records of offenders completmc well as failing to anend the financul management training session. n.Mamtain records of pavment to the v iciimi and City of Orono fees on a monthly basis. I. Provide monthly reports to the City of Orono of annual, quarterly, monthly financial revenues, completed offender classes, and related reports as required by the City and law* enforcement. J. Offenders w ho refuse to enroll into the program or fail to complete the bad check program w*ill be reported. Version I April 2002 DRAFT 7. 8. 1 ?• « 12. Program Operational Fees/Revenue: A. The victim will be reimbursed flrst at face value of the dishonored check (or other agreed upon amount) from any money recovered from the offender. B. Minnesota Statutes, section 332.50, authorizes ihe recovery of a civil penalty fee from offenders for issuance of a dishonored check and further describes when and uhat portion of that penalty fee is to be retained by the law enforcement agency. If RPA collects this fee from an offender, it will pay incremental fee portion to the City of Orono as determined by this statute. C. The fee for offenders to attend the educational class will be S8S.00. This fee will be retained by RPA to conduct these classes. This class may be waived by RPA, provided that the offender pays the face value and civil penalty within seven (7) working days. D. A fee of S 10.00 will be assessed to an offender who fails to appear at education class and has to re-schedule for the class. This fee will be assessed each time the offender has to re schedule. This may occur up to three (3) times before referring the offender to the Police as failing to appear. Son-Comnete - The City shall not establish a competing bad check program or participate in another program offering the same or similar serv ices as those described in this Agreement. 9. Acreentetif Date - This Agreement shall remain in effect from 2002, to , 2005. And shall be automatically renewable annually. Either party may give a lluriy-day (30) notice in writing that said party wishes to terminate this Aureement. On* has no financial liahilin' - It is understood and agreed by and between parties that RPA any subcontractor (CSS) will bear all financial liability for all aspects cf theu operabons under this Aiireemcni. Termination of this agreement .A. This Agreement may be lerminaicd by cither parrv for cause upon 30 cav's wnitea notice to RP.A or the au^orized agent of the City for cause. Cause is defined is either party's failure K* fulfill the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by RPA upon 30 days wnnen nonce to the authorized agent of the City if RPA determines that it cannot conduct or admimster the Bad Check program because program-related income does not equal program costs. B. This Agreement may be immediaicly terminated by the City a: any tuvif if the City determines that RPA and or (fss (Computer Support Services, see secnon 16 of diis Agreement) is acting, or has acted at any time dunng the icnn of this Agrecracn:. m \iolauon of state or federal law. Amendments or Material Modifications - All amendments or modificabons to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by both parties. 13. /V/i City Obligation to Merchants - RPA.^CSS. and victims who paiticipate in this program fully understand that the Bad Check^Program is providing a public senicc and the City of Version l Apnl 2002 DRAFT r. IS Orono is held hamtless and has no liability to nuke recovery of any chcck(s) or obligated to uke criminal action against offender(s). Criminal Action - The City Attorneys Office for the City of Orono may choose to prosecute ofTender(s) at their sole discretion. In the case where the offender fails to participate or con^Iete Agreements with RPA and victim(s). Hold Harmless and Indemnification: A. RPA and CSS shall save and protect, hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, its ofTicers and employees against any and all claims, causes of action, suits, liabilities, losses, charges, damages or costs and expenses arising from or allegedly arising from, cr resulting directly or indirectly from any professional errors and omissions and'or negligent or uillfiil acts or omissions of RPA and CSS its employees and agents, in the performance of this Agreement. B. llic City shall save and protect, hold harmless, indemnify and defend RPA and CSS, its officers and employees against any and all claims, causes of action, suits, liabilities, losses, charges, damage.s or costs and expenses arising from or allegedly arising from or resulting directly or indirectly from any professional enors and omissions and'or negligent or willful acts or omissions of the City, its employees and agents, in the Performance of this Agreement. Independent Contractor: A. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of employer/employee between the parties. RPA shall at all times renuin as independent contractor with respect to the scr\ ices to be provided under luis Agreement. B. The City shall be c.xempt from pavTnent of all uncmplo>Tnent insurance, FICA, retirement, life and medical insurance and workers* compensation insurance for any and all of RPA’s and CSS*s employees and agents. Pa.vmeni of insurance premiums. withholding, and a!’ other benefits are smelly RPA and CSS responsibility C PvP.A may represem itself ar: ihi administrator of the Bad Check Resr.runen and Diversion programs fer the Cm o: Orono RP.A and CSS shall no: otherwise rerrrsen: on behalf of me Orono Cm Anomey s OtTice. Orono Police Department or City cf Oronc Subcontractor - RP.A shall neither subcontract any portion of the wxirk to be penormed under this Agreement nor assign this Agreement without the pnor wjinen approval of the authorized agent of the City*. The only exception is to use CSS as a subcontraaor. RPA shall ensure and require that the subcontractor agrees to and complies with all of the terms of this Agreemrca Subcontra ♦or of RPA used to perform any portion of this Agreement shall report to and bill RPA directly. RPA shall be solely responsible for the breach pertormance. or nonperformance o‘* 'hn subcontractor. Data Practice - RP.A agrees to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable suie and federal laws relating to data pnvac> or confidcnualU The RPA will imniediaiel) report to the department head sigmng this agreement any request horn a third parties for information relaiuig to thus agreement. The City agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from RPA concerning data request. P*PA agrees to hold the City*, its officers, department head and employees hariuless from any claims resulting from the Contractor’s unlawful disclosure or use of data protected under sute and federal laws Compliance with the Law • RPA agrees to abide by the requirements and regulauons of The Amcncan with Disabilities Act of 1990 (AD.A), the Minncsou Human Rights Act (Mino. Stat. C.563). Ciwl Rights Ordinance (Ch 139).4and Title \ 11 of the Civil Rights .Act ofl964. These Version I Apnl 2002 L., DRAFT 20. 21. Uws deal with discrimination based on race, gender, disabilities, religion, and with sexual harassment, the city agrees to promptly supply all necessary clarifications. Violation of any of the above can lead to the termination of this Agreement. Fmihe Agreement - This entire Agreement supersedes any and all other Agreements, either oral or wTitten, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject maner hereof, and conuins all of the AgreemenU between the parties with respect to said matter. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or Agreements, oral or otherwise, have been made by either party which arc not embt^ied herein, and that no other Agreements, statements, or promises not contained within this Agreement shall be valid or binding. All provision contained within this Agreement shall be valid or binding. The laws of Minnesota and the United States of America shall govern all provisions within this Agreement. Audits and Inspections - The City Anomey’s office or designated representative or other governmental agency exercising regulatory function ove, the City’s business activities, W'hilc exercising reasonable, non-disruptive procedures, may inspect RPA and'or CSS records at anytime. Notice - Any notice to be given hereafter by cither party to the other, shall be in wiiting and may be aftected by personal delivery, or by registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the proper party, at the following addresses: insuraitce - RPA agrees to provide ard maintain, at its own cost and at all times during its performance under this contract until completion of the work, such liability insurance coverage as are set forth below. and ic otherwise co' ^y with the provision that follow: \Nbrkcrs Compensation Wor. s eompensaiion insurance in compliance with all applicable siaratei Employer’s Liability Coverage: Shall also maintain in at leas* the following amounts: ’. Bodiiy iTijur. cy accident 2. Bodily miur. by disease Bodily injury by disease 5 1 C*-J.000 each accident 51 00.000 each en^loyee 5500.000 policy* liinit Such Employer's Liability coxerace limits may be afforded by a primary policy in combination with an umbrella or Excess liability Policy (or Policies) “drop downs” to respond immediately over any reduced underlying policy limits C. General Liability “Commercial General Liability insurance" (Insurance Service Office policy form title), or equivalent policy toriiu proviamg coverage on an “occurrence", rather ttian on j claims made basis, the policy for which shall include, but not limited to. coverage for bodily* injury, property aarr.age. personal injury, contractual liability (applying to this contract). Independer: Contraciors. and Products-'"‘ompIeted Operations Liability. Coverage tor explosions, collapse and underground Hazards shall not be included. Such a policy shall name the city as an additional insured thereunder, and shall apply on a primary basis w ith respect to any similar insurance maintained by the City, which other insurance of the City, if any. shall apply excess of RPA’s insurance and not contributed therewith. RPA agrees to maintain Products-Compleie Operations coverage on a continuing basis for period of at least two after date of completion Version ! Apnl 2002 L... ___...... DRAFT Such Commercial General Liability insurance policy shall provide a combined single limit in ^ amount of at least SI,000,000 (one million) Each Occuiience, applying to liability for bodily injury and property damage, and a combined single limit of at least the same amount applying to liability for Personal injury and Advertising injury. Such minimum limits may be satisfied by the limit afforded under Firm's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, or by such Policy in combination with limits afforded by a Unibrella or Excess Liability Policy (or policies); provid^ that the coverage afforded under any such Uihbrella or Excess Policy is at least in ait material respectt as broad as that afforded by the underlying Commercial Liability Policy, and further that the City is included as an additional Insured thereunder. Such Commercial General Liability Policy and Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy (or policies) may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverage afforded thereunder, so long as such aggregated limits are not at any time during which such coverage is required to be maintained hereunder reduced to less than the required Each Occurrence limited stated above, and further, that the Umbrella or Excess Liability provides from the point that such aggregate limits in the underlying Commercial General Liability Policy become reduced or exhausted. An Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy which "drops down" to respond immediately over reduced underl^g limits, or in place of exhausted underlying limits, but subject to a deductible or "retention" amount, shall be acceptable in this regard so long as such deductible or retention amount does not cause the firm total deductibles or retention for Each Occurrence to exceed SI0,000. D. Professional Liability; Professional (or "Error St Omissions") Liability insurance in the amount of at least S500,000. Each Occunence (or "Wrongful Act" or equivalent) and if applicable. Aggregate, covering RPA's Liability for negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of professional services in connection with this Agreement. RPA’s Professional Liability Insurance nuy afford coverage on an occurrence basis or on a claims basis. It is however, acknowledged and agreed by the RPA that under claims-made coverage changes in insurers or in insurance policy forms could result in tlie impairment of the liability insurance protection intended for the City hereunder. RP.\ therefore agrees that it will not seek or voluntarily accept any such clunge in its Professional Liability Insurance coverage if such impairment of the protection for the City could result: and further, that it will exercise it’s right under any Extended Reponinc Period " rtail coverage") or similar claims-made policy opbon if necessary or appropnate to avoiding impairment of such protection. RP.A funner agrees that it will, throughout the es'ure pence of required coverage and for a addmocal penod of two (2) years foUovvutc compienor. c: -jui agreement, immediately: ia> advise ±e Ctr. c:' any intended or pending caaace in Professional Ltability inures or in policy forms, and provided the City widi all pertinent iniormation that the Cir. may reasonably request to detenmne compliance with this paragiap'r.; and (b) advise the City of any claims or tiuea: of claims that might reasonably be expected to reduce the amount of such insurance remain av ailable for the proiecnon of the City. Veision 1 April 200' 1 I • t \ DRAFT THEREFORE: WITNESS OF, the parties have executed the Agreement u of the data first written above Retailers Protection Association, Inc.City of Orono (Executive Director, John McCullough)(hfayor) RPA Federal ID #Attested (City Clerk) Countersigned, Finance Officer City's Affirmative Action Approval ^ Approved as to Form: City Attorney STATB OF MINNESOTA: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN: On tfiis ____ day __1999. before me ■ppeored ________________ ID me pcrBonally kno«m. mho bemg duly inwm did ay tet duy ire fcprcMnttlivcly the And_____________________________of RPA. Inc., the covporaiksi dcKiibed beiein md edio eianiiid die IbreiMi innnimem: diet said ■taeumou mu caaniied on behalf of Slid co rpor idon by the iudiorily of tt*s Board of Dimon. and said • ______________________aid __________________________actaioMadfeaaidinmmaBtiobeduaaeactaiddoodof md corporation. Notary Public My commUrion a^m- Version I ApHI 2002 JUL 2 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OH OHONO DATE: JulylS, 2002 ITEM NO =«;?/ Department Approval: Naiac RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report (7 Item Description: Selection of Work Session Dates It is necessary for the Council to select a set of work session dates for late July and through August. The first work session should be scheduled during the period July 25 to August 1. A set of three budget work session dates should be selected for the month of August. The first should be scheduled the week of August 12. The next two can be scheduled in the succeeding two weeks, approximately one week apart. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select dates and times for work sessions in July and August. 1 a/- ■ ------- 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL 2 2 2002 DATE: ITEM NO; i. ■1 ____________ JUL 2 2 2002 OUYOI-OHONO CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 07/10/028:15 AM Page 1 JULY 2002 Check Affil Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash — PaUChki 073900 7/t0A)2 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION G 101-21711 Credit Union $10,485.00 SAVINGS W/H S TRANSFERRED Total CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION $10,485.00 Paid Chk# 073901 moioz FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Q 101-21701 G 101-21703 G 101-21703 Federal Withholding FICA Tax Withholding FICATaxWahholding $10,607.76 $4 595.53 $4,595.53 FEDERAL W/H FICA& MEDICARE W/H FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE Tout FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $19.798 82 Paid Chk« 073902 7/10A)2 ICMA RETIREHENT TF G 101-21705 Other Retirement Tout ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 $300.00 $30000 PaidChfc* 073903 7/t0/02 LAW ENFORCMENT1ABOR SERVICE O 101-21707 Union Duet $0-00 Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $0.00 PaktChKff 073904 7/10/02 MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR 0101-21712 Other Deductions $242.27 Total MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR $242.27 Paid Chki 073905 7/10/02 MN DEPT OF REVENUE G 101-21702 State Withholding $4,192.63 Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $4,192.63 Paid Chk# 073906 7/10A)2 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST G 101-21705 Other Relifomenl $2,289 68 Total ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2,289.68 Paid Chk* 073907 7/10/02 PEBSCO/OBRA • 0101-21705 Other Retirement $244.05 Total PEBSCON)BRA $244 05 Paid Chk* 073908 7/10A)2 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS G 101-21705 Other Retirement $2,327.00 Total PEBSCOAJS CONF OF MAYORS $2,327.00 PaidOik* 073909 7/10/02 PUBUC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT G 101-21704 PERA $6,786.84 G 101-21704 PERA $5,257.37 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $12,044.21 Paid Chk* 073910 7/10/02 UNITED WAY 0 101-21708 United Way Total UNITED WAY $50.00 $50.00 Paid CM* 07$911 7710/02 WISCONSIN SCTF 0101-21712 Other Deductions Total WISCONSIN SCTF $184.62 $184.62 10100 PrIniaiyCash $52,158.28 DEFERRED COMP UNION DUES MOROWCZYNSKI *0014456477 STATE T/U(W/H MN STATE RETIREMENT OBRA DEFERRED COMP USCM - ENTITY 2339 PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS JOHNSON *0002758898 CITY OF ORONO o chock register 07/10/027:01 AM Page 1 Chtck Numter Employe Naino 051394 0S1395 051396 051397 05139S 051399 051400 051401 051402 051403 051404 051405 051406 051407 051406 051409 051410 051411 051412 051413 051414 051415 051416 051417 051418 051419 051420 051421 051422 051423 051424 051425 051426 051427 051428 051429 051430 051431 051432 051433 051434 051435 051436 051437 051438 051439 051440 051441 051442 051443 051444 051445 DODGE. RACHEL M. JOHNSON. MARYANN LESKINEN. DENISE M. MOORSE. RONALD J. VEE. LINDAS. KUEHN. THOMAS M. OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K. ANDERSON. BRUCE L BOBZIEN. SUE A. BORIS. SCOTT W. BUdG. STACIE M. CARLSON. MICHAEL B. CORNICK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI. JAY C. ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L FISCHENICH. DAN T. FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANYR. HENDRICKS. RONALD J. JOHNSON. JEFFREY LARSON. NELL E. MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAM R. SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK.MARKW. WITTKE. ANTHONY A ARNESON. JOSHUA A. LEE. JOSEPH P. BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A BOTTENBERG. WENDY C. DAVIS. MARC L GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA. GREGORY A. KANGAS. JAMES K MEYER. WILLIAM C. OMAN. LYLE E. WEINBERGER. PAUL E. BRINKHAUS. JOHN F. DEBAERE. DONALD L GREGORY. JAMES D. HANSEN.STEVEN OBERAIGNER. SCOTT a OBRIEN. RANDY L PALMER. GREGORY A RATHBUN. BARRY J SKREEN. DALE S. ABRAHAMSON. FRED W. PayP«rlod 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Ch%ck Amount $991.69 $652.05 $791.74 $7.80 $1,194.99 $990.31 $102.07 $439.38 $1,471.38 $727.79 $419.88 $779.25 $1,020.79 $2,416.19 $2,001.79 $1,483.87 $2.139 60 $1,521.79 $540.96 $2,038.04 $892.50 $1,057.54 $526.72 $701 02 $581.54 $1,389.78 $82.52 $1,571.93 $702.66 $1,403.91 $1,359.51 $784 93 $326.06 $1,016.13 $1,122.84 $178.43 $1,351.13 $1.760 33 $57541 $631.12 $153.98 $1,443.58 $1,319.70 $1,033.93 $1,208.47 $1,033.18 $828.58 $991.93 $824.73 $1,052.79 $1,116.63 $134.07 Ch«cli Date Chtck Status 7/KV02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstandkig 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 OutstancSng 7/10/02 OuNtandlng 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10A)2 Outstandkig 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstancflng 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10A)2 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10A)2 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10A)2 Outstancaog 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 OutsUnding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 OutsUnding 7/10/02 OutsUnding 7/10/02 OuUtanding 7/10/02 Outstanding 7/10/02 OuUUndIng 7/10/02 OutstandUg 7/10/02 OuUUndUg 7/10/02 OiitstandUg - /IP-* —1 o CITY OF ORONO clMck ragistor 07/KV027.D1AM Pig«2 ClMCh Number EmptoyM Nam* Pay Parted TUUUOL 1 Chack Amount Clwck Date Chack Stetua 051446GOLDSMITH. FAULT.$129.74 7/10/02 OutftUfHliog 051447 JENSEN. RODNEY W.14 1330.92 7/10/02 Outstanding 051446 MARSELLA. DAN 0.14 1236.69 7/10/02 Outotanding 051449 MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E.14 6163.46 7/10/02 Outstanding 091450 OAS. DANIEL O.14 $213.56 7/10/02 OutsUnding 091451 PEICKERT.GARY J 14 $353.66 7/10/02 Outstanding 051452ROSS. JOHN A.14 7/10/02 Outstanding 051453SMYTH, KATHERINE R.14 $163 55 7/10/02 Outstanding 051454STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD 14 $1,349.62 7/10/02 Outstanding 051455STORK. JOHNT.14 $257.93 $54.294 64 7/10/02 Outstanding ) r t if U CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® JULY 2002 Chtck Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash Paid Chk# 073784 7/22/2002 MINNEAPOLIS COM S TECH COLLEGE E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories ($50.17) 720622 Void Check 73784 Paid Chk# 073914 7/22/2002 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES 07/19/02 9:08 AM Pagel ToUl MINNEAPOLIS COM ft TECH COLLEGE ($50.17) Paid Chk« 073895 7/8/2002 VERIZON DIRECTORIES E 601-49400-321 Telephone ($14.23) 10034585141 Void Check 73895 E 602-49450-321 Telephone ($14 22) 10034585141 Void Check 73895 Total VERIZON DIRECTORIES • ($2845) Paid Chki 073913 7/18/2002 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 601-49400-322 Postage $76 77 Utility 2002 2nd Qtr Utility Bills E 602-49450-322 Postage $19196 Utility 2002 2nd Qtr Utility Bills E 651-49910-322 Postage $191 Utility 2002 2nd Qtr Utility Bills Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $460 69 E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $67.40 6013-260621 Coffee ToUl ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $67.40 ^aid Chk# 073915 7/22/2002 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $50.62 30901 Hot Dogs. Hamburgers ToUl AUGIES MOBILE CHEF $50 62 Paid Chk# 073916 7/22/2002 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $2121.169312 Annual Software Support E 601-49400-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $173.75 9312 Annual Software Support E 602-49450-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $521 25 9312 Annual Software Support Total BANYON DATA SYSTEMS $2.816 16 Paid Chk# 073917 7/22/2002 BLACKOWIAK S SON E 101-41900-319 Other Professional Services $191.72 10136579 Waste Service 6/02 E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $157 80 10136595 Waste Service 6/02 E 613-49830-319Other Professional Services $7233 10136614 Waste Service 6/02 E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $157.80 10136653 Waste Service 6/02 E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $65.75 10136688 Waste Service 6/02 E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $7890 10136701 Waste Service 6/02 Tout BLACKOWIAK S SON $724.30 Paid Chk« 073918 7/22/2002 BUDGET PRINTING E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $27831 21659 Report Covers. Stamp. Tabs E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $138 40 21748 Letterhead - PO E 101-42110-322Postage $816 22036 Shipping Charges E 101-42110-322Postage $9.48 7/12A)2 Shipping Charges Tout BUDGET PRINTING $434 35 Paid Chk# 073919 7/22/2002 BUSINESS FORMS S ACCOUNTING E 602.49450-201 Office supplies $25812 29595 . utility Bills E 601.49400-201 Office supplies $86.03 29595 Utility Bins ToUl BUSINESS FORMS S ACCOUNTING $344.15 Paid Chk# 073920 7/22/2002 CARDIAC SCIENCE E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Total CARDIAC SCIENCE $163.04 60422 Defib Pads $163.04 Paid Chk# 073921 7/22/2002 CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 07/19/02 9 08 AM Page 2 JULY 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 10M2260.318 Fire Seivicss $36,935 00 71002 Fire Service - 2nd Qtr 2002 ToUl CITY OF LONG UKE $36.935 00 Paid Chk# 073922 7/22/2002 CITY OF WAYZATA E 601 -49400-387 Intergovernmental Services $2.276 79 Water Purch Water 2nd Qtr 2002 ToUl CITY OF WAYZATA $2.276 79 Paid Chk# 073923 7/22/2002 CLASSIFIEDS E 231.45650.340 General Advertising $37 50 14118 Adv - 78 Panel Van E 231 -45650-340 General Advertising $31 00 14119 Adv - 66 Pontiac ToUl CLASSIFIEDS $68 50 Paid Chk# 073924 7/22/2002 CONNELLY INOUSTRUL ELEC. E 602-49450-406 Repairs/Maint-Swr lines/lifts $254 80 7101 Repairs - GS #7 ToUl CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC. $254 80 Paid Chk# 073925 7/22/2002 CYS UNIFORMS E 101 -42110-226 Clothing & personal equiprrent J83S0 10169 Uniform Shirts - J Johnson ToUl CYS UNIFORMS $83 90 Paid Chk# 073926 7/22/2002 DAKOTA CO. TECHNICAL COLLEGE E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $150 00 6/2002 Use of Force - Arneson ToUl DAKOTA CO. TECHNICAL COLLEGE $15060 Paid Chk# 073927 7/22/2002 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. E 613-49900-091 Beer For Resale $3510 183660 Beer for Resale E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $47.60 183660 Snacks for Resale ToUl DAY DISTRIBUTING CO.$8270 Paid Chk# 073928 7/22/2002 DCA-WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts $1^3q_50 7/10/02 Spending Accounts 7/10 ToUl DCA-WIRE ONLY $i.030.50 Paid Chk# 073929 7/22/2002 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY E 101-42110-414 EDP/Communications Equip Rent $510 00 MN02715002L CJDN Connect ToUl DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY $510 00 Paid Chk# 073930 7/22/2002 DIAMOND MOWERS E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessones $77^21 4678 Bolt Flail Clevis ToUl DIAMOND MOWERS $77 21 Paid Chk# 073931 7/22/2002 DODGE. RACHEL E 101-41300-437 Training & Development $165 98 7/15/02 Mileage/Parking • Training ToUl DODGE. RACHEL $165 98 7/22^002Paid Chk« 073932 G 101-19999 Suspense Account Tout ENCHANTED GARDEN FLORAL ENCHANTED GARDEN FLORAL $3563 $3563 1585 Plant • S Good Paid Chk# 073933 7/22/2002 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS E 101 -43000 224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $5112 E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Matenais/Suppty $15 34 ToUl ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS $66.46 31639 31721 Copies Copies Paid Chk# 073934 7/22/2002 EULL’S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies ToUl EULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. Manhole Rings $5245 CITY OF ORONO 07/1W02 9 0SAM Page 3 *Check Detail Register© JULY 2002 Checli Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk« 073935 7/22/2002 OAK SERVICES E 602-49450-226 Clothing & personal equipment $33 55 257812 Uniforms E 101-43000-226 Clothing & personal equipment $7827 257812 Uniforms E 613-49830-226 Clothing A personal equipment $7.72 257813 Uniform - Steffenhagen E 601-49400-226 Clothing A personal equipment $1408 257814 Uniform - Rathbun E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $5219 264682 Shop Towels E 101-43000-226 Clothing A personal equipment $65 35 264682 Uniforms E 602-49450-226 Clothing A personal equipment $2801 264682 Uniforms E 613-49830 226 Clothing A personal equipment $7.88 264683 Uniform - Steffenhagen E 601-49400-226 Clothing A personal equipment $1443 264684 Uniform • Rathbun E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $50 66 271547 Mat Service - Adm E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $5066 271549 Mat Service - CC Tout GAKSERVICES $402^ Paid Chki 073936 7/22/2002 GENUINE PARTS CO. E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $1999 2571859 Trir Bali E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessones $2457 695866 Bulb. Tune-up E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessones $81.03 696186 Jack E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $1639 696489 Shop supplies E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $47.19 697072 Oil Filters E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessones $20.96 697164 Fuel Filter E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $7453 698596 Water Pump E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessones $68 65 698713 Belt. Tune-up E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessones $6 30 698840 Parts - Chipper E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessones $20.60 698853 Air Filter E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $33.26 699245 Cap. Plugs. Rotor E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $58 24 699809 Bearings E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $89 33 699810 Motor E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessones $40 45 699871 Seals E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $20 22 910634 Armor All Total GENUINE PARTS CO.$621 71 Paid Chki 073938 7/22/2002 GILLQUIST. JANET R 101-34420 Cond Use-Variance-Dev Fees $250.00 Refund Refund ■ AppI 02-2802 ToUl GILLQUIST. JANET $250 00 Paid Chki 073939 7/22/2002 GOLF CAR MIDWEST E 613-49830-415 Other Equipn>ent Rentals $1.740 00 09904 Golf Cart Rental Total GOLF CAR MIDWEST $1.740 00 Paid Chki 073940 7/22/2002 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE E 101-42400-437 Training A Development $133 00 9965 Land Use Wrkshps - Sm4h Total GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE $133 00 Paid Chki 073941 7/22/2002 GREEN PRO E 613-49830-223 BkJg/Grounds Mamt Supplies $1.05844 1114 Fertilizer ToUl GREEN PRO $1,058.44 Paid Chki 073942 7/22/2002 HEAD LITES E 101-43000-226 Clothing A personal equipment $38 07 Sl-23908 Saf^Veat Total HEAD LITES $38 07 Paid Chki 073943 7/22/2002 E 613^9630-223 Bldg/Grounds Mamt Supplies Total HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE $16 3® 23949 $16 39 Planti. Spreader Rental CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 07/19/02 9 08 AM Page 4 JULY 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chki 073944 7/22/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT E 101-41900-329 Other Communications $70.41 22067160 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT $70 41 Data Base Access Paid Chk# 073945 7/22/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $476 25 577 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN $476 25 Rm and Board 5/2002 7/22/2002 IDENTADRUGPaidChk# 073946 E 101-421i0-201 Office supplies Total IDENTADRUG $53 55 Subscription $53 55 Drug Reference Guide Paid Chk# 073947 7/22/2002 INTERSTATE BATTERIES E 101 -43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 601-49400-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts E 602-49450-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts Tout INTERSTATE BATTERIES $159.75 10009759 $16603 10009771 $166 04 10009771 $491 82 Batteries Batteries Batteries Paid Chk# 073948 7/22/2002 JOHNSON. RICK E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services Total JOHNSON. RICK $82 50 7/13/02 $8250 Deer Removal - 6/20 Paid Chk# 073949 7/22/2002 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA E 101-41600-306 Legal-Prosecution Total KENNETH N. POTTS. PA $2,391.66 7/2002 $2,391.66 Prosecutions - 7/2002 7/22/2002 KEVITT EXCAVATING INCPaid Chk# 07395C G 101-20600 Contracts Payable Total KEVITT EXCAVATING INC $2,500 00 Retainage $2.^00 Miller Well Settlement Paid Chk# 073951 7/22/2002 LAKE COUNTRY/NORTH STAR CHAPTE E 101-42400-437 Training & Development $50 00 10/17/02 E 101-42400-437 Training & Development $50 00 8/15/02 ToUl LAKE COUNTRY/NORTH STAR CHAPTE $100 00 Energy Code Ed - Oman Building Code Ed - Oman Paid Chk# 073952 7/22/2002 LEE WAYNE CORP E 101-42110-229 DARE Supplies $7325 451228 Dare Shirts ToUl LEE WAYNE CORP $7325 Paid Chk* 073953 7/22/2002 LOOIS E 101-41900-311Data Processing Communication $30 00 21920 Hennepin Cty Connection E 101-41900-329 Other Communications $16300 21920 Internet 5/02 E 101-42110-329Other Communications $183 00 21920 Internet 5/02 E 101-42110-310LOGIS-Applications $1,635 00 21920 Police Records 5/2002 E 101-41900-401Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $446 25 21951 Arcserve Backup Issues E 101-42110-401Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $127 50 21951 PD Printing E 101-42110-401Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $446 25 21951 Arcserve Backup Issues E 101-42110-401Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $393 64 21986 , Arcserve Backup Issues E 101-41900-401Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $393 65 21986 Arcserve Backup Issues ToUl LOGIS $3^838 29 *^id Chk« 073954 7/22/2002 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT E 613-49630-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $2319 36377 Safiety Chain ToUl LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT $2319 PaidChkP 073955 7/22/2002 MCMURCHIE GOLF MANAGEMENT E 613-49830-319 Other Professional Services $3,000 00 7/12A)2 GC Oparatioiiat Study CITY OF ORONO 07/19/02 908 AM Pages *Check Detail Register® JULY 2002 ChecR Amt Invoice Comment Tout MCMURCHIE GOLF MANAGEMENT $3.000 00 Paid Chk# 073956 7/22/2002 MEDICA 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 ToUl MEDICA $9.454 09 102213102552 Medica High 8/2002 $1,529.37 102213102552 Medica High 8/2002 $2,228.98 102213122585 Medica Low - 8/2002 $8,435 18 102213125488 Medica Elect - 8/2002 $21.647 62 Paid Chkf 073957 7/22/2002 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER E 602-49450-383 MWCC-Current Charges $20.409 80 741340 Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER $20 409 80 Wastewater Service 8/2002 Paid Chk» 073958 7/22/2002 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO E 613-49900-092 Soft Drinks For Resale $60 50 61225108 E 613-49900-092 Soft Drinks For Resale $140 00 65222138 Total MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO $200 50 Soda for Resale Soda for Resale Paid Chk# 073959 7/22/2002 MINN COMM E 101-42110-321 Telephone Total MINN COMM $37 81 20261007023 Pagers-PD $37 81 Paid Chk# 073960 7/22/2002 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $50.17 720622 E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment Rentals $30.67 RI06020926 Tout MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $80 84 Medical Oxygen Oxygen. Acetylene Paid Chk# 073961 7/22/2002 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $39.41 1079 Total MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN $39 41 Permits to Aquire Paid Chk# 073962 7/22/2002 MN DEPT OF HEALTH - CON FEE G 601-20802 Due to govts-State $1.1^.00 6/2002 Total MN DEPT OF HEALTH • CON FEE $1.134 00 Wtr Con Fee - 3/1/02-6^0/02 Paid Chk# 073963 7/22/2002 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN E 101-41500-437 Training & Development $200 00 2002 Conf E 101-41500-437 Training & Development $200 00 2002 Conf Total MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN $400 00 2002 Conference-Kuehn 2002 Conference-Olson Paid Chk# 073964 7/22/2002 MN STATE TREASURER R 101-39610 Miscellaneous Revenue G 101-20802 Due to govts-State Total MN STATE TREASURER ($251 68) 6/2002 $6.2M 10 6/2002 $6,011 42 Adm Charge 6/2002 Surcharge 6/2002 Paid Chk# 073965 7/22/2002 MORRIES FORD E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total MORRIES FORD $182 00 F6CS674670 Remove Secunty Chip $182 00 Paid Chk# 073966 7/22/2002 NAVARRE HARDWARE E 602-49450-221 E 602-49450-221 E 101-42110-221 E 602-49450-221 E 602-49450-221 E 101-42110-221 E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories $3 98 $3939 $1 59 $3.39 $7.54 $7162 ($4297) 101594 101754 101773 101800 101842 101869 101870 Washers. Bolts Ball Valve Key Coneector. Bushing Coupling Keys Credit • Keys Jkst J CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail RegistertS) 07/19/02 9.08 AM Page 6 JULY 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 60M9400-227 E 101-42400-221 E 101-43000-221 E 602-49450-221 E 602-49450-221 E 613-49830-221 E 613-49830-223 E 101-43000-240 E 101-41900-221 E 613-49830-223 E 101-42110-228 E 101-43000-221 E 613-49830-223 E 651-49910-227 E 651-49910-227 E 613-49830-223 Utility System Maint. Supplies Equipment Parts & Acoessohes Equipment Parts 8 Accessories Equipment Parts & Accessories Equipment Parts & Accessories Equipment Parts & Accessories Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies Small Toots and Minor Equip Equipment Parts & Accessories Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies Training Supplies Equipment Parts & Accessories Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies Utility System Maint Supplies Utility System Maint Supplies Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies ToUl NAVARRE HARDWARE $6 38 $44 04 $29 73 $2424 $1.91 $2061 $11.69 $3199 $510 $12 02 $4692 $6 77 $39 25 $25 54 ($1832) $54 77 $427.18 101888 102161 102176 102233 102267 102280 102683 102819 1029'9 102972 103053 103124 103159 103177 103178 103230 Marking Paint Latex Give. Screiwdirvers Primer, Paint Misc Supplies Caulk Hand Soap, Keys Paint Trays Punches Ant Traps Bird Seed. Hardware Paint, Brush-Fire Arms Trlr Utility Blade Misc Supplies Quikrete Quikrete Liq Plmber, Hardware Paid Chk« 073968 7/22/2002 OFFICE DEPOT E 10M1900-201 Office supplies E 10M2110.201 Office supplies E 101.42110-240 Small Toots and Minor Equip E101-41900-201 Office supplies ToUl OFFICE DEPOT $61.02 162119531 $49.94 162119531 $127.79 162119531 $11 82 162131856 $25057 Office Supplies Office Supplies Harddrives USB Extension Paid Chk« 073969 7/22/2002 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $18 06 205866 Chips for Resale Total OLD DUTCH FOODS INC.$1806 Paid Chk» 073970 7/22/2002 PEPSI-COLA E 613-49900-092 Soft Drinks For Resale $142 50 29638188 Soda for Resale ToUl PEPSI-COLA $14250 Paid Chk# 073971 7/22/2002 PETERSON. BARBARA E 101-41110-437 Training & Development $293 70 7/15rt)2 Lodging - LMC Conference ToUl PETERSON. BARBARA $293.70 Paid Chk# 073972 7/22/2002 PIONEER E 101-42400-340 General Advertising $88 00 182 Applications E 101-42400-340 General Advertising $29 85 183 Applications E 101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing $3781 194 Ordinance #219 E 101 -42400-340 General Advertising $131.34 229 Applications E 101-42400-340 General Advertising $32 00 230 Applications E 101-42400-340 General Advertteing $27 86 232 Applications ToUl PIONEER $346.66 Paid Chk# 073973 7/22/2002 POST BOARD E 101-42110-441 Licenses & Taxes $45 00 Ameson . PT Officer License • Ameson ToUl POST BOARD $45.00 Paid Chk« 073974 7/22/2002 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. E 101-41900-407 Janitorial Services $931 34 9094 Janitorial Service 6/02 E 101-42110-407 Janitorial Services $76201 9094 Janitorial Service 6/02 ToUl POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC.$1,693 35 Paid Chk« 073975 7/22/2002 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC CITY OF ORONO Check Detail RegisteitD 07/19^)2 9 08 AM Page? JULY 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-4520(M04 R«pairaA«sinl-Bldgs/Orounds $m53 9046 Summer Maintenance Tout PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC.$159.53 Paid Chk» 073976 7/22/2002 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC. E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $12.57 10983 Relay.GS *7 Tout QUAUTY FLOW SYSTEMS INC.$12.57 Paid Chk« 073977 7/22/2002 QWEST E 601-49400-321 Telephone $103 00 612e440016 Comm Line • WT to PW Tout QWEST $103.00 Paid Chk* 073978 7/22/2002 RICKS SUPERVALUE E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $19.19 6/12A)2 Condiments. Cups E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $19 25 7/17/02 Popcorn fbr Resale Total RICKS SUPERVALUE $38.44 Paid Chk# 073979 7/22/2002 SCHWABB INC. E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $133 57 L56009 NoUry Stamp. End Stamp ToUl SCHWABB INC.$133.57 Paid Chki 073980 7/22/2002 SHAUGHNESSY. COUN E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $2^085 72 6130102 Park Mowing. 6/2002 Total SHAUGHNESSY. COLIN $2,08572 Paid Chk» 073981 7/22/2002 SIGNS OF THE SEASON E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Matehals/Supply $112 89 634 Street Signs E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $63 90 634 No Dogs on Beach E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $5325 634 Phone P's ToUl SIGNS OF THE SEASON $230 04 Paid Chk# 073982 7/22/2002 SKTWAY PUBLICATIONS E 613-49830-340 General Advertising $75 00 89905 Print Adv - GC Total SKYWAY PUBLICATIONS $7500 PaidChn.. 073983 7/22/2002 STANTON GROUP E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $3950 327233 COBRA/^m Fee -6/02 E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $17125 327234 FSAAdm Fee 6/2002 Total STANTON GROUP $212 75 Paid Chk# 073984 7/22/2002 STAR TRIBUNE E 101-42110-340 General Advertising $|60_M 173575001 Emp Adv • CSO ToUl STAR TRIBUNE $16060 Paid Chk# 073985 7/22/2002 STATE OF MINNESOTA E 101-43000-441 Licenses A Taxes $10 00 267069 Air Tank E 601-49400-441 Licenses & Taxes $20 00 267181 Air Tanks-Wtr Plant ToUl STATE OF MINNESOTA $30 00 Paid Chk* 073986 7/22/2002 STREICHER8 • E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equiprrtent $139 95 290478 2 Boots • Hendilcitt E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $3190 296537 2 Flasher E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $49 50 302535 1 Headlight Flasher E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories ($111 67) 302934.1 Return E 101-42)10-226 Clothing A personal equipment $65 92 303795.1 CufT Holder. Cuffs ToUl STREICHERS $17560 Paid Chk« 073987 7/22/2002 TOLL OA8 t WELDING SUPPLY ■ m- CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 07/19^ 9 06 AM Pages JULYr002 Check Amt knrolca Comment E 101-43000-221 Equipment ParU & Acoettories E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment Rentats Tout TOLL GAS I. WELDING SUPPLY $16.55 166272 $5 65 497929 $24.40 ^ Oxygen Cylinder Rental Paid Chki 073966 7/22/:!002 TRI CITY PUBUC LABORATORY E601-4940(M89 Olhar Mitcallancou* Chaiges $30 00 34 Water Testing Total TfU CITY PUBLIC LABORATORY $30.00 Paid Chkt 073989 7/22/2002 TWIN CITY STRIPING E 101-43000^ Contracted Sireat Maim $1.600 00 2945 Striping-Xwalks, Arrows. Stop Total TWIN CITY STRIPING $1,600.00 Paid Chk« 073990 7/22/2002 ULTRA-CHEM E 613^9830-223 BldgAJroundt Main! Supplloi $115 46 666666 GC Chemicals Total ULTRA-CHEM $115.46 Paid 6hUl 073991 7/22/2002 UNITED RENTALS E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A AccoMorles $93.72 26599099 Saw Blades E 101-43000-415 Other Equipmem Rentals $70 29 430i77 Barricades Total UNITED RENTALS $16401 Paid Chk# 073992 7/22/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS E 602-49450-321 Telephone $14 22 1003-4565141 Utility Cell Phones E 601-49400-321 Telephone $1423 1003-4585141Utility Cell Phones Total VERIZON WIRELESS $2645 PaidChM 073993 7/22/2002 WINTERNHEIMER. ALISSA E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services $195^ 32 Council Minutes 7/6/02 Total WINTERNHEIMER, ALISSA $195.00 Paid Chk# 073994 7/22/2002 XCEL ENERGY E 101 •43000-366 Street Lighting Total XCEL ENERGY $1.299 02 Stijghting SI.299 02 Street Lightir>g • 6/02 10100 Primary Cash $124,567.14 L - - information ••rcTiNQ 'JUL 2 2 2002 CllYUhOHONU ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING • ' .V OF %iCCT\N® JUL 2 2 2002 CITY or Qnow»- t # To;Mayor and Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Tom Barrett, City Attorney JUL 2 2 2002 CITY OF OHONO From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaflron, Planning Director July 18.2002 City-Owned Lakeshorc Lots on Crystal Bay Road Summary of Issues: The City has owned 4 lakeshore tax parcels on Crystal Bay Road since they were quit-claim deeded to Orono Township and accepted by the Town Board on December 1,1934. These parcels are on the lakeshore side of Crystal Bay Road. In total they include approximately 180 lineal feet of shoreline. The distance from the edge of the traveled road to the shore (929.4 contour) ranges from just a few feet to as much as 20 feet. For many years, apparently, the 4 property owners across Crystal Bay Road from these parcels have erected seasonal docks extending from the City parcels. Current staff has been aware of this since the mid-1990's. Due to a complexity of factors that will be described below, until recently staff had not taken formal action to have the docks eliminated. However, two circumstances this spring prompted staff to order removal of the dock and boat at the most westerly of the parcels, across from 3445 Crystal Bay Road. These circumstances were 1) submittal of a variance application survey by the owner of 3445 that incorrectly included the City parcel across from it; and 2) complaints by neighboring property owners about rental of slips at the ‘illegal’ dock recently erected across from 3445. The issues at hand are: 1) whether Council supports staff taking appropriate action, including litigation i f necessary, to have the offending uses and docks removed from the City parcels; and 2) determination of the City ’s ultimate intent for these 4 parcels. Historical Background 1907 - fyUeys Park platted. The City parcels are parts of 4 lots originally created by the plat of Wiley ’s Park in 1907. That plat dedicated a 66' wide right-of-way for the old County Road that followed the route of what is today Crystal Bay Road. Those 4 lots were bisected by the 66 ’ right-of- way, leaving a small strip along the shoreline side of the right-of-way (See Attachment A). 19 11 deed - created **bathing and boating rights In 19 1 1 , a number of lots in the neighboring plat of Navarre were transferred from one owner to the next, via a deed that also granted to those Navarre Crystal Bay Road City Lots July 18,2002 Page 2 lots *‘a perpetual right to use for bathing and boating purposes" the portions of Lots 1-4, Block 1, Wiley’s Park lying between the north line of the County Road and the shoreline. This right of use was also reserved for other lots within the plats of Wiley’s Park, Navarre Heights, Navarre, and Block 10 of Langdon Park. Under current ownership patterns, this could mean that as many as 100- 150 properties in the Navarre area might have “bathing and boating" rights over what eventually became the City parcels. Cityotvnership came about in 1933-34 via two quit-claim deeds in favor ofOrono Township, which were officially accepted by the Township Board of Supervisors on December 1, 1934. We have found no records which indicate why the parcels were deeded to the City. However, we must assume the Township Board knew of the potential “bathing and boating" rights which affected the parcels. Perhaps the Township was viewed as the logical overseer of property that could potentially be used by many members of the public. Maps and Surveys. The earliest survey we have show ing the rclation5hip of the traveled road and the platted right-of-way dates to 1945. Other surveys and County plat maps since then have not been consistent in recognizing the traveled road or the platted right-of way. However, County plat maps for at least the last 40 years have shown the City parcels as separately owned from the inland portions of the 4 original lots. Interpreting **bathing and boating rights During the 1970's, 80's and into the early 90 ’s a number of properties in the Navarre area were sold with the right for “bathing and boating" on the City parcels appearing in the deeds. As lake access became dearer, the City more and more often was queried by new Navarre area owners as to “where can I put my dock, my deed says 1 have bathing and boating rights...’’. By the mid 1990's the City had firmly established via ordinance tested in the courts that only properties with principal structures could have docks. Our standard response to inquiries became “ you can sw im or fish or launch a canoe at the City parcels but you can ’t have a dock”. 1995 Research. In 1995 the City Attorney was asked to review whether or to what extent the off- lake owners in »hc Navarre area actually have rights to use the 4 City parcels. It w as determined that in general, the dozens of inland properties that might claim the easement right arc subject to the Marketable Title Act which would generally bar any claims by the inland lot owners for private bathing and boating rights, unless a claim on behalf of an inland property attempting to preserve the easement rights had been filed within 40 years of the original 1911 deed. This likely reduces the actual number of legitimate easement holders, and we are so far unaware of any such notice having been filed. However, the City has not fully researched the titles to all the properties involved to determine whether such claims have been filed in the past. The second question asked was whether the 4 adjacent landowners on Crystal Bay Road would have the ability to establish a prescriptive easement over the City parcels by virtue of their continued use of the parcels. It was conclude that in general, land owned by the City cannot be acquired by an Crystal Bay Road City Lots July 18.2002 Page 3 occupant merely by reason of occupation per Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 541.01. The only exception might be if the City has taken an affirmative action to abandon its interests in the property. However, we arc unaware of any such affirmative action, and the fact that the City has not attempted to have the seasonal docks removed would not constitute an abandonment action. In a 1996 followup letter from the City Attorney’s office, it was noted substantial title review of the 4 City parcels as well as all the potentially benefittcd lots would be needed in order to determine to what extent easement rights are in effect. Even if title work concluded that rights have been terminated, it would likely require a quiet title or registration action to adjudicate same. This could prove to be an expensive process. It should be noted that 3415 Crystal Bay Road, one of the 4 lots across from the dock lots, was sold in 1999 with the “bathing and boating” right appearing on the deed. Current Status of City Parcels As of July 1,2000 each of the 4 City parcels had a private seasonal dock, presumably erected by the owners of the properties directly across the road. Two of the four docks had one or more boats that were known to be not titled to property owners in the general area, and were considered as illegal slip rental situations. The property at 3445, recently purchased by Larry Palm, is the subject of a pending variance request for construction of a new residence to replace the existing cabin. Upon receipt of that application, staff determined that the surv ey was incorrect because it did not show the dedicated County Road or the City parcel as separate from the homestead parcel. After receiving two neighborhood complaints about rental use of the dock at 3445, staff met with the property owner on June 14 and June 21. Mr. Palm was told to remove the boats and the docks, which he agreed to do within “approximately 2 w eeks”, needing time to engage a barge to have the dock removed. Palm also was adamant that if his parcel is subject to this action, that the 3 adjoining owners also be made to remove their docks, and that the property ow ner at 2264 Shadywood be required to remove his trailer from the City right of w ay adjacent to the 4 lots. As of this w riting, the boats and dock at 3445 have been removed, although the largest boat has merely been moved to another property Palm owns at 3375 Crystal Bay Road; absent ownership in these boats, Palm is just moving the rental situation down the road... Except in the case of 3445 Crystal Bay Road staffhas not formally contacted the owners of boats docked at the City parcels nor the four property owners across from them to discuss the issue of illegal docks or illegal rental use of the docks. How’ever, within the last week we have received a complaint about rental use of the dock at 3435, which will be followed up shortly. i Crystal Bay Road City Lots July 18.2002 Page 4 Tax Valuation History A question that arises from the use of the City ’s dock lots by the property owners across the street is that since those owners appear to be receiving a special benefit not available to other owners of non-Iakeshore lots, is whether they somehow are paying for that benefit. The answer is yss, in terms of property valuation for tax purposes. The January 2. 2001 land valuation for tax purposes for taxes payable 2002 for the four adjacent residential lots (3407.3415,3535 and 3445) is equivalent to that for similarly sized lots on Cry stal Bay Road which have legitimate lakeshore rights (See Attachments C & D). In order to determine whether this has been the case for some time, staff compared the tax valuation history back to 1980 for the land portion of these 4 lots vs. 4 similar sized lots on Crystal Bay Road (3369, 3375,3385 and 3393). It becomes clear that since 1980 or earlier, the 4 residential lots have been valued as lakeshore lots. There is no significant difference between the valuations of these 4 residential lots and other legitimate lakeshore lots, and the owners of Lots 1 -4 have been paying full lakeshore taxes. It is unknown whether this has an impact on any prescriptive easement claim that might arise tfom the 4 owners. Issues for Discussion Slip Rental . Although it appears two of the four existing docks are being rented out by the off-lake property owners, staff view s that as a separate issue from the docks being on City property. The ordinances that in combination act to prohibit dock slip rental have a few loopholes that should be closed if Council concludes that the City should be more pro-active in pursuing slip rental complaints. Possible Options for Future Use of Four City Lots. A variety of possible options should be considered for ultimate disposition or public use of the four tax parcels. Location factors that make these lots unique and add to the potential for possible enhanced public uses include: adjacency to the shoreline adjacency to a 66* City road right-of-way that extends to the lake - adjacency to a City-ow ned 20’ right-of-way that connects to the Dakota Rail future regional trail corridor - location in the Navarre area with many non-lakeshore homes within walking distance - only 3 blocks to the Navarre Park Other unique aspects of these parcels include: three of the 4 properties across the road are underutilized in terms of residential use, with building values of S28.000 or less; the primary value of those lots has been in their proximity to the lake, and without lakeshore rights, their market values may be significantly reduced; the extent of such reduction is difficult to determine, but the land value might be reduced by perhaps 1/3 according to the City Assessor. J Crystal Bay Road City Lots July 18,2002 Page S a culvert under the Dakota rail line has long been causing a neighborhood drainage problem for these lots, as it outlets in their back yard and does not have a specified channel to the lake. Development of a stormwater pond between this culvert and the lake would be beneflcial. The fact that there may be a number of off-lake parties with “bathing and boating rights” over the City parcels might tend to make some use options more complicated. Options for possible long-term use that could be explored might include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Do nothing, let the four lot owners across the road continue to put docks on City property. Deal with rental slip situations as a separate issue. Require removal of the docks from the 4 City parcels. This has potential to result in a costly legal battle since the property values will decrease significantly as soon as lake access is denied. Sell each parcel to its opposite off-lake landowner (Question for City Attorney: Can the City sell this property?) and let each owner deal with the consequences of the potential multiple holders of “bathing and boating rights". Lease the individual lots to the respective four owners for unlimited lakeshore access. Lease the individual lots to the respective four owners for limited lakeshore access, perhaps limiting the number and ownership of boats stored on the site. Lease the lots as a group to an association of the four, to have one joint use dock on the property subject to an annual joint use dock license with limits on the number and ownership of boats stored. Such a dock might be located to allow access for the possible off-lake holders of “bathing and boating ” easement rights. Require that the docks be removed, develop the site for rental City dock space, to be allotted on a lottery basis. Would require that parking area be developed, which probably means acquisition of one or more of the 4 off-lake lots. Acquire ail 4 off-lake homestead parcels plus the back lot (3447 Crystal Bay Road), re-route Crystal Bay Road to the south, develop a stormwater pond and a neighborhood park or beach area at the site (see conceptual sketch attached). 9. Other, or some combination of the above. r Ciystal Bay Road City Lots July 18,2002 Page 6 Staff Rccommeadation Provide staff with direction as to whether Council supports staff taking appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to have the offending uses and docks removed tom the City parcels. Provide direction regarding the City ’s ultimate intent for these 4 parcels. AttKhnweto A - Plat map of area B - Conceptual staff sketch for paik/stormwater management C • 2001 Valuations for Residential Lots on Ciystal Bay Road D • 1980-2002 Land Valuation History Comparison - Selected Crystal Bay Road Lots E - Letter to Larry Palm 4-25-02 and selected exhibits I il irtia nil uio ■ iT^ii II-if ^ . . te . . . . wn: af« H m rm r/^ CT?CT FTTT^HRBiinPC SfiJIll m m55J? iiiii mm m r <*:^BA.tta ■.tih «•IPIhI 5 : ^ '?U Ci-e7CH fe-1 fJ A c. Crystal Bay Road Property Valuations - 2001 Address on Crystal Bay Rd Sale Date Sale Price $ Est Mkt Jan 2001 $Bldgs $Land S Lot Size (Acres) Feet of Lakesbore 3447 None None 58,000 28,500 29,500 0.23 3445 9/01 270,000 215,500 10,500 205,000 0.15 1 [35] 3435 11/96 140,000 243,000 25,500 217,500 0.18 [45] 3415 10/99 390,000 336,000 97,000 239,000 0.26 [50] 3407 None None 267,000 28,000 239,000 0.25 I [50] 3405 6/00 460,000 411.600 156,600 255,000 0.38 60 3399 5/90 125,000 400,000 132,500 267,500 0.35 60 3393 6/00 372,000 361,500 131,500 230,000 0.27 55 3385 6/99 320,000 335,000 130,000 205,000 0.19 50 3375 6/02 375,000 215,000 10,000 205,000 0.19 50 3369 4/92 80,000 238,000 33,000 205,000 0.17 50 3365 None None 313,000 108,000 205,000 0.17 50 3359 9/99 303,000 353,000 148,000 205,000 0.17 50 3355 6/97 149,500 236,000 51,500 184,500 0.14 30 |Land Portion of Tax Valuation 1980-2002 Assessed Land Value 3407 3415 3435 3445 1 1 3369 3375 3385 3393 as of January 0.25 ac 0.26 ac 0.18 ac 0.15 ac 0.17 ac 0.19 ac 0.19 ac 0.27 ac of Calendar 50*50'45'35’50’50’50’55’ i Year 2002 308.000 292,000 266,000 265.000 251,000 265,000 251,000 280,000 2001 239.000 239,000 217.500 205,000 205,000205.000 205,000 230,000 2000 159,500 159,500 145.000 145.000 140,000 140.000 140.000 150.000 1999 132.500 135,000 103.000 86.500 105.000 105.000 105,000 115,000 1998 107,600 113.500 87.300 67.200 82.100 93,900 92,200 103.200 1997 90,100 92,400 77.100 57.300 68.700 76,100 74.300 83,300 1996 76,500 77.500 66.300 49.500 59.500 65,000 62.500 70.000 1995 73,000 74.000 68.500 47,000 56.500 62.000 59,500 66.500 1994 73.000 74.000 68.500 46.800 56.500 62,000 59.000 66,500 1993 65.900 66,200 66.800 46.800 50.800 56.100 53.600 60,100 1992 56,600 57,200 57.400 45.000 44.00048,200 46.100 51.600 1991 56.600 57,200 57,400 45.000 44.00048.200 46.100 51,600 1990 56.600 57,200 57.400 47.200 1 44.000 48.200 46,100 51.600 1989 54.000 54.500 54.700 45.000 42.000 46.000 44.000 49,200 1988 54.500 54.500 54.700 45.000 42.000 46.000 44,000 49.200 1987 54.500 54.500 54.700 45.000 42.000 46.000 44.000 49.200 1986 49,000 50.000 49.300 41.000 40.500 41.400 41.000 49,200 1985 49,000 49,200 49.300 40.500 40,50041.400 40,700 44.200 1984 54,500 54.500 54.700 45,000 45,000 46.000 45,300 49.200 1983 54.500 54.500 54.700 45.000 45.000 46,000 45,300 49,200 1982 54.500 54.500 54.700 45.000 45.000 46.000 45,300 49,200 1981 49.600 49,600 49.800 42.700 1 42.900 41.900 41,200 44.800 1980 27,600 27,600 27.600 23.100 24,200 24,100 24,000 21.700 £ I ^ 'C-'Cv^ (f c'-rJrAv^i .*•'* «-r> <-. / j r ^ci'^AjZKn^ CITY of ORONO Municipal Ofliccs Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parirway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Addrtss: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 C066 April 25,2002 Larry Palm Acc Properties, LLC 5465 Highway 169 North Plymouth, MN 55442 Re: Application ^r02-2783,3445 Ciystal Bay Road - Property Description & Boundary Issues j^Dear Mr. Palm: I am enclosing the following documents regarding the above referenced property: Copy of the original plat of *‘\Vilev*s Park” Lake Minnetonka in 1907. Copy and transcript of the 1911 deed which apparently granted to many properties in the Navarre area “a perpetual right to use for private bathing and private boating purposes” the portions of Lots 1-4, Block 1, Wiley’s Park lying north of “County Road”. Copies oCtwt/maps I created some time ago in an attempt to determine the potential number and location of properties which may benefit by the bathing and boating right. A copy of a 1912 entry from the abstract of title for part of Lot 5, Block 2, Wiley’s Park which includes reference to the bathing/boating rights. Copies of the 1933-34 quit-claim deeds to the City of the portions of Lots 1-2-3-4 in question. Copy of a 1945 sur\ey by E.R.T. Peterson of Lots 1-2-3-4 showing the traveled road and the “Old Road”. Map of the sewer system in the Cry stal Bay Road area, ca. 1963 Copy of a 1964 sur\ ey by Gordon Coffin of Lot 1, Block 1, Wileys Park, making some assumptions about the legal description. Copy of a 1968 survey by Gordon Coffin of Lots 3-4. Map of the water/sewer system in the Crystal Bay Road area, ca. 1970. 1976 inspection slip re: complaint from owner of 3445 Crystal Bay Road apparently about a dock put up on the shore without permits. 1977 letter to Bert Rodewald of 3443 Crystal Place from Leonard Buckley, re: his past use of the lakeshore rights in his deed for Lot 1, Block 1, Navarre Heights. 1980/85 survey by Larry Couture of Lot 3. 1984 letter to Zoning Administrator Jeaiuie Mabusth from attorney Lee Mosher re: bathing and boating rights for certain landowners in the Navarre area. 1994 deed tra.nsferring bathing and boating rights over Lots 1-2-3-4 from Roth to Erickson as part of the sale of2205 Shadywood Road. August 3,1994 letter to Greg Erickson June 12, 1995 memo to Ron Moorse, et al reg. 'ding Joan Lattin’s request for information on the use of Lots 1-2-3-4. 4) (2> 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 15) Telephone <952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 wwi«xLoronojnD.us 1 L Acc Properties April 25,2002 Page 2 Qsi) September 1,1995 memo from City Attorney. J21 September 18, 1995 letter to Joan Lattin. U.a.d2SiI.2isho».heplahcd rish.ofw.yof 0')\ A'____________________________ county Road across Lots 1-2-3-4. wsmui way i g, SSSSSiSSSSJiSSffiSzKg-assiS:": A_______ •• a a __ that *‘County Road** was ever vacated, hence we conclude that %/«•• * indication property lying south of the south boundary of “County Road ” ^ O'vnership includes only that The situation is further complicated by a these factors* for June 17,2002. Pleas^eel free to contact me at 952-249-4600 if I can be oSstSic?*^'^ Sincerely, // ,-H M// Michael P. Gaffron Plarming Director cc:Mark Gronberg Paul Weinberger Tom Baaett, City Attorney r 7^iC/2.lPT7C»0 /f// This indenture made this tvi’cnty-third day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven between Investor’s Security Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota party of the furst part, and the Lydiard Peterson Company, a corporation of the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, party of the second part. Witnesseth that the said party of the first part in consideration of the sum of one dollar and other valuable considerations to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged does hereby grant, bargam, sell and convey unto the said party of the second part its successors and assigns, forever, all those tracts or parcels of land lying and being in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota described as follows to wit: Lots Eight (8), Nine (9), and Fourteen (14), Block Two (2); Lots One (1), Two .(2), Three (3), Six (6), Eight (8), Ten (10), Thineen (13), Fourteen (14), Fifteen (15). Eighteen (18) and Twenty-four (24), Block Three; Lots One (1), Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), Ten (10), Eleven (11), inineen (13), Fourteen (14), Fifteen (15), Sixteen (16), Seventeen (i ., Eighteen (18), Twenty (20). Twenty-one (21), Twenty-two (22), and Twenty-four (24), Block Four (4); Lots Nine (9), Ten (10), Eleven (11), Sixteen (16), Nineteen (19), Twenty-two (22), Twenty-three (23), Twenty-four (24), Twenty-five (25), Twenty-six (26), Twenty-seven (27), and Twenty-eight (28), Block Five (5); Lots One (1), Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7), Eight (8). Nine (9), Twelve (12), Thineen (13), Fourteen (14), Fifteen (15), Sixteen (16), Seventeen (17), Eighteen (18), Nineteen (19), Twenty (20), Twenty-one (21), Twent>-two (22), Twenty-three (23), Twenty-four (24), Twenty-five (25), Twent>-six (26), Twenty-seven (27), Twent>'-eiaht (28) in Block Six (6); Lots Two (2), Three (3), Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7),~ Eight (8), Nine (9). Ten (10), Eleven (11), Twelve (12), Thirteen (13), Fourteen (14), Fifteen (15), Sixteen (16), Seventeen (17), Eighteen (18), Nineteen (19). Twenty (20), Twenty-one (21). Twenty-two (22). Twenty-three (23), and Twenty-four (24) all in Block Seven (7). All of said lots and blocks being in Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof now on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County of Hennepin. Granting also to the said second part its successors and assigns the perpetual right to use for private bathing and private boating purposes only, the following described land owned by said party of the first part, to wit: All that part of Lots One (1). Two (2). Three (3), and Four (4), in Block One (1), in Wiley ’s Park, Lake Minnetonka lying between the northerly line of the county road and Crystal Bay, as shown by the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds of said County. Provided, however, that similar rights to use said land may be granted to parties owning or buying land in Wiley ’s Park, in Navarre Heights, in Navarre and in Block 10 in Ungdon Park, but not elsewhere, all according to the respective plats thereof. With the condition subsequent, however, and on the express limitation hereby accepted by 1 i ■ MlilhflT V' the said second party for Us successors and assigns, that no spintuous or intoxi<-ating liquors or beverages shall ever be sold or vended on any part of the above named premises, and that if the same is done habituaUy, with *e knowledge and consent of the owner or willfully and repeatedly done, then this deed shaU be void and the premises immedUtely revert to the said party of the first part, its successors and that they may immediately so enter and take po^ession thereof. To have and to hold the same, together with all the hereditaments and per^ences thereunto Moving or in wise petiainin* unto the said paly of the saond assiam forever. And the said Investor ’s Security Company, party of the first part, its succe^rs does covenant with the said patty of the second pan, its successors and thaUt is weU-seized in fee of the lands and premises aforesaid, and has good nght to seU ^d convev the same in manner and form aforesaid and that the sarne are free from all cncurnbrances, and the above bargained and granted la^ and premises by the “jJ “ toTJ'tho Whole or'an^ U«reof. the raid party of the ftra. part will warrant and defend. the day and year first above written. • • cnrsfAL hay / / A * Bctejc /O^fii/tig B ~hf>i-eyt Pnnfc I ^ - A^AVAnite PARK DAY >T-k.-r'f QUIT CLAIM DEI CfFTiti— U IMtfKi*! I ••*•«• »•••«’ C. r. E. PETERSOH COUPAKY toK».o«)4546 kcm; Oficc ol Rrtiticr of Drcdi% Male o( UliniirfoU. | Ccunty of ............... . — ) I )%4rib\f uHifif tMat iht u iihin Deed uas^Jfled in tMt offu /or record oh thesJlLcd in Uds offer for record oh thea.:. arid ii’Of duly record^ in Dock ef Deeds, ' w Taxes for the year 19 , on the lands duerihsd voUhin, paid this day of .....-...................—......., 10 County Treasurer, Deputy. Taxes paid and Transfer entered this ------------Aiy c/............................>. By . County miudUor,- Depu I ♦ « K 1 y,-y0^rx^ i«a; MT ”•'0 wifRO DEC 2?> 1934 Ki*. Ir r ^ ^ OiSJ* $m PnoPtf^iy ec> »*• I ~ : , • •«. < •«% AC 2 6 a A? O tase >3 ss Sr» S II - •.5- - rirrii mitiiHo &tate of illiiincoota. Cminlucf........HEMNEPIN. ..... ?ts. On IhU 4t]l Notary Public C. r. E. Petemon day of —---------^ /f? 3^5 , htfort me, a within amt fur $aid County, pertcnally appeated and H* T# ....................................... ft* me iKrumally known, who, Uin^ each by me d»*ty Jtrom&nd BdOtiid my that they are rt$t*ecHvet y r---j" President and the"—rctnry-------------- of the corporation named in the fore^oin^ and that the seal afflxetl to mid instrument is the corporate seal of mid eor/toralion, and that said Instmfnent was signed and sealol in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Honnl of Dlrectore, ami said 0. F. B. Peterson ami H« T« OS^^bl ack'nowUdieil siiiil inslmmeiit In be Hit frrt ael ami ilrtil nf saiit ror/ioratson. v Xvfary Public Herfnepln ,Uy eonnnission e*vpires .... County, Minn. ..ip35f. By resolution \inonimously ndoptec' on December 1934 by the Board of Sui>«rvlaor8 of the To’sm of Orono, Hennepin County, Uinnesotn tlie within quit claim deed was accepted on behalf of said Town of Orono* —v halnaan. Board of Si trbwn of Orono. Hem Minnesota Kn C\ CM > 0 -• o •r.» 84 I :*• r i •« ,4 1 - • • ; t •• * f IS'* ■» e Lij'S ^ 3**^ 3 oi *8 •H 9 n i M rorfM wo. 3u>M.^ ******Mmu UiMl. ICflis 3nlienturr,.i/a<f«iAi.___4tiv MimH----0.^ PettrvoB-Comptay,. ■tlaifo/...Oeoembez,—, It eorpnmfluH umter the tnw% of the State of Town..Qf Orono , UinneBOla---------- party of Ui§ fini part, and of lAt Cotiniy of^--------Hfionepin pari...X teeoHil part. and State of .......... MinnetOtQ.^ IfiitnffiCtb* That the eaid parly of the first part, in eonaideration of the sum of .^Oafi..aoXlar.«nd^other„8c^od ftnljrAlMblfi. C0nQideratioda-r----T-0MMMr to U in hand paid by the eaid pari y .of the ueond part, Itio receipt whereof U hereby acknowledged, doee hereby Grant, Bar fain. Quitclaim, onct Cont'ty unto the said party of the second part, ItB KU3UHB assigns, yoret'tr, all the Irael or /mirret of land tying and being in the County of . ..HBDnaplD and State of Atinnesota, which 1b described aeconlLng to the map or plat ikertof on file in the office of the tlegialer of Deeds^ of said Cimnty, as follows, to-wit: That part of Lota One (l) to Four (4) inclu8ive» Block One (l)» Wiley*0 Park, Lake Uinnetonka, lyinp: between the northerly line of County-Rond and Crystal Bay. Co AokC anb lo Ibolb l|;( Aonit, Together uith all the heredUamcnli and appuricnanccs there* unto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said ;*ari y ___of Use second part, it 8 SMUUtmbiassIgns, Forever. f Jn Cfi((ll10np luiicrcof. The said fint party has caused these presents to be executed in its corporate name by Us _ ________ PruiJent and its . -rSccretary— and Us eorporaU seal to he hereunto nffi.red the d.ty and year first above wntten. In Presence of J.€ IL. \ . . *• • ,* I •• v. ... ‘ . i ' t l2^ ^aL'^*UU 5!r(i«0r Pu*v ft(/ ^ *^^*<-«>4-*<^*- ^ .^-A- tej ___iZc.:^^ <*e-l (L^( /Sii^ fi>0-^AAAJL ^-»i2-^^<4x. -l/ /lu^Lt jS£<. d ^ jZ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ tc “Wy ^Lor^U ^ >yui ^a»*OL<. XST“^^ 0-Xj[ ^ rfC-d-^V/ „.^C^>-« iS" i* 3 x/^x. £-<^cJ^ (s^ J>i<JL ^ /^Ldj^ /SuuJ' ^ 'yyt't^^-^ ^ 4 2- V , '7-7^k! "T >•-»-» • • N LEE W. MOSHER. P. A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 138 VALLEY SOUARC OFFICE CENTER 7878 OOLOCN VALLEY ROAD GOLDEN VALLEY. MINNESOTA S5427 TELEFt-K>NC (•ti) 8«sa March 15, 1984 JAMca ^ MuMCwk M MCCCOO Jean Mabusth City of Orono Box 66 Orono, Minnesota 55323 Re: Lots l through 4, Block 1, "Wiley's Park" Lake Minnetonka Dear Ms. Mabusth: I was giyen your name by Bruce Malkerson, attorney for the City of Orono, regarding a boating and bathing easement that burdens the above property which is owned by the City of Orono. I enclose a photocopy showing the location of the subject property marked by four X's. By Document No. 604474, Warranty Deed dated August 23, 1911, filed August 25, 1911, in Book 717 of Deeds, page 361, the subject property is subject to an easement for private bathing and pri vate boating purposes. That easement runs in favor of property owners in Wiley's Park, Navarre Heights, and Block 10, Langdon Park. I en close a copy of the deed. I also enclose a copy of the plat of "Wiley's Park" Lake Minnetonka. The County Recorder's tract index for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Wiley's Park Lake Minnetonka indicates that the land owned by the City of Orono is subject to the bathing and boating casement. The City of Orono came into title in the 1930's by a quit claim deed from the de velopers of the area. Accordingly, it appears that the Interests of the City are subject to the bathing and boating rights of a consider able number of property owners in Orono, namely, the owners of land in Navarre Heights, Wiley's Park, and Block 10, Langdon Park. I am informed that the City of Orono has allowed certain private parties to place private property including docks and possibly beats upon the City land. Would you please advise me of the position of the City of Orono regarding the rights of the owners of the benefitedproperty to use the City land for bathing and boating purposes pursuant to the easement granted for those purposes in the real estate titles? Thank you for your attention. cc: njj 302 7 Bruce Malkerson / /. CITY of OROXO Municipal OfRccs Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailinc Address: P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 August 3, 1994 Mr. Greg Erickson 2205 Shadywood Road Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 Re: Easement Over Part of Lots 1 through 4, Wiley ’s Park Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for your letter of June 17th. I hope the following information will be of some benefit to you. In 1911. Investors Security Company deeded a number of properties in the Navarre area to the Lydiard Peterson Company. That same deed also granted to these and potentially to other specified properties "the right to use for private bathing and private boating purposes only" that part of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1. Wiley ’s Park, lying between "the county road" and Cr>stal Bay. This easement portion of Lots 1 through 4 was quit claim deeded to the Town of Orono in 1933. The 1911 deed appears to grant or potentially grant said easement to lots in the plats of Navarre Heights, Wiley ’s Park, Navarre, and Block 10, Townsite of Langdon Park. In total up to approximately 125 individual properties may be parties to this easement. Clearly, the potential for 125 individual parties with interest in a strip of shoreline only 175’ in width has significant implications. However, the following controls e.xist in the Municipal Code: Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(A) prohibits construction of an accessory building or structure prior to the construction of a principal building on the property. A dock is considered an accessory- structure, and cannot exist absent a principal residence structure on the propert>’. Section 5.42 requires a "joint use dock license;" for a dock uwd by an association of riparian and/or nonriparian land owners within a subdivision adjacent to the lake sharing a dock or dock system providing permanent boat slips for the members. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 t-iit fteraj Mr. Greg Erickson August 3, 1994 Page 2 Tie Lake Conservation District (LMCD) also teguUtes docks on Uke Minnetonka. •Private balhitw and private boating" is not specificaUy defined in the easement holders to qonstnict docks. access but is not open to boat launching. City h« not .sued docks. Whether those dock, are -legal- has not been detetmmed. .k r>;#«*e nncitirtn is that while a significant number of Navarre area property To reiterate, the ^. ourported right to use the lakeshore portion of Lots 1 through owners may have m th mimnses onlv” that right certainly docs not include 4 for -private it gives them dm tie right to a <l«^We ^ certainly, the Uck of Stog ^^To^n^s of tim land ponion lakewatd of the road limits the degree of actual use that could be made of the property. Again. I hope the above infotmation U of some help to you. Please feel free to conuct me at 473-7357 if you have further questions. MirhnH P. Gaffroti^Michael P. Gaffn . Asst. Planning & Zoning Admmistrator MPG/ch Enc.1911 Deed Plat Map cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adm. John Gerhardson, I^blic Works Director Ron Moorse. City Administrator Thomas Barrett, City Attor^y Kent Roth. 2201 Westcliff Ct.. BumsvUle, MN 55337 :i POPHAM HAIK MEMORANDUM 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota S5402 (612) 3334S00 BY TELECOPIER AND U.S. MAIL TO:Michael P. Gaffron FROM:City Attorney RE:Crystal Bay Road Access Lots Our FUe No. 3643-091 SEP 5 DATE:September 1,1995 You have asked our firm to analyze whether certain people have a right to use property owned by the City of Orono. In completing our analysis, we have assumed certain facts provided to us by the City. Where noted, we have made assumptions regarding other facts and these assumptions should be confirmed. I. FACTS The City owns four tax parcels located between Crystal Bay road and the shore of Lake Minnetonka (hereinafter, Ae "City Lots"). The City acquired title to the City Lots pursuant to two 1933 quit claim deeds. Each of the 1933 deeds conveyed the grantor’s interest in the portion of Lots 1 through 4 inclusive. Block 1, Wiley’s Park. Lake Minnetonka "... lying between the northerly line of County Road and Crystal Bay." The "County Road" referred to in the quit claim deeds appears to be the unplatted Crystal Bay Road, which the City has maintained for several years. A 1911 deed appears to subject the City Lots to a private bathing and private boating easement in favor of as many as 125 or more inland lots (hereinafter, the "Inland Lots"). The 191 1 deed grants to the Inland Lot owners "... the right to use for private bathing and private boating purposes only ..." the City Lots. The deed grants the easement rights to 90 specific Inland Lots and states that the grantor may grant similar rights to the parties owning and buying land in Wiley’s Park. Navarre Heights Navarre and in Block 10 of Langdon Park. It is unclear whether such rights were ever actually conveyed to the owners of these other properties. An owner of one of the Inland Lots. Ms. Joan Latlin. is claiming the right to use the City Lots for private bathing and private boating purposes. She is selling her property and believes that the sale hinges on whether the buyer may construct a dock from the City Lots. 610/220909029/1/95 fb' I For many years (the precise number of which presently is unknown), the owners of the four lots located directly across Crystal Bay Road from the City Lots (hereinafter, the "Adjacent Lots") have constructed docks on the City Lots. The City believes that the owners of the Adjacent Lots may be illegally leasing boat slips to third parties. The City wants to stop people from using the City Lots. n. ISSUES 1. What rights, if any, presently are held by the Inland Lot owners with respect to the City Lots pursuant to the 1911 deed, which grants a private bathing and private boating easement? 2. What rights, if any, do the owners of the Adjacent Lots have with respect to the City Lots as a result of their continued use of the City Lots? ni. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Marketable Title Act bars any claims by the Inland Lot owners to a private bathing and private boating casement. 2. Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 541.01 bars any claims by the Adjacent Lot owners to a prescriptive easement. IV. ANALYSIS A. THE INLAND LOTS. 1. Actions and Claims Generally Barred bv the Marketable Title Act (Minn. Slat.. Sec. 541.023 As a general rule, the Marketable Title Act (hereinafter, the "Act") bars any action affecting either possession of or title to real property based upon a "source of title" which has been of record with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles for at least 40 years. A "source of title" is an instrument which grants to one party rights regarding the use of the grantor ’s land. Example.' include deeds, covenants, and easement agreements. There are a few exceptions to this general rule. First, such claims are not barred if within 40 years after the execution of the instrument there has been recorded with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles a notice sworn to by the claimant describing the property affected and the instrument on which the claim is founded. Second, the Act does not prohibit actions to enforce rights arising out of private covenants, conditions or restrictions where the rights asserted are created by covenants, conditions or restrictions created before August 1, 1959 if the party claiming such rights files with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles a similar notice. Minn. Stat., Sec. 541.023, subd. 2(c); Minn. Stat., Sec. 500.20, subd. 2(a). 610/220909029/1/95 -2- The Act has a very strong e(. '.cl Any claimant under any instrument barred by the Act is conclusively deemed to have abandoned all right, claim or interest based upon such instrument Moreover, the title to the property (which would otherwise be affected by the recording of such an instrument) shall not be deemed unmarketable by reason of the existence of such instrument In short, the Act affirmatively states that it is the policy of the State of Minnesota that **__ancient records shall not fetter the marketability of real estate." Minn. Stat, Sec. 541.023, subd. S. 2. Analysis of Crystal Bav Facts. The rights claimed by the Inland Lot owners are based upon a document which has been of fecord for more than 40 years. We are not aware of any notice having been filed with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles wherein an Inland Lot owner attempts to preserve the rights allegedly created by the 1911 deed. Moreover, none of the other exceptions to the Act (which might otherwise help the Inland Lot owners establish rights to the City Lots) are applicable to the facts of the Crystal Bay matter. As a result, the Inland Lot owners are conclusively deemed to have abandoned any right, claim or interest they may have had pursuant to the 1911 deed and therefore title to the City Lots is not unmarketable by reason of the 1911 deed. B. THE ADJACENT LOTS 1. Factors Necessary to Establish an Easemenf bv Prescription. The owners of the Adjacent Lots claim an interest in the City Lots. The basis for their claim is not a right granted pursuant to a written instrument but rather is by virtue of their continued use of the City Lots. In short their only apparent claim is for an easement by prescription. Establishing an easement by prescription is similar to establishing title by adverse possession. To establish an easement by prescription, a person must, for IS years, use the land in a manner which is hostile, adverse, under a climate of right, and in a fashion that is actual, open, continuous and exclusive. Larson v. Amundson. 414 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. App. 1987); Minn. Stat § 541.02 (1986). Minnesota courts will presume a claim of right adverse to the owner’s interest where the claimant of an easement by prescription has shown open, visible, continuous and unmolested use for the statutory period, inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient estate and under circumstances from which his knowledge and acquiescence may be inferred. Larson at 418. The burden of rebutting this presumption subsequently shifts to the owner to demonstrate that the use was permissive. Id. Unless the presumption is rebutted, it prevails and controls the decision as a rule of law. Hartman v. Rlanding’s. Inc.. 288 Minn. 415, 181 N.W.2d 466, 470 (1970). 61C/22090902 9/1/93 -3- Minnesota Law Prevents a Claim for Prescriptive Easements. An essential element of a prescriptive easement is the use or occupancy by one person of the land of another person. Minnesota Statutes. Sec. 541.01 precludes such a claim by the Adjacent Lot owners. The statute states in part as follows: . .provided that no occupant of a public way, levee, square or other ground dedicated or appropriated to public use shall acquire, by reason of occupancy, any title thereto." In Fischer v. Citv of Sauk Ranids. 325 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 1982), the Minnesota Supreme Court inoerpreted this provision and concluded that: (i) the provision applies to municipality- owned property; and (ii) the phrase "dedicated or appropriated to public use" by definition includes most public lands. The court has only upheld claims of adverse possession against public lands only where the municipality has abandoned the use and is estopped from asserting a claim to the property, the court noted: Simply put. the rule is that one cannot acquire adverse title against the sovereign under our statutory scheme. This absolute rule docs not preclude recovery in those rare cases such as City of Rochester . . . where adverse possession is established not within the statutory scheme, but rather is allowed under the equitable doctrine of estoppel. Based upon the language of the Fischer decision, it is unlikely that a court would conclude that the City is estopped from barring use of the City Lots. In order to raise an estoppel, in addition to the non-use there must also be an affirmative act of the City which induces the Adjacent Lot owners to believe in and rely upon such an act as constituting a represenution of the City’s intent to abandon the City Lots. In other words, the fact that the City has not used the City Lots is not enough. The City must have done something more to show that it is abandoning the City Lots and the Adjacent Lot owners must have relied upon that affirmative act. In the Fischer decision, the court cites a rare example of estoppel. In the case of City of Rochester v- North Side Coro.. I N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1941), the City of Rochester conshucted a sueet differently from the street as it was actually platted. When the city later sought to rebuild the street to conform to the plat, the city wanted to remove buildings constructed next to the existing street but on the originally platted street. One building had stood for over 40 years. The court found that the city was estopped from claiming rights to the platted street because, in addition to not using the street, the city had taken affirmative • acts upon which others had relied. The acts included: (i) relocating the street and improving and maintaining the relocated street; (ii) laid municipal water and sewer in the relocated su^eet; and (iii) issued building permits. 6UV220909029/I/9S -4- 1 In the present case, we are aware of no facts which suggest that the City affirmatively acted to abandon its interest in the City Lots. Absent such affirmative acts and reliance latpoa such acts by the Adjacent Lot owners, the Adjacent Lot owners cannot establish a prescriptive easement over the City Lots. 1 i ■V j d o POPHAM HAIK l••CtUO••lO TmC law f*«ACTlCC or Mason * rsNwicK m Lawhkncb * K btaolismbo lasi U.S Orrictti DiMVCa. COLOAAOO TtC SO»-S»3-lIOO NiAMI. BLOOIOA Til >ot-tso-ooto SUITS 3300 222 SOUTH Ninth STSSST Minneapolis . Minnesota 83402*3333 TSL 6I2-3S3-4SOO • Fax 8l2-334 SSSi SCUIIliO. CWiNA Til 01 tsii sissaii Lumo. OiawAMv Til OI l4t S4t*Atlt42S I. o e til 01 I40*TI I•I21•9 CASSIS L. BAZELLA D irect D ial <oi2> 334-2608 March 19, 1996 Mr. Michael Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Shoreline Lots Owned by City of Orono Our File No. 3643.117 Dear Mike: In connection with the referenced matter, I am enclosing samples of conveyances on certain of the lots benefittcd by the beach and bathing easement originally conveyed in 1911, which transfers such rights with the lots. In addition, one of these deeds was filed as recent as April 28, 1994, and drafted by Universal Title, wherein the private bathing and private boating easement was conveyed to certain parties (see April 28, 1994 deed from the Roths to the Ericksons). While it isn’t certain that the easement rights are still in effect, the fact that a title insurance company prepared the conveyance (and possibly insured such rights), would lend the appearance that the necessary research was conducted in order to validate the easement rights. As we discussed, in order to determine the extent the rights currently exist, a thorough title review of the four lots, in addition to the lots benefltted by the easement, will need to be undertaken. Further, we caution you that even if such title work discloses that the easement rights to the benefitted lots have terminated with respect to. one or more of the lots, it would likely require a quiet title or registration action to adjudicate the same. 357/22111543 3/19/96 • m Mr. Michael Gaffron City of Orono March 19.1996 Page2 If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact roe. Very truly yours, Carrie L. Bazella Legal Assistant Enclosure cc: Thomas J. Barrett f 357/22111543 3/19M •* * •». *(• ««f !*«•Form No. I«M M»n«r«Dt.M €m, n Mr men and BDM a . jam, ludbaad aaA VIM,W- Aaf**Mn <•••♦• • • %••••»••«•• •• .«•••••— {V nflk9Com»ti/a/ fftnatpla tiwd .«■>» of Mian.aota iM of Ikr/int , mitti LX7X>(S8T0ll FRORHTIKS, a Co*?artQ.raiUp oentlftlM ofMRBAM MCZArair, 1X0NA1O j. jaoxst and ttmc-h k. azoxznov, •/ikvCoHAiyo/ B«Mpla an</.VfffNi Mlimoaeto pm9l iito/fA#«9roNf/|Hifl, WttnUWlb, T.«l tho Bolil of tko fint fmn, lit ron»lil$r»ttan *f tho •um ofon MLLAB m omit oooo avj rAxiBu: ccrbzseiutxcsi •— to . thaa ...........-. - .. la *«a<l poM hif thr §ot<t ptH lOO of f A* abroad F*fl, IA« wra/pl WktfrofU hoMhpmrknowtoiiad.^o......h0fobi/Ufmmt./taftatm.Ml.un4 roki>»pmmloth»tkl4 port iOO •f !*• Mi>oad pofl,. thOlV Mu »mit rnttipot, FVtaai af. mit Iho tMel . of pofofi... cf Uni o^Mkftntki Vountpof . ItnAOpia nk41ltot0o/Mlonu»lm,«tft»Hhfitm»/olluut, lo-frti.- UP *0, Hook l», "Itavano lol^ta", ao<io)!41fic to tho rtoordad plat tharoof nw on fllo ml of mooi« in tha effioa o? tha Itoftotar of Sotda, Itimpla Ooirnty, KliMaootat TogotAap with plghti fop prlvata bathlnj and boating pusvoooo only evap pMt.ef tato 1, 2, 3 and b, Slosh 1, Vlloy'a Park, lako MlnnateRka, Rannapln Oemty,fUmaaotai TAjf r<*,i • - ^ f:*AU ff5f/Uf T()’ Mo«f;jL«|)d,8slth Co. bOPUamen Avaitua Seufh Kli»«apolla, Klnnaaota 55bId 2X233 Xdvi^tm. PMpaptlaa 5XQUUtlt..ddth Straat ' *ttnnanps3jiat miwaaoti 55L35 •••• ■^ —...J 7 ri fn ^ HOT REQ. O FEB IX 1900 1>. ' > •* \yiU-* ••.f f« p ^ iiioOCo iHO to fl^Ib ttjf (^Arnf, Toft^tht'f u tth nil th^ f^f^^i^flllnfnrntB oHt! uppttflPtttinrp* thffH4nhih,hiiitlHtofin,tnui,i.r„i.,,rfl,ih>li>e.H,lhf0iihlp>ifli** ofIhr0rr.,n,lp»fl, WalP Mr^anil aultof. fotri ff.ju.1 thf 0„I,I KESW273 RAl SISSL and SOM A. nTwngTf, «nd pof, Ut..fii.ffiunmfi.f„f thasaalvaa, thalr i>fiu.,irf„i.,f. oo.i „<to,ioi.tfah,u.,to earn,not iHih Ihf 0ohlp.,fliOt »fthr,r, „u,l/..,U.thOlt hriu „>,.l thay OM »iW/ 0ml$0,l h, f,0 Ofthf „H.I „f,„r.„i.l. ,n„l hi, va p,mH H$ht to .r» OH,t roHVfi, Ih* mntly •ortfAftn;ij,;3 trfadSkr^usAii MortiSj, a .;» iiSiiSi s?*s^a!;?*R^’ai?t6r::!S‘ ./»!./ thfilhoif h„ft„lHf,h„„lfM„l0,l lai.il. .,,,.1 ,...,„l,r., to ,hf y„lrt „H'f p.irfoblf of thf 001,1 fmfllt$ of thf 0f,’,m.l pan. thalp awm ««./ ny.i/n.f all p.unn. lau/allp flalo.lot np ItiNiilm Ui0 khnlfo^mnit futft lhr^0itf,§nhjfri hihifumhMiir^§JfnMp, hppplnh^fnf^ memlltm^ti, th^ •ktHpkfr pnH Hill irii^Mnl nutl fh fputl. r-.'imiwm tri^'Wd" '* ______# • ».rnvk^ r «>lM/»l,/ioa oflhrflf.l pan ha VO hfUumln.rl tholP tflllrii. Rannath Ray Rtadal V" " iiAM. 11 I 0 0 n lAX j LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD rROItSSlONAi ASSOCIAtlON July 15.2002 HAND DELIVERED Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Council Members c/o Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 JUL 2 2 2002 Otttor OHONO Eric H. Galatz 612-335-1509 eric.galatz@leonard.com Re: Stephenson Application for Amendment of CUP and Variance at 1850 Fox Ridge Road Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of the City Council: We are writing on behalf of Richard Chalfen, 350 Brown Road South, to address assertions made at the July 8,2002 City Council hearing and in the July 3,2002, letter submitted by Gregory Munson on behalf of Revis Stephenson 111 in connection with Mr. Stephenson’s application for an after-the-fact amendment to a conditional use permit (CUP) and variance at their property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. Mr. Chalfen’s property abuts the eastern boundary’ of 1850 and 1895 Fox Ridge Road and the southern boundary of 1900 Fox Ridge Road. Stephenson’s after-the-fact applications cover work Stephenson performed without a permit at 1850,1895 and 1900 Fox Ridge Road. The aerial photograph attached to this letter shows the subject properties and the Chalfen property, and the conditions that existed on the propertie.s before Mr. Stephenson clear- cut and filled the area east of his house. The Request for Council Action Zoning Administrator Weinberger prepared for the July 8 hearing sets out our objections to Mr. Stephenson’s applications and the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation to deny those applications. The purpose of this letter is to point out specific items in the record and to respond to Mr. Munson’s July 3 letter and July 8 presentation. as follows: A. Mr. Stephenson knowingly proceeded with material violations of his CUP. In the introductory paragraphs of his July 3 letter. Mr. Munson asserts that ’’Upon completion of the project conducted pursuant to the CUP, it became apparent that some of the fill encroached on the previously delineated wetland bulTer, and beyond his property line, and that the final slope was very slightly off the 3 to one ratio required." This sentence contains four separate assertions, each false or misleading: ISO South FifTH Strut Suite 2300 Minneapolis , Minnesota 55402 Tel 612-335*1500 Fax 6i2-33$-i657 LAW omClS IN MINNIAPOIIS, SAINT PAUL AND MANRATO ::34502x3 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 2 July 15,2002 1 . The project was never completed or conducted “pursuant to the conditional use permit.’ On January 4,2002, Michael Wyatt of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”) cited Mr. Stephenson for failing to install required silt fencing before commencing work, relocating wetland delineation flags, and impacting the wetlands without a permit. (Letter F attached). On February 22,2002, Zoning Administrator Weinberger cited Mr. Stephenson for failure to maintain silt fences, placing fill in the . wetland setback, and altering the property beyond the area approved by the City and MCWD. (Letter G attached). 2. The violations were made “apparent” by direct orders from MCWD and the City of Orono long before Mr. Stephenson completed the project. (See Letters F, G and H attached). In his May 2, 2002 letter to Mr. Stephenson, Zoning Administrator Weinberger reported that Stephenson had failed to respond to the violation notice issued in February and Stephenson had further violated the CUP by failing to install 4 ” of topsoil before seeding. (Letter H attached). 3. Mr. Munson emphasizes the “previously ” delineated wetland as he did at the hearing. Mr. Munson does not report that the wetland was delineated bv Mr. Stephenson through his consultant. The possibility that Mr. Stenhenson^s delineation may have been wrong does not justify Mr. Stephenson ’s blatant and intentional disregard for Mr. Stephenson^ delineation, and the orders of the MCWD and City of Orono. The CUP is a permit for 3,280 s.f. of land alteration. It is not a permit for an unlimited amount of fill up to the wetland setback, wherever it may be. Mr. Stephenson might have asked for pemiission to install more fill if he thought the wetland was further from his backyard. The City might have granted a CUP allowing more fill. Mr. Stephenson did not report a suspected error in the delineation to the MCWD or the City of Orono and he did not assert it as an e.xcuse when he was cited for failing to install and maintain a silt fence along the setback. Mr. Stephenson did not stop w'ork, confirm the delineation, and apply for an amendment to the CUP. Mr. Stephenson ’s after-the-fact wetland delineation is an after-the-fact justification for his violations of the CUP and MCWD permits. 4. The assertion that “the final slope was very slightly off the 3 to one ratio required” is very misleading. It might be true that the final slope is close to 3 to one (the as-built sur\ ey submitted by Mr. Stephenson appears to show slopes closer to 2 to 3 or 2.67 to one, 25% steeper than 3 to one). It is true that staff recommends 3 to one as the steepest slope it will permit. It is also true that the plan Stephenson submitted and the City approved calls for slopes of 4 to one. If Mr. Stephenson installed his fill at a slope of 3 to one, his slope is 33% steeper than permitted. As a result, his back lawn at the crest of the hill encroaches 38 feet deeper into the natural setting he violated in the course of violating his 2234562vJ ^ __% Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 3 July 15,2002 CUP. The CUP the City issued in November 2001 permitted a 4 to one slope. The City should require Mr. Stephenson to conform to that permit. B. Mr. Stephenson *s violations of his original conditional use permit and watershed district permit were either intentional or grossly negligent. In his "Analysis of Relevant Facts Mr. Munson attempts to further underplay the e.xtcnt and seriousness of Mr. Stephenson ’s permit violations by characterizing the violations as "unintentional ” and the difference between the approved and actual work as "a slight discrepancy.” Mr. Chalfen asks the City to consider the following: 1.On November 11,2001, the City of Orono granted Stephenson a conditional use permit for 3,280 s.f. of land alteration. A site plan marked by Zoning Administrator Weinberger shows the area covered by the permit and the area Stephenson actually altered without a permit. (See letter attached to the report to the Planning Commission and this as letter as ”D"). Stephenson covered at least twice the area he was permitted to cover. 2.Mr. Stephenson ’s intrusion into the wetland buffer was not "unintentional ” or, if the intrusion was unintentional, Mr. Stephenson was grossly negligent. The January letter from the MCWD (Letter F) cites Mr. Stephenson for commencing the fill work without installing the required double silt fence. After the January citation, Mr. Stephenson installed a single silt fence. The February letter from the City of Orono (Letter G) cites Mr. Stephenson for failing to maintain the single silt fence. Photographs of Mr. Stephenson driving construction equipment on the wetland side of silt fence, with openings in the silt fence, demonstrate that there w as nothing "unintentional ” about Mr. Stephenson ’s violation of tlie wetland buffer. In fact, those pictures may demonstrate that Mr. Stephenson intruded on the w etland itself. Color copies of some of the photographs Zoning Administrator Weinberger attached to the Request for Council Action are attached to this letter. 3. Mr. Stephenson ’s intrusion across his side setbacks and into his neighbors’ yards was also either intentional or grossly negligent. Mr. Stephenson ’s CUP approved a set of plans w'ith distinct construction limits. The fill e.xceeds those limits by 50 to 60 feet on each side and crosses Mr. Stephenson ’s property lines. Mr. Stephenson failed to mark those limits or take other action to confine the fill to the approved limits. Further, Mr. Stephenson and his contractors could not have placed the fill without intentionally clearing the trees and brush from the filled area. 4. Mr. Munson asserts that the "primary purpose for the e.xpansion of the fill area was to improve drainage for all parties involved ....” Mr. Stephenson was not simply feathering his fill into his neighbors’ yards. Mr. Stephenson brought the crest of his hill 22JI4562vJ i Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 4 July 15,2002 38 feet further toward the wetland and built his slopes 25% steeper than the City CUP allowed. If the “e.xpansion of the fill area” laterally was required at all, it w as required to improNC drainage conditions Mr. Stephenson created in violation of the City ’s permit. 5. Mr. Munson characterizes Mr. Stephenson ’s work as an improvement to the wetland bulTer and drainage characteristics of the site. Whether the current conditions are better than the natural conditions Mr. Stephenson destroyed is questionable but irrelevant. Mr. - Stephenson had a permit to install a hill with a 4 to one slope over a limited area on the condition that he install silt fences and keep his activities outside the wetland bufTer. Mr. Stephenson clear-cut and filled tw ice as much land as his permit covered, failed to install silt fences, drove construction equipment in the wetland buffer, and installed a hill w'ith a slope that is steeper than the approved 4 to one slope and the steepest permissible slope of 3 to one. 6. Mr. Munson again characterizes the difference between the finished slope, which “appears to be appro.ximately 2.9,” as “unintentional ” and a “slight discrepancy ” with the “required” 3 to one slope. The facts are (a) the slopes appear to be as steep as 3 to 2, (b) Mr. Stephenson knew or should have known the fill substantially e.xcecded the permit, and (c) the slope required by the permit the City issued on the basis of plans Mr. Stephenson submitted was 4 to one. 7. Mr. Stephenson is responsible for his actions and for the actions of his consultants, suppliers, and contractors. Mr. Stephenson presents himself as a victim of the City, the hauler who brought the fill to his site, and his w etland delineator. According to Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Stephenson clear cut and filled twice as much land as his pemiit covered, failed to install and maintain silt fences, installed fill in the wetland buffer, in his side yard setback and on his neighbor ’s property, and drove construction equipment in the wetland buffer because (a) the City provided an inaccurate topographic surv ey, (b) the hauler would not stop hauling, and (c) his wetland delineator erred. If it is true that all or any of these parties victimized Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Stephenson should seek redress from those parties. None of Mr. Stephenson ’s excuses, if true at all, justify his violations of the CUP. C. li'heiher or not the City has the authority to issue the permits Mr. Stephenson seeks, the City should not issue those permits. In our July 8 letter to the City, we alleged procedural irregularities that may render Mr. Stephenson ’s application invalid. Specifically, the copy of the 350-foot notice map the City provided for my review and the survey Mr. Stephenson submitted with his application did not include all of properties Mr. Stephenson altered. These are technical arguments Mr. Chalfen will investigate further if necessary. The City 22i4U>2vi Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 5 July 15,2002 should reject the applications for the following more important substantive reasons; 1.The City will set a dangerous precedent if it approves Mr. Stephenson ’s applications. Mr. Stephenson violated the original CUP knowingly or with gross negligence. Rather than correcting his violations when cited in January and February, Mr. Stephenson proceeded with his work and with further violations. When the City cited Mr. Stephenson again in May, he came to the city with a request for afler-the-fact approvals that will allow him to . continue his violations forever. If the City approves Mr. Stephenson ’s applications the City will set a precedent that encourages landowners with potentially controversial projects to develop first and ask forgiveness later. Worse, the City may be setting a legal precedent that may require the City to grant after-the-fact approvals for projects the City would not have approved in the first place. 2.Mr. Stephenson ’s neighbors do not have the authority to forgive Mr. Stephenson ’s permit violations. Mr. Stephenson violated a CUP the City of Orono issued under laws designed to protect the environment and the interests of all citizens of the City of Orono. The City cannot delegate authority for enforcement of its laws to private individuals, especially not individuals who benefit from the violation of the law. 3.Mr. Stephenson ’s violations are material and long lasting. Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Munson have attempted to minimize the gravity of Mr. Stephenson ’s actions. Mr. Stephenson clear-cut approximately 6,500 square feet of trees and brush. As the attached photographs show, Mr. Stephenson left an unsightly pile of tree trunks and brush at the bottom of the hill, within the w etland setback. On information and belief, Mr. Stephenson buried the balance of the trees and brush under his hill. The photographs also show that Mr. Stephenson left a huge, unsightly hump of a hill w here he had pemiission for a hill half as wide and 25% less steep. Mr. Stephenson and his neighbors do not object to this unsightly hump because they do not see it. CONCLUSION The City Council Should Deny the Requested CUP Amendment and Variance and Should Order Strict Compliance with the Existing CUP Mr. Chalfen concurs w ith the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the CUP amendment and the variance and offers the following with respect to the staff recommendations: 1. With respect to the first staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the City Council should deny the request for a variance that w ill allow the Stephensons to encroach into the w ctlands. To the extent compliance w ith the original CUP constitutes a hardship, the 2234562v3 i Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 6 July 15.2002 Stephensons created the hardship by violating the CUP in the first place. If the current delineation discloses that the hill docs not encroach, Mr. Chalfcn asks that the City determine the degree to which Mr. Stephenson ’s activities in the assumed buffer effected the delineation. To the extent the delineation depends on analysis of vegetation and soils. Mr. Stephenson has substantially altered both. 2. With respect to the second staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the slope of the filled grade must not exceed the recommended three to one slope and that the foot of the slope must be removed from the twenty-six foot wetland setback. To the extent the grading plan the City Council approved in November 2001 requires slopes shallower than 3 to one. Mr. Chalfcn urges the City Council to require Mr. Stephenson to comply with the original permit. a.In addition, to the extent the City Council docs not require strict compliance with the original CUP, the City Council should require that any slope along any radius extending from the Stephensons ’ pre-existing back lawn area of the house must not exceed three-to-one. Thus, if the Stephensons are required, as they should be, to remove all fill extending beyond the side lot setbacks, they should be required to remove and re-grade the remaining fill as may be required to ensure that the slope extending along the edges of the pemiitted fill areas does not exceed the recommended slope. Mr. Chalfcn docs not object to minimum feathering of Mr. Stephenson ’s hill into his neighbors’ yards in order to prevent creation of gullies. b.As the staff notes, by violating the original CUP, the Stephenson have extended their existing back lawn area by approximately thirty-eight feet. The staff also notes that it “is not opposed to this change in the plan ” if the Stephensons meet the required slopes and remove the base of the hill from the wetland setback. Mr. Chalfen is opposed to this change in the plan. As a practical matter, reducing the slope and moving the base and sides of the hill toward the Stephensons ’ house should have the effect of reducing the flat back lawn area at the top of the hill. (We acknowledge that in earlier correspondence we suoported the stafTrecommendation of slopes of 3 to one. We believed stafl'recommended a 3 to one slope because that slope was consistent with the original approvals. We have since discovered that the original CUP approved slopes of 4 to one. Our position is and has been that Mr. Stephenson should be required to comply with the original CUP.) 3. With respect to the third staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen believes that the City Council must require the Stephensons to remove the fill from the adjacent properties and from the side yard setback areas w ithin the Stephensons ’ property. Mr. Chalfen therefore disagrees with the staff suggestion that the City Council may accept “the consent ” of the neighboring 2234562v3 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 7 July 15.2002 property owners as effectively authorizing amendment to the Stephensons ’ CUP because (1) the neighboring property owners do not have the right to waive the Stephensons ’ violations of the original CUP on behalf of the other citizens of the City of Orono or the City of Orono itself and (2) the Stephensons may not have included their neighbors ’ properties in the 350 foot mailing list and did not include that properly in liie certificate of survey submitted with the applications. For all the reasons stated above, all the conditions of the existing CUP must be enforced to proteot the environment and the interests of the City and citizens of Orono. Mr. Chalfen therefore urges the City Council to (a) adopt the Planning Commission recommendations and reject Mr. Stephenson ’s application*: and (b) adopt the staff recommendations, with the following clarifications: (1) any damage cai by the Stephensons ’ work to the wetland itself must be mitigated; (2) all slopes must not exceed 3 to one or any shallower slope required by the original CUP, even if that means the Stephensons need to reduce their unlawfully expanded backyard; (3) all fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and the aide yard setback areas, regardless of adjacent property owner consent; and (4) landscaping of the re-graded areas must comply with the original CUP. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, City Plarmer 22J4562V}i Jun-l3-:002 07:3}» FraKITY Of ORONO 49522494616 T-442 P.61 i/020 M40 w rUM Afv *wep Mmimm*. s Qtyoor oor t 9QM7 tmm . -T. _ V --^*, • C>| fc % A &9 '^1 •J i^aj Jun-I 3-208? 07:23ai Ffot-CITY OF OROHO ^05224940 I8 r-442 P.010/020 F-340 \K 4e.09rM«A s 00*00* Qcr z .^jr, , r X k Jun-13-2002 0T:2Jai Fro«-CITY OF OROHO Minnehalia Creek ♦9522414616 T-442 P.012/020 F-340 QatfttUmtttCtm Hnyn15A19.Ni«i Mit 2SOOStady«eednotf 0Bi(Skir, MN 56991-S570 PftcnK(9S2)471<CSOO I>Sm;(B2)471<€{02 Em* ai]n^«imnnitahtcn>*Ma VM&8M: «iwwjnlnMhtftt*ek.iHB BMRl«faiiMg«n PamtU&iSUi JafflMCiMu LinMFlilMr UonIcaQraii SooK'nMmM HakshnMd FiobertSchtHdir aterahed Disfrict In^nvin^ Quality ofWat€r, QuaU^ffttfe Revis Stephenson 1850 Pox Ridge Road Orono, MN 55356 January 4,2002 Mr. Stephenson: During routine Inspections by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed DisM^ (MCWD) Staff, we found a number of violations of the provisions of the MCWD Rule B permit for erosion control. At the location cited below, violations were recorded on January 4.2001: , pnrmtf Road- Grading has been initiated without the necessary erosion control measures in place as Indicated on the erosion control plan submitted to MCWO. It also appears as though soils near the wetland area have been heavily compacts by construction equipment and a portion of the wetland may have been Inadvertently filled from constniction activity. In order to avoid penalties from the Minnehaha Creek Waterel^ District vrfilch may Include fees and the Order, these violations require prompt and Immediate a^ntton. All violations should be attended to and fixed immediately. Wortc should net continue until the necessary repairs have been made. A deadline of January 8,2002 has been given In order to resotva these Issues. The permit holder Is thereby required to: • Instil silt fences to MCWD specifications on all downhni slopes and around stockpiles . . ^ j » • Silt fence must be maintained In order to be effective and up to MCWD standards • ,, « • Wetland delineation flags must be inaintained In the onginal locations for reference to wetland boundary . ^. • No impacts to wetlands may occur with this project if impacts are unavoidable. MCWD Board of Managers approval will be required for tll0 PfOjSCt • Soils must be decompacted In areas within 25 feet of the weUand boundary following construction ^ A MCWD representative will Inspect the required repairs made to the construction sites later in the week. Thank you for your pr^pt cooperation and Immediate attention to this matter. If you have any questions please call 952-471-0590. SincereVi Michael Wyatt District Technician Jun-13'2002 0f:24#i FrarCITY OF OSOW ♦9522494111 T-442 P.fll3/(I20 F-340 CITY of ORONO Maaldpal Oflicts matMdfMi: 2750 Kiiliy Pufcwair OiDNi MN 553S6 MaMRg Mirfts: P.O. Ba 66 Qyital Bay, MN 55323^066 Febniaiy 22,2002 Revis Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge R°*d Long Lake, MN*55356 Mr. Stephenson: p,,„-„j..-.«;..i.««tio.»<ihtheClgofOtoDOii,IMCVmw»fo.»«tamunfctroficuaiel,i«l «,1te Uuid illeoIiOB on the piopeny. The Ms'S!!All viftintioflg arc icQuircd to bo coitccted by Morch 5» 2002« Tbis d&tc is sptc y iSpor^t «the mild winter causes great concern over erosion that will occur since the ground has not frozen. 1. 3. 4. The silt fences halve not held and should be replaced or repaired. Refill has been located within the required 26* wetland buffer and must be removed. No fill or land alteration is permitted within 26* of a wetland. ginaldeva^n, and to indicate any land alteration that nt^ have occurred beyond theon ori 5. for water that will wash fiU down the hUl towards the wetland area. •n,. ^nmetioos must be competed by March 5.2002. Please contact the City when the abovejuc rompletc for an immediate inspection. Shortly after they are cornplete the required 4“ topsoil shaU . and the hillside seeded so the vegetation can establish itself.be added and the hillside seeded so the Please feel free to cootacrmeassoonaspossiWctodisruss this matter. lean bereachedat952.2IP. 4600. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Tshplioiia(952)24M600 • Vta (OSD 2494616 wwwxLormojniLiw Jan-13-2002 0T:24» Fror<ITY OF 0W«0 ♦0S224Hllt T>442 P. 014/020 F>340 cmrof OROXO Municipal CMBccs SirattIdOnsit 2750 Kelley Pnliwey Orotw. MN 55356 Maillflf AOIltSI: P.O. Bn 66 Ciystsl Bay, MN 55323 0066 May 2.2002 Mr. RevU Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road LongUdie. MN 55356 Dear Mr. Stephenson: I am writina thb letter as a followup to our prev ious conespondeiice and meetings relating to the fill and **SlbJfo^ *fSid •» vioUtions becootetednoted below immediately. 1. 2. The lilt fences have not held and must be replaced or repaired. ^ v, The fill has been located within the required 26* wetland buffer and must bo removed. No fill or land alteration is permitted within 26’of a wetland. 3 Soils must be decompacted to the standards set ibrth by the MCWD In areas within 26’ofthe wetland. 4* It appears some land alteration has occurred beyond what was approved by the City and MCWD. Tlie City of Otono Is requesting you resurvey the proper^ lines and Identity any changes to the final gndiTig not consistent with the approved plan. We also noticed the existing hillside has recently been seeded. The Conditional Use Permit required the finished grades match the approved grading plan approved by the Council. Additionally, 4 of top soil is required to be placed above the finished grades prior to seeding. Please contact the City for an inspection as soon as finished grades are established. Once finished grading is approved the required 4” topsoil must be added and the bniside seeded so the vegetatkm can establish hielf As soon as seeding is completed, a second inspmtion is required. These corrections roust be completed by May 16,2002, or the City may initiate legal action. Please feel free to contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. I can bo reached 952-249-4600. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Cc: Michael Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Renae Schubert, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Mike Oaffrnn, City of Orono ___ Wendy Bonenberg, City of Otspo Telepliooe(9S2) 24M6d6 • Fax(952)24M616 wwwxi .orono Ji».us I m f PIIOMm.K M'MS I AKK.N ll\ I H)NAKI). M RKH \M> DKINAR.'i r>. AV- ■ At, a H vi / jflH '! '•- ■-! '■ y^. wp ^ -- 9c? fev. iPwmi' -r •Kv#' ' AB # sv. wm '^’>L'7 w m ■.-jm t'^ f ..•A-i ■m1^ (<y.i»#i s? frit ^ '''••• •; . :C- V •• ; *./ • ••.' - '•• ■& ^ . . ‘ ' -Ct *. • |•|I()I(M;KAI’IIST.\KF.^ IN I Kimi ARV 2002 i i« 1 I « 2 I^ il i. fJ ? t'- I ? ^ V!!k -> •» » w^PifI if. lifeK -4 ;• f;! . « •" •■ •.••:.• X • ’ : ) >5' • 1 * : >■ .it 4B-"< ... — iJ ^ V» ei a^.« iw i 'M ■ if ■1 *‘T ■m ' % if ' 4 !«isi ••/jlf ,.-• ■--£1 1.%,.,,-V i- ifik;iK.«r<rrUv ',••1 «»0 ^;!)' ■X ■.-,. '• ’* • if ■■'^! ■ v*‘.'i)-• ' ii , V- >^.-’.‘l ' '-i;£-- -‘.'v ,;'i m I ; 'll?I I t '1 1':-,’-■-r. . . .. -^r- • • - .- . '-^' ._■ --I'SSk ... •5it- U, A \ '•# f -— - .<• si - ■■ V ?: •K. J ■• k"" •^7 • ■ . W-' ■..#,,.i3^#i: ii h-*t- t; ^m. m K'- \ ;v. ■)' \ i yii ... 5; l{ * '.] .i •>. iilkcJi :'i« %m Ifcjr I!* - - „ '> 'I'-'* ' iL^‘ ^•'*# ' r.m ‘.-j ‘H-' ?'"<'■ \\ £ y-rf,. ' f‘. ..W V'V>v., . mm :' r . <; i ^ , V t ■ -M ■ \ Z ; . ■. . • 4 - ''* • •• > -j.% <r •V*_ •tM^Mm 9i ’ Ct *' 11^ 6Si1 u i^< M E&j.' BLACKOWIAK & SON, INC. ...... •VVER S0YEAR5 OF DEPENDABLE SEPVICEINTHISAREA" j(j(^ ^ 2 2002 cinr uh OHONo Garage It Rubbish Service Residential A Commercial CONTAINER AND ROa OFF SERVICE 1195 Sunnyfield Rd. N. Mound. MN S53M (952) 472-3398 RADIO DISPATCHED • FAST SERVICE Rolloff Service 12.20.30Yard Box Dropped Off For Disposal MINI PICKUP SERVICE July 8, 2002 The Family owned business of BLACKOWIAK & SON, INC. had to make a difficult decision. As of July 1, 2002 we have sold our Residential and Business accounts to the sanitation company of BPI. With sincere gratitude, we would like to THANK YOU, our valued customers for letting us serve you and your families sanitation needs for the past 70 years. It was a great privilage and hope that it will continue with the service of BFI. HOWEVER, OUR ROLLOFF SERVICE WILL CONTINUE AND HOPE TO DO BUSINESS WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE. BFI will Le offering employment to all existing BLACKOWIAK drivers and their goal to retain everyone, "'he service that you have come to know will not change. You wil.. ';inue to have the same driver. The small pickup truck will continue to come up your driveway. The extra rubbish service will also continue. Their goal is to continue the dependable level of service that you have come to expect will not cease. In addition, the July-August billing will come from Blackowiak fi. Son, Inc. Starting September-October 2002 all your invoices will be coming from BFI. During the entire time of this transition and into the future,'BFI will handle any billing questions, services, issues, etc. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact the office of BFI at (952)941-5174. Just a "THANK YOU" FOR BEING OUR CUSTOMER. We want you to know we appreciated the business that you have given us in the past and hope that it will continue in the future. Blackowiak £. Son, Inc. P.S.: We are going to miss you all as many of you have become very good friends. i