Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-08-1979 Planning Packet
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1979 COl^NCIL CFJvKBERS - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 1. Call to Order/Roll 2. Comprehensive Planning Comments PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 3. 7:30 P.M. #A42 Donald Scott, 2325 Longview Ciicle SUBDIVISION ACTION ITEMS 4. #380 Phillip Rusciano, 2340 South Watertown Road FINAL SUBDIVISION (Resolution) 5. #450 John A. Kinsell, 2455 Scotch Pine Lane VARUNCE WORK SESSION 6. #434 Frederick Herfurth, 225 North Ferndale SUBDIVISION/C(M)lTIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 7. #448 James Lindsay, 2505 Kelly Avenue SUBDIVISION 8. #449 Steven Valek, Tonkaview Lane SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9. Meeting of December 11, 1978 f 'C t. o/H mi fi<> CL j J A^u-dLyy _L2J23- VHLLAGEOFOIONO ».M1 VU.t*M( T IM.LS '4 t‘. ( I i' ,1 9 // « ti J TO:Planning Conunlssion and Council FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator DATE:November 20, 1978 SUBJECT: #A42 - Subdivision Donald J. Scott, 2300 Longview Circle SKETCH PTJ\N REVIEW Mr. Scott, the developer of the Longview plat, proposes subdividing a four acre lot (Lot 2, Block 1, Longview) into two lots. Both lots meet the zoning requirements for the RR-lB District. I have checked the files on the original Longview plat (#270) and find Mr, Scott has fulfilled all items sited in the final resolution. There was nothing in the records that would prohibit the platting of Lot 2, Block 1. Please review the septic inspector's comments regarding the septic reports submitted with the application. Staff would appreciate a recommendation concerning this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 27, 1978 Staff reviewed with Mr. Scott the need for additional soil borings (2 additional borings for each lot) to meet septic ordinance requirements. Planning Commission gave conceptual approval to the subdivision subject to applicant submitting additional septic information from contractor. Public Information Meeting scheduled for 1-8-79, TO: FROM: DATE: Jeanne Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Septic System Inspector December 14, 1978 SUBJECT: Septic System Soil Testing Lot 2, Hunters Green (#380) Soil testing on the proposed Lot 2 indicates an acceptable percolation rate for on-site sewage treatment. Present water table levels ilso are acceptable for installation of a standard septic system although no indication of the seasonal high water table is shown. Gray loam with iron concretions at the depth of perc testing indicate that the lot may require an alternative (mound) system due to seasonally high water table. I would recommend that the subdivision be approved and that the type of system required be determined by further soil investigation prior to issuance of a building permit. STAFF UPDATE Staff reconmenda final approval of the subdivision. The applicant has completed all the conditions sited in the preliminary approval letter dated June 30, 1978. The only change made in application from preliminary stage is the park dedication fee is now $250.00. This fee has been paid (receipt No. 6736, dated December 29, 1978). Please review final resolution. ] ■ i f* ■" # / 4 c: ) j j > < V « >• I VJ ‘ i :*:3: oe Ik s ^i»-2 SK i\i\ o „ 0« z SC >oSS dto o o 8!l ! ►- Ui uiu. UJ < U CO 9NiONia aod Q3Ad3S3a 3DVdS 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF HUNTERS GREEN WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by Phillip Rusciano, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Dedication on the plat of rights of way for public streets and roads, shown as Waterto';n Road. 2. Dedication on the plat of "drainage and utility easements". 3. Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Conservation Easement (Exhibit A) providing for limitations on the use of the drainageway shown on the plat. # 4. Dedication to the City of a Utilities Easement (Exhibit B) granting to the City permanent rights and authority to enter upon the land to construct, install, maintain, operate and repair a sanitary sewer line and any and all appurtenances incidental thereto on, across and under the "utility easement" as shown on the plat. 5. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $250.00. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Hunters Green, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: The aforesaid plat shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorders Office on or before July 9, 1979, together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of Exhibits A A B as noted above. Resolution No. Page 2 The approval granted by this eteSl has not been filed by the date specified above. In Jhat event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the ulty of Orono for sutuivlsion review. Dated this day of William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Benson, Clerk/Administrator 1.? i ^ LM.. • • •• FLOKAGE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND KAIVER OF DAMAGES THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this 29th day of the City uf Oiuuu and~rfili&p—amf L^£i y^iMcl«niO^*\>usbanJ aud wife. — heirs, assigns, successors (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Grantor(s)) and the City of Orono, its suc cessors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee). WITNESSETH, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sun of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to Grantee the right to restrict and Grantor(s) agree to limit and pre clude < he use, improvement and development, under the condi tions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: The **dralnaga easenent" as shown on the plat of Hunters Green as filed and of record In the office of the Hennepin County Clerk and Hecorder. t! - T-r • EASENXa^T £S into this 29th day of ^uio^^^usliAn^l ouil wXfa» inafter collectively City of Orono, its sue* ation under the laws of erred to as the Grantee)• in consideration of the uable consideration, jn and convey to Grantee ree to limit and pre- lent, under the condi- he following described e of Minnesota: FLOKAGE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND WAIVER OF DAMAGES . ^.Caceraber ' tha City of 0 THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this 29th day of A UUU amf M?^iMclano^^ushand-ainf wife;' _ heirs, assigns, successors (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Grantor(s)) and the City of Orono, its suc cessors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee)• WITNESSETH, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sun of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to Grantee the right to restrict and Grantor(s) agree to limit and pre clude 1 he use, improvement and development, under the condi tions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: The "drainage easement" as ahoim on the plat of Hunters Green as filed and of record In the office of the Hennepin Coimty deth and Recorder* Hunters Green as County dezfc and •! as follows: 1, Grantor(s) hereby covenant and agree(s): A. No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land including without limit ation, fences, fireplaces, steps, docks, piers, hard-cover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or improve ment inconsistent with the natural state of the Land* B. No trees, shrubs or ocher vegetation shall be destroyed# cut or removed from the Land except as authorized by %^itten consent of Grantee. C. No earth, loam, peat, gravel, soil or any other natural material or substance shall be moved or removed from the Land aikl there shall be no dredging or excavation of any nature whatsoever or any change of the topography of ths Land without the %o:itten consent of Grantee* H X H ! B i T ^ Ii C!r/cror.3.\ ':; l;.T3 r/-:c’o _by • *^• • EMENT ito this 29th day of i^^usbaiid oud ulfe.----- ’_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t fter collectively y of OronOf its suc- on under the laws of ed to as the Grantee)• consideration of the )le consideration# nd convey to Grantee I to limit and pre- , under the condi- following described f Minnesota: cars Green as ntj dart and agree (s): ;ted# erected# or icluding without limit** >iers# hard-cover or ler structure or improve* if the Land. ation shall be cept as authorized oil or any other ed or removed from ' excavation of any ography of the Land B iT ^ f-S-rf qy I Jio soil# sand, cravel or other substance or Tn^cTTa- as landfill shall be placed# dumped or stored upon the Land and no waste# trash or garbage shall be placed# dumped or stored upon the Land, E. No use shall be made of the Land except uses# if any# which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land# and no use which would tend to change the drainage# flood control, water conservation# erosion control# soil con servation# fish and wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of the Land or the water situated thereon. • F. Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structures# uses# materials# substances# or unnatural mat ter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land. 2. Grantor(s) hereby grant# gift# quit claim and convey to Grantee# a perpetual flowage easement and right and privilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Land. 3. ’ Grantor (s) herein do hereby remiss#' release# acquit and forever discharge# forever# the Grantee and any and all of its officers and employees of and from any and all claims# demands or causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever which may arise or accrue by virtue of any flowage or trespass with water within terns of these agreements. In addition to any other remedy the Gr^tee may have# ^he covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor (s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or other wise# except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encun^ances excepts lABI All the provisions hereof shall rjin with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs#^,,stSyessors# representatives# grantees or assigns of the respectfve^yartj.es here^ xT STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTI OP HENNEPIN ) dr On this 2^ day of ^ 197 S^# before*me# a Notary Public within and for ^id County and State# personally known to me to be the person (s) described in and who executed t:he foregoing instxurosntf find ac)cjiowl0dged t.ha^ they executed said instrument- as-their own free'Tct) and deed.. WOSMOrP ^ iOTARV ruBllC - i^!N?:rS0TA % MCN ;i»IN COUNTY ^ % CemsNsaien IipitM Aiif. II# lilt f Noti state Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exeiopt This instrument was drafted by: • .. POPBAM# HAIX# SCHNOBRICB# KAUPMAN A DOTY# Ltd. 4344 IDS Center# Minneapolis# Minnesota 55402 (612) 335-9331 • •. > * V \f- “••• "t ,>1* • • ubstance or inateraa ed upon the Land and dumped or stored except usesr if ural conditixm of ange the drainage^ control* soil con- teristics shall be eon. for the purposes nts contained herein thout any liability , or unnatural mat ed herein and the uit claim and convey 3 right and privilege all of the Land. 5s,* release* acquit and any and all of and all claims# mature whatsoever riowage or trespass Grim tee leay have# rein may be enforced blic should have any s indenture or other- he land herein ances except: with the land and ors# representatives# es here^. ^ ^ C <1m 197 ^# before* me# a id State# personally .n and who execute that they executed leed. ;td. 102 I % UTILITIES EASEMENT e 1978 by and between this indenture, made this ^9th^y ® hereinafter referred to ae rniiup 1-y"* . MIWESSFtH, that ••11 mi eonv«J to tho lonJ lo »• «T.T.r. Mot:*- touo... . ,0 too. T_____... Ot tho KPOtbooot Southwest Quarter, ad „ ^he point of X5 ndnutee 15 ?* A«i2°c«itlnulng North v? d9*reea E*.t Sa'iild coitor lino tho*. t.r.tt.tl««. .oe ooocMOt cootaoo 10,105 oqooro foot man ot loot. • *saldi pen#anent eaa ^ risht and authority V . .M l>t »« of lliatotloo, o foil f*L' !I.mS ond ropolr inclodlo*. •'";^y,;^„J.ttoct. “*"‘li;:,^IlSuot7 oooor ** “nitlTS-ii^llfTMotloo. oonltoiT ^tS ood tolotod thoroto,a saaltarr •«*** * . ^ appurtenances incioanr^ •» «aln or “!®LuJcSvaly referred to ia ’reesonebly “niroortopiii 5 .... *.*ua the covenants and • • between erred to ee ider the law* ne Dollar rantee, the ant, barRaln, lent for public te County of under and 118 North, at the point ast froa the 19,47 rodaj r to the center H«« of said I of said degrees 46 >f the center Lnutes 15 13 aeconds East tt 25.00 feet ght and authority ite and repair lit ary sewer Lated thereto. It), and the la reasonably Intenance, ;he covenants and — # • t ^ . *mJ» rf_3Y e , ’^herein I""** h«eli. encumbrances except: jr ana year rirst abdVe written. STATE OP MINNESOTA ) COUIJTY OP HENNEPIM ) On this ^ 9 day of personally appeared ^57^, before meam Signed the°fSregfi^ that they executed same as their ' acknowledged ' Vv'w*.V/A .Vv* *.V\AA VAA . C t dnu Q 6ed • • _s' ^ ^ . . ^ PAUL wOSMOfF «0TA*y PUBLIC - MIXIIIES07A . NCNNC^tN COUMTY ' Vv'w‘.VyA .Vv* *.^AAA VAA PAUL WOSKOfF -------- ^-.,-KES07A ^ NCNNCPtN COUMTY ? Mf CosMMMleii fjfiiea As«. if. ittf S • ' ^ V. WAV'/' • r VA' • - sir rrse^ct and de STATE DEED TAX DOE HEREON: «ota^ Public Exempt This Instrument was Drafted By: ^‘344 IDS Center 33^9331^^*' **innesota 55402 TO: FROM: DATE: f.Pluming Commission and Council Jeanne A, Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator 'U December 29, 1978 SUBJECT: John Kinsell , 2455 Scotch Pine Lane variance Application (#450) Zoning District LR-IA The applicant proposes constructing a 23' X 22' detached garage. The garage is classified as an accessory structure requiring only a 10' setback from side yard property line. The applicant will require a hardcover variance. Hardcover Variance - Ordinance 34.202 Lot Area - 75' - 250’ 25% allowed hardcover 26,155 s.f. 6,538 s.f. Existing: house • 4,020 s.f. drive - 3.515 s.f. Total 7,535 s.f.997 s.f. over - 15% Proposed detached garage (22' X 23') Total - 506 s.f.■ 1,503 s.f. over ■ 23% i i, r t i 1 i CITy OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Land Use Application * I/5c ATI0II of proposal (or property) §J‘~' Address ^CQTC.if- Legal Description I \ c»3«J applicant Name Tel Mailing Address 414-0 OjyUUU<0Or>^I:> ZT^oui ^WtJ V k-v O/ OWNER Name M Mailing Tel #54g^-/7l4> Address >doTC>» IlKift OKo>i<3 .MiAj/t/- Present Zoning /, jC - / /? TYPE OF REQUEST Su^^:^vision $150+$5/toty^•nditional Use $50 Variance $50 _ _ Rezoning $250 _ _ Riprap $15 ($65) FEE O . C c Date Rec' d / 5. - C " 1 />r 6 ^-7 in _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use TZ<a *S 10IVv-v- Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request ^ 2 cQ-'_ _ _ _ _ _ Specify Ordinance Requirements - J <7 C <7 Explain your request and reasons for same ’ VARIANCE required - extent of nonconformity lot Area ____ Setback Front___Side Rear ____ Other« explain ____________________Width ^P»L1 £> ^ ^i A TLV -f “1 ^ C g; a 73-7-^ C»»»i0 ff.€ly-Vp^4grv^ 1 4 A TUr ^ SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain No. of Lots CONDITIONAL USE AND OTOER - explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATICMJ (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) 1. 2. 3. 4. Application completed Plat nap section — Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable 5. 6. DATE }'Zt i f • 7 ^Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature •ant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by ling Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission ncil necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay as established by ordinance. ' 5/78 >• Certified Property Owner's list of owners within (300*) (150')“ from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Government Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10) pre-addressed to each of the namea ^ on the above list : i CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY /■ /I PJ S A M FOR MARFiELO L.CT 1 . eLOCt\ 1, OICON addition C.O\j!siTYf ‘^.\N CSOTA a * /o f r f fUT SCAcE iNCHt 50 feet % I h6r«by ovtify that this turvsy was prepared by 'ne.of ondsf my direct supervision ,ond •riot 'am 0 du>y Registered Land Surveyor under J/te laws of tt^ State of Mm^sota note uT '^-'7^ Reg No 1 ■:miw /# /7- ________/f ____ •<v !T M.f • •• DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE A-603 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 2is' c)C()Mee^ -A'- / '-1 DESCRIPTION ^sc.riohJ ?-///-^3 Wi-^r^73dD /L^jC34ru£J'‘l^J(.Scti \pcmcL <=‘ "M. 2,J^S'5'^\lcf:rfr Sr/jkt^/X, r- // OiC/)U !\DOlVOt^ '245tr $U‘ TCri ei 1^' U9^<^ ff/^^//Ly 2L4^:z-5~^7W LOT BLK. PARCEL 42/^ TO: m FROM; DATE: SUBJECT; Planning Conimisslon and Council Jeanne Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator November 2^ 19? ff «34 - Fred Herfurth. 225 North Ferndale Subdivision, Conditional Use & Rezonlng SKETCH PLAN RKVTFU 5^’unn"«b'SlvLlon"o?T7 ‘ra « P-°P°=ed P.R.O. from the present Lnine of R 5 P^^operty to R-lB the application is s"! Ceres p^not made allowance for rho unit, but the developer has This might bCC Chf 5eCCCtfraC?i''ff “"‘"8 the plat. unit chargC CCcC'pareC/ XrC “ :iS‘ChrdCv“?o^cc ccn ‘=“"cig .iirF^ f^iisnrs^zn^tc^ huUdlngs. two OF the planning commission meeting - NOVEMBER 13, 1978 nC™.'Sln?™o«JCCe ”rCh‘: mo‘-L“"nS*SS"' »*“"The Coimlsslon discussed the need for rhi ^®vy Chase neighborhoods. Members questioned wherteC thC «zCCLC vC ’■°“®^"8 In Orono. rights of surrounding nelChboCsC ® *■* ^'“8a the property SESSION - He. PU„ .useutea for SuMlvUlon. P.R.p., CondU.onal „.e Pe™u s P Tji'ToU'::: umi:; ^b. for zoning district. The applicants nn i the zoning setback requiremenes (R-IB). The new eppUoaUon doe. l„„„:oe thre^’■:e^“!,“e:."^^L"^:Cii^c:d"! un%"b^:? tb^'^rd"™:l^r^r:x^‘:„^d:s^r:ir °i «he speci 1C access standards for emergency vehicles'^and°thi^ t requires plan. Second, lots 7 & 8 should be turned aroeir ^ the existing private driveway serving lot 8^wo’® «"ore southerly neighbor's lot line. There is ample to fn ? ^ to ^ necessary lot shift. ^ allow for extended cul-de-sec and Planning Commission should note that the exicM u uai. for lor. 5 4 6. The eoce..ory bolldlog. o::^r:p::r^-m^e"~o:i:d^•• * I fI* 1 - . 9 November 2, 1978 Fred Herfurth 225 North Fcrndale Subdivision/Cond. Use Permit/Variance Page 2 //V • * • *> I 4 • 11 tr^<c Zoning District - R-IA 1. Variance (Ord. 34.029) Duplex Credit - A duplex in an R-IA Diutrict must be constructed at least 200* from a commercial or industrial district. 2.Variance (Ord. 34.028) Attached Dwellings - PRD developments in an R*1A District are limited to detached single family dwelling only. 3.Variance (Ord. 38.610) Density Credit - Total number of lots or dwelling units must not exceed number of lots or dwelling units permissible under minimum lot size requirements of zoning district. Lot Size Required: Proposed: Vnrlance: 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. per unit. .772 acre or 33,623 s.f. per unit. 9,937 s.f. per unit • 23Z Please read enclosed memo from applicant. W • * # ■ V knAVVrTita -»r nrmi .nr« iir~i>nr-il rp.UrOSLD CUBDIVISIOIi - **UURT{iGATL*\ OHOHOt rJ^l - ZOh’ED li-lk - 1 Acre Single Family PROPOSED fc Single Family Attached - In Fairs Private Road - 50 ’ Right-Of-\vay , ICO’ Cul-Dc-Sac Conunon Area - Outlet B 1: Road, Controlled liaintained By Homcov/ncr ’s Association Setbacks - All Lot Boundaries Platted So That Boundaries Are At Required Front, Rear, & Side Setbacks H 03 h ^Tism Gross Property Size (Excluding 33' Right-Of-Way For Ferndale Rd.) Less Private Roadv;ay Net Property Size Density - Including Road - Excluding Road 291,337 Sq.Ft. -22.354 ^S,9b3 Sq.Ft. 36,417 Sq.Ft. or .S36 Acre/Unit 33,623 Sq.Ft. or .772 Acre/Unit -con? A RAT IVli. DL! IS ITY - ADJACENT PLATS ACRES PER UNIT Including ii.xcluding Allo-rae Terrace*”’-Including Farm House Site Allo-rae Terrace -Excluding Farm House Site , Hilloway Manor Proposed Subdivision ’’Worthgate” Roads Roads .952 .823 .796 .653 .687 NA .836 .772 iken From Original Plat Dy Highv;ay 12 See Attached Lot Size Calculations 4 Quarter Section Map «i.V '.A SM •I' y 5 . - • >% t[(A ■h^ A i «•»«•>*" Cog*lty. MImi. ♦ \ GORDON R. COFFIN u »mo<vohvi »oh and i>i. *«'■<«•» WATLM^OWN MOAO UONG LAKC MINN 553S» «7) 4141 IL•'ICn y Al ll-S-73 alu>-hao.W;E ------------- \Ve scaled area taken oy n>iy v/ (/iS eq. ft. t. .«>os„n. 3. '■'^■ 3. 29,U6 4. 25.449 8. r/,W8 eq. rt. 9. •144,898 10. • 28,984 Uiajllh^X-nAviOH (1,227,310 Plonk I sq ft) 1. n•» e 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 20,370 15,015 15,015 16,926 21,689 31,138 21,500 19,100 24,700 31,963 ft.U. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. le. 19. 20. 27,531 aq. 21,802 20,400 23,773 27,627 33,67*2 23,326 25,253 33,661 36,943 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29 28,975 47,660 42, OCX) 32,5'90 16,300 16,800 38.630 38,650 36,987 sq. ft. Block 2 ~ 19,210 pq 2. 19,146 3. 18,533 4. 19.500 ft.5. 6. 7. 8. 19,500 sq. ft. 19,500 38,077 30,599 9. 10. 11. 12. l.,,500 sq. ft. 19,500 19,582 25,215 cum. .pproxluUl, 310,183 ft, including Wi of red. j <• H<ii o»Uav Manor may vary slightly, because Figures for Ferngate L^to location of the Luce Une the legal descriptions do not agree as right-of-way.rign\.-oi-"uj . • In mu 1, 2, 9, ."8 10 of U bmu!™ (TOm°°FPro»i- SlfreHn Sm Tcurr-c - S."ni^P- section sheet.) tffltorirwfrhti .Th i ■ '• /tVI . / \ / V- . 4!' CD /Ii r o ^ C/i / c;' i/Ai'2'.4r-4 I r 2 i- * ^ f. ^ • • ::3* December 21, 1978 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusch Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 CITY OF ORONO Dear Ms. Mabusth: r.-j:-;.: ss-“i.S ™ lines in Ferndale. If you have any questions, please call Since reji^. Al Orsen City Engineer AO/js 1 rim inBriiiinriTi nB^a r r lauM i niB runw y ifci ji~ii i iiiim n ■ 11 11 n~i J.L /n A .77 .:.. cp JL MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER Mr. Moore represented Mr. Chapman. As requested by the Planning Commission, the drawings showed the horizontal division with only the front lot having riparian rights and indicated the Flood Plain and high water mark. Existing house and garage would be moved.. Planning Commission advised Mr. Moore that because a lot area variance is now being granted (each lot is .95 acre) no variances would be granted for construction of houses. Planning Conmisslon gave conceptual approval and called for a Public Information Meeting to be held December 11, 1978. Coomisslon indicated that they new zoning. Mr. Ringer was undecided, at tftis time, as to the amount of land he wuld want to have rezoned to this new zoning. The two houses and accessory buildings would remain. The landscaping would be undertaken by the University of Minnesota as their winter project. Mr. HerfurA was present. It was noted that the 50* easement for the road had not been taken into consideration and would have to be adjusted^on the plan. Planning Coomisslon requested a determin ation of the sewer assessment procedure used in ^ this area. Several members felt that Crono S..OU..O address the multiple dwelling issue. Herfurth stated that he was requesting rezonlng with a definite plan not just asking for a rszoning with no definite purpose. KEN CHAPMAN 2695 Shadywood Road SUBDIVISION (#428) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW JUDD RINGER 2240 Wayzata Blvd. SUBDIVISION/REZONINC (#433) SKETCH PLAN REVIEN l^'FRED HERFURTH 225 North Femdale SUBDIVISION, REZONINC CONDITIONAL USE PERM" VARIANCE (#434) 11 TO:Planning Coimtlsslon and Connell FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator DATE:December 21, 1978 SUBJECT: #448 James K. Lindsay, 2505 Kelly Avenue SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. Lindsay proposes dividing Lot 1 of the Kelly Avenue Subdivision Into three one-acre lots. Please review application for Lindsay's reason for platting. Lots meet the required area for Zoning District (LR-IB). Each lot appears to have the minimum 140' lakeshore width but lot dimensions are not complete and will be reviewed before next presentation. The setbacks for existing buildings on Lots 1 and 2 are satisfactory but the duplex on Lot 3 will require a variance for rear yard setback. Access road - The existing driveway will appear as a private road easement serving Lots 1 and 2. Wetland - The wetland at the northwest comer of parcel has not been designated on plan. We will require a conservation and flowage easement over the wetland. Riparian rights - The applicant requests a joint dock for each lot (one dock serving two dwelling units). If Planning Commission approves, then a variance to the Flood Plain - Wetlands Management Ordinance must be given (similar to one Issued for the Farm at Long Lake and Victoria Green). Lot 1 Is Involved; Lot 2 appears to have 15'-20' of available lakeshore but the setback request of 10' will take most of It, and Lot 3 would not be Involved. Staff recommends a private outlot over the existing dock area. This alternative will lessen the Impact on wetland and dismiss the need for a variance. Rear yard setback variance - Ordinance 34.450 Required: 30' Proposed: 6* Variance: 24'80% ‘a tor enue Subdivision n for Lindsay's or Zoning District lakeshore width iewed before next on Lots 1 and 2 .re a variance for a private road arcel has not been onservation and ck for each lot its). If Planning ice to the Flood lance must be given rm at Long Lake volved; Lot 2 ible lakeshore but ;ake most of it. •t over the existing .1 lessen the io^>act for a variance. Legal Land Use Application • ^ ^ < ^TSfPE OP REQUEST Subdivision $1504$5Aot:=ATI^3^ PRg^A^^ property) Description ^ Conditional Use $50 I applicant Nam e,/ifcZ/t 0 -Tel Address /<^t //l /i v/ct-ljsj,j Variance $50 _ _ Rezoning $250 CMNER Name Mailing Address Tel #_ Riprap $15 ($65) Present UsePresent Zoning £ '• / 3 Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request 3^^ Specify Ordinance Requirements / L^u _ _p, FEE Date Rec'd AA -//- t- Explain your request and reasons for same VARIANCE requisqd-^xtent of nonconformity „, lot Setback Front__ Side ____Width Rear Cf a/^3L Other, explain Specify hardships to prope: - , .. SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain No. of Lots CONDITI L (SE AND OTHER — explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) ^Application completed «^Plat map section Certificate of sturvey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable 5. DATE DATE Applicant's Signature O/ <t»uu— ______________Owner's Signature J am^a-----K y Applicant hereby agrees to provide all informati^/required or requested^ the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Oosnission and Council necessary to process this application >an4^ ^r>tvyr to pay all fees as established by ordinance. kelly^ave ' « : t >^^ 5c-5|\i. 5/78 51, Certified Property Owner's list of owners within (300') («5**)- from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Government Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list. f hiv^ffc iO hPJiCT *liTH.aCT v >\* ' *\«c.' V "y a U''.. Vtir ‘-VVi* .V' ^r . . 1 , ft ■ L _S. . *1 * • r -• il’-‘ /\ll^" Gr~P •‘si’i //'’■•l-^'''' '^ ■3 . 9/^: ------' f 4L * ■II15 ‘ivl» Z'll’r'.rif, !:i V •*, .'»•,/ • 4. • \. •• I y rjjU -» ' V, *V •*. ’,C ,1' >N?;' N /• f .. ?v' ^ • I *t W»T? - ^ V '*• V V *. -V )»*i« i.»* •! »•» rt ?i .-x / t #/•. v/ J/ •: <PSst 0 ^ V-' - •. S' \ V •• :-■ •<.• / / • I / ;■• / m / /.• ' / •• -y , / !l rf # •£' *. / i« I; I•.I-* /: .* • .• • I '• s • •i IV 'I* .*. m• vA P •I •• . ¥<5_ .7 -1 .0 $ •.V • -V• VV . •• -’V. ^4..:;> •.^ • ^ •■ ' } . .* . ‘ i i 'n A 0 r. •r iC • # .***. *i;. • ■ • . t *. .V-y.' :j^. •i T } 1^: '* : *’ 'I■' ^* ■^' A- • . .., 'N^ t. 4.-t I ,* • • ^ • ■ * ? '••i** !‘ t I- • :• • *•/ * • ^ 1 C.OV ’*v=» •• ' *< • ,4 '*• .V*-- *i**' 4**< *^ ** 'h#«» •• •’ ‘ >'‘-fi»n-.i:>‘- .-■• •!;,>/'■ .^*;’v • V • : . (,;■. ^ -.'if. '•; Howffio w,perkws ^*; ^.1*. •• — •* — — ■ ..!■*■ ir. Tr r.u*t c, i*’! i *' n 'ir VcUy r.v'Tiu? - !?*. A| .•.\ J t ■ •• '■■■. •'• -•«' t;«rr 0 *.•1: Tt ur.v , ; ir nr r -» P\r<4 11»>» wfi«4( . fit*, ^«VI«U/ ^^scrlrtlrr;- r.i .Suri'e:. lo, 142£, flics of of Titloc, i.err.rpir. Ccu^t; . C«r*»r:Ke ly »vcr.ut’ 1a :o1c -xcc Zoz'ii,r.j, r5« l Koliy a V , iXt -.’lri'T, lordsr. r, roffln, 5CZ:; w^t-Ttowii MtiArr’c, * y ^ y • #448 Scale: 1*‘ - IX’ ijDte : V-n5-78 Jc.rii ’r. h, Ccfrir Jur v»* cr a :.j r'l* r.r.er I M ' i REGULAR MEETING OP THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 11, 1977 Page 9 Mri Alan Olson, Assistant Building 6 Zoning Administrator, entered into the record the following information concerning a subdivision request of Douglas Dayton, 1480 Sixth Avenue North, dated September 12, 1977, which states: SUBDIVISION 1480 Sixth Avenue North #307 Douglas Dayton This proposal is for a split of one nine-acre parcel into two lots (A =» 4.6 acres, B » 4.4 acres), each exceeding the required two acre/200 ft. width of the RR-IB zone. There is an existing house, bam and riding ring on proposed Parcel A. The house requires a technical variance for the existing non-conforming west side setback. The barn requires a variance of .42 ft. (28%) from the required 150 ft. setback to the proposed division line. The riding ring is not shown on the survey, but also appears to be close to the proposed line. There are no designated wetlands on this .property. Access is to the County road. A park dedication fee should be required for the newly proposed parcel. Public hearing scheduled for October 3, 1977 at 7:45 P.M. #44 8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1977 Mr. Fred Herfurth was present. Planning Commission recommended approval of preliminary plat as presented subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. Developer obtain approval from Hennepin County Engineering Department for any changes of newly proposed access entrances from the property to County Road #6 and all other County recommendations All drainage and utility easements as determined by the City. Park dedication■fee of $500 ($250 per lot). Title opinion addressed to the City. Council Meeting - October 11, 1977 Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to give preliminary _ approval for the subdivision request of Douglas Dayton, 1480 Sixth Avenue North. Notion, Ayes (3) Nays (0). ! Hr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building 6 Zoning Administrator, entered into the record the following information concerning the request of Dan Lindsay, 2505 Kelly Avenue, for a conditional use permit, dated September 7, 1977, which states: Vf^IWITIONAL USE PERMIT 2505 Kelly Avaiue #310 Dan Lindsay Received application for conditional use permit for planned residential development and duplex credit (38.600 i 34.029). The proposal is to construct two new duplexes (four units total)(Continued) REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 11, 1977 tioi receipt of all necessary setback informa-cion.as requested. Page 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2505 Kelly Avenue (Continued) The pro^sal includes a request for a joint use dock. Shown are four slips for the new units. There is no existing dock for the existing duplex. time of the subdivision, a $4,000 park provision that additional park fees would be collected should any additional units be permitted on Lot A, The request is for four new units on' A; therefore, three additional unit fees would be due at the time of permit issuance (3 X $1,000 » $3,000). A w c/L. Council Meeting - October 11, 1977 Dan Lindsay questioned the amount of the park dedication fee stating that he felt that the fee being proposed as excessive. Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, to approve two conditional use permits, one for Lot A and one for duplex credits, subject to: 1. Staff review of park dedication fee. 2. No dock consideration at this time because of moratorium. Notion, Ayes (3) - Mays (0). Mr. Alan'Olson, Assistant Building « Zoning Admlnxsfcra^orf entered into the record the information concerning a variance request of Christine Beck, 3820 Cherry Avenue, dated September 16, 1977, which states; VARIANCE 3820 Cherry Avenue #311 Christine Beck applicant wishes to remove an existing over~ han9 and to replace an existing garage. The constnction requires variances due to the existing substandard lake and side setbacks. The overhang removal will take approximately 60 sq. ft of hardcover out of the lakeshore setback area. The zone district is 1/2 acre: the lot is 70% of one acre less some wetlands. The lots are ccxnbined. r Variances:Lot area 6 width - none Side setback (existing) 5 ft. Lake setback 35 ft.50% variance 46% variance (Continued) ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD'JULY 26, 1976 Page 4 July 15, 1976 Mr. Giere is now requesting approval of the final plat of his subdivision proposal. I am enclosing copies of Loth the preliminary and final plans for your review. FINAL SUBDIVISION 350 North Arm Lane (Continued) Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1976 The Planning Commission recommended approval of this final plat subject to a par)c dedication fee in the amount of $500 being paid. #448 Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to adopt Resolution #694, A Resolution Approving The North Arm Estates Second Addition. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). RESOLUTION #694 North Arm Estates Second Addition Dick Benson, City Administrator, stated that when the Super Valu proposal was approved, the City staff informed all residents and others using the area for parking that the municipal parking lot was available for daily parking and that construction was to commence immediately. Letters have also been sent to Super Valu ^md the contractors on the site requesting their assistance in seeing that their personnel use the site and not the street for daily parking. NAVARRE PARKING Commuters are still parking their vehicles on the street and catching a bu& for work. This does create a problem for all the businessmen and those who ^pend tmon drop-off business transactions. The only solution is to po-st certain parking limitations to allevi -tt^ Lhe problem. A petition signed by twenty-three Navarre businessmen was presented which stated: We,the undersigned businessmen of Navarre area, are requesting two-hour parking on County Road #15, also known as Shoreline Drive, from County Road #19 west to Navarre Avenue from 6x00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. PETITION Navarre Parking Searles moved, Paurus seconded, to adopt Resolution #695, A Resolution' Requesting Two- Hour Parking Signs On County Road #15 At Navarre. Motion, Ayes (2) - Nays (1). Councilmember Butler Nay. RESOLUTION #695 Two-Hour Parking Signs Henry Muhich, Building a Zoning Administrator, stated that Dan Lindsay (Kelly Avenue Holding Co.,), 2505 Kelly Avenue, is requesting approval of the final plat as submitted. I have enclosed FINAL SUBDIVISION 2505 Kelly Avenue (Continued) f ii f ! 3 ORONO COUNCIL IlEETING HELD JULY 26, 1976 Page 5 copies of both the preliminary proposal and the final mylar for teview. We could consider approval of the final subdivision plans subject to receipt of the park dedlcaiioh fee. FINAL SUBDIVISION 2505 Kelly Avenue (Continued) No building permits can be issued for Tract A, however, until we have more detailed plans for the P«R.D. proposal made for this lot*. We will have to review the entire p.R.D. concept and determine whether or not the proposed duplex credit Should be permitted. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1976 The Planhing coiilnllssion reconmerided approval of this final plat subject to the park dedication fee in the cunount of $4,000 being paid. The approval does not constitute approval of the proposed P.R.D. development as the necessary plans Md data have not as yet been sxibmitted for review. Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to adopt Resolution #696, A Resolution Approving The Registered Land Survey #_ _. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). RESOLUTION #696 RLS # 2505 KeTTy Avenue RESOLUTION #696 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organised and existing under the laws of the State of MinnesotaI and 14HEREAS, the City Council of the City oiil Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat for the Kelly Avenue Holding Company for Daniel T. Lindsay» NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat for the Kelly Avenue Holding Conqpany, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the park dedication fee being paid. This resolution will expire on December 1, 1976, if the aforesaid subdivision plat has not been filed with the Hennepin County Register of Deeds. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision approval. i counrr 00*0 no »#310 Pitil f! -)-/n-76 ' PROFOSeO SUBDIVISION FOB DANIEL r LINDSAY Dt OS y f^M-e ^4-48 im»r* •0sfrm» *9 9t •*#/» IN LOTS IS-IS, OL. e, LANGDON PARK *.-!» !iUI*. •rw ^ C u» ♦-'• •Cix-ro.ng r*» lr« rtto^tc pu* iM'tPt. iACCYl tre tt^U- ^JO 9itt ii %acLcti. 4t m«jwrctf *• .f** -3 ••1*1 ?r« u»«| o* ‘It iott A*»D ^ JICL^'T ir«tt t 0* tf€ t%. »* 5* *•<* i<* w*d kot *1 bu«*'> a’ I* t«k.' «* (to tl4 \.«* J* l4.t IJ a! .* it.'"* a *• •'“t S ' 5, Mtl ♦'.iT. *1 • *4urtl ‘A<Nt ».*‘^crc* w*' %>»• »3 5<r4i.r • /" •- /oo ‘ 0»T£ • ! '19'Tt DAT urn: 0£AN SC A Ifl^eL G0900N 9 COFFIN LANO SUAVCrOA A FlAMMtA LOMA LAKt. mtMMeSOTA I ^itii thPl *fcS TSrSnKM n^% 4ahSHrvm mJ« U» b«P «f tinMii Mii» i ■ (. i* U /I TO:p nPlanning Coininission and Council . ^ h I«• /II .. iC A a fi- FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator DATE: SUBJECT: December 29, 1978 Steven F, Valek, Tonkaview Lane Subdivision Sketch Plan Review (#449) Zoning District LR-IB. Mr. Valek proposes a division of 12.6 acres into eight lots. Lot 1, Block 1 (originally I^ts 4 and 5 of the Bergquist & Wicklund Addition) with an existing house included in the plat because of its involvement with the plat road (see attached letter from Winton Palmer). Portions of the property are sewered and there is approximately a 1/4 to 1/3 acre wetland within subject property. All lots meet the zoning district requirements. Sewer Extension - The applicant requests extension of sewer service to each of the seven lots. There is a total of two unit charges against original Lots 1, 2 & 3 Bergquist & Wicklund Addition. The request would be for five additional units. Mr. Palmer’s lot is already sewered. The Public Works Director will be asked to determine if existing system could handle the additional units. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to Council designating approval or disapproval of sewer service to the five additional lots. Applicant is aware that he must pay for entire installation of sewer line through property. Plat Road - The access point for plat road onto Tonkaview Lane will have to be moved further west because proposed access is in an extremely hazardous location. The City engineer and staff will make a final determination and report back to the Commission. Staff recommends a 60' road easement for this eight lot plat because of probable development pressure resulting from the proposed road opening land-locked property to the east and north. Unfortunately, the City does not have a Comprehensive Transportation Plan for reference, but earlier plattings in area reveal networks of unimproved 60' wide road easements that suggest future city involvement (see Exhibit B). We will also ask for a 30' road easement along northern border of property for future extension of Highview Lane. If the Planning Commission does not feel this plat road fits into this network of city roads and services, then the road easement need only be 50*. Wetlands - There is a designated wetland within parcel. The applicant has been advised of the 26' setback requirement. Until we determine the extent of the road easement, there may be a need for a setback variance for road. J ; CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Land Use Application • ■f~~ ff 1 t U)CATION OF PROPOSAL (or Address r propeijt?/, M■ .. if 4i* -^4I o K cl t j / fuy L. ct >/•;/ t p/at V/<?6o v/ib y :s Legal Description /cc»f■ ^f.v ^__a«/.0£Po applicant Name ^tr ur-^ P UJe/( Tel # Vy/-t?6Cf Mailing Address fi.AX CP..eK //)ri OWNER Name Mailing Address ------ /Vtf-lt rL Tel # TYPE OF REQUEST ubdivision $1504$S/Iot Conditional Use $50 _ _ Variance $50 _ _ Rezoning $250 ___ Riprap $15 ($65) FEE Dat^Rec' d ■ • 7/ By / _____________ '/ Present Zoning R, “ I ^_ _ _ _ _ _Present Use Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request _ _ _ _ Specify Ordinance Requirements / 6-‘C a ^ ^ Explain your request and reasons for same — property VARI^CE required - extent of nonconfomity it Area Setback Front Side Other, explain Rear Specify hardships to SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain No. of Lots ^ COiroiTIONAL USE AND omER - explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATIC»I (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) 1. jApplication completed 2. ^Plat map section 3. ^Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal 4. ronntrnrtlon plans, if applicable 5. Certified Property 0«mer*s list of owners within (300*) {hSV)~ from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Government Center 6. I Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#10) pre-addressed to each of the niunes on the above list. DATE Applicant's Signature DATE Owner's Signatxire Applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Ocmnission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all fees as established by ordinance. 5/78 . *1 /3??•• • recer.ber 22, 19.8 City of Orono p.O, Box 66 Crvstnl Bnyt 55o-3 Attn: A1 oison . Pear A1, Ihe'Ippiicairfor slnHHv^sfoJ apr?o^^\"rf''the''prope^^^ Sincerely, 1 i ■ J JEC 26 1S73 CITY CF ORONO fjf Ai- ":-i: u recewber 20th, 19^8 City of Orono Crystal Bay, Mn,S5323 Attn: A1 Olson, City Planner Pear A1, h*c hereby acrce to the rcriuest made by Steven •anrsJr;nv’’d«iri™.r"^r%no:^'Ms?Hjruv’n 41307, Parcels 1000,2000,3000, and 0620 in Section ., Tounship 117, Range 23. Sincerely, OKners Howard Schwinmer ^ ^ P.onald rishnan , j / fif. L • . If j'l] -r fjf - ■■ -•- .*■ M l/H I ..if- ‘ ti-stc <v» .... county,,,,. . -ROAD — 1 ** / a •( [ <c • '• *. V •V <2(70^' U* ^ ; ' • r l5•-« V • 6. *«r '##*» V n Vm, J >. /<•-* ! ^ -N /.*r iJ' S • c .* #»i T ITT • / . •* .’IK •*) Af Ne 151 — I I >Mt itf V*1AU« Ml l«t «.r* . 1 4 • • I. -i r ^ /. •I 3 ■I . # . / “’i hJv __ .v^ ^InZL _ ■2#JL-.' "T r#//###ui % imf y«v« J pJU; I < r 9i IJ ■MMta t ,/1 -Hi //£ ^ ^ -i*--* rt- - -1^ I •«/*( " \ nr*<5?^ ?• r ••.. .•♦COUNTY . ^<i^C Pn - R060 •’^■^•'-'-•No l&»— V \ •ii 1££il y y r ' >Mi ^ »»••« H««t »•«• : * ! ‘VMtIH* t»«iM 1*1 j:• I • • • • ^ m « I » . .4 * iEi Af Beyy.mf. —HfGHK^lEW ! — - V 'l. r »»•• ■' . /« 6 0i$k » y2.V> —V < 5«.m ». . is®. *«/V .._ ? /W ** R Tf % /;»i :: - f ..5 • // ± « •V I '« n TO: FROM: Council and Planning Commission Alan P. Olson, Village Planner DATE:December 5, 1978 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees « « On November 14, 1978, the Council discussed revision to the park dedication fee ordinance. I recommend review and adoption of the attached ordinance draft. This is an exerpt from the most recent draft subdivision regulations which have been under study for the last year, I recommend calling a public hearing for the first meeting in January. The revisions include language arising from the recent Supreme Court decision involving the Bloomington ordinance. Other changes from the existing ordinance Include: 1. Commercial - Industrial Dedication. 2. Increase in rates on certain densities: Five (5) acre lot from 1-1/4% to 5% Two (2) acre lot from 2-1/2% to 10% 3. Establishment of flat race (minimum) fee of $250.00 for building permits on existing lots rather than the percentage rate which often ran up to the maxinv.-n $1,000 fee. 4. Clarification of policy wherein no fee is charged for existing residences or building sites when a division is made, i.e.; a lot split will be charged one fee,not two; a five lot division with one existing house will be charged four fees, not five. STAFF UPDATE - DECEMBER 28, 1978 Council suggested review of a simplified flat fee type of dedication by staff. Covincil also requested review by the Park and Planning Commissions. The attached December 28, 1978 draft clarifies the Park/Planning Commission review process. It retains the density formula for land dedication. It establishes a flat fee for cash contribution. The fees listed are similar to Norm Paurus's suggestion and to Eden Prairie's schedule. The flat fee will be quicker to calculate, especially for the applicant, but the rates shown will reduce the income. fSee examples on the attached page.) » I December 5, 1978 Park Dedication Fees Page 2 Examples: I #367 Stielow Addition (12 lots - 8 new) Fees collected - $4,336 Fee as proposed - $2,400 #363 American Rebuilders (4 lots - off lake) Fees collected - $1,000 Fee as proposed - 900 #346 Paul Raster (2 lots > lakeshore) Fees collected - $2,000 Fee as proposed - $ 300 #385 Paul Englund (2 lots - off lake) Fees collected - $ 500 Fee as proposed - $ 300 l’ y Draft Copy 12/5/78 Revised Draft Copy 12/28/78 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO BY AMENDING CHAPTER 39 RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION AND REPLAT OF LAND AND CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATIONS FOR PARK, PLAYGROUND AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF ORONO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: Section 1. The nninlcipal code of the City of Orono is amended by amending Chapter 39, Section 39.170 as follows: 39.170 Parks, Playgrounds, Open Space, Storm Water Holding Areas and Ponds. Subdivision 1. Lands for Public Use Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1971, State Statute A62.338, Subd. 2, the City requires all subdividers as a prerequisite to approval of a final subdivision or development of any land previously divided by plat, metes or bounds or any other means, to convey to the City or dedicate to the public use for park, playground, open space, storm water holding areas and ponds a reasonable portion of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City or in lieu thereof the subdivider shall at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public parks, play grounds or storm water holding areas or ponds, and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the undeveloped land value. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon need and conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. « •Subdivision 2. Dedicated Land Requirements Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. « 4 Subdivision 3. Standards for Determination The Park Commission shall develop and recommend to the City Council for adoption standards and guidelines for determining which portion of each such development should reasonably be required to be so conveyed or dedicated. Such standards and guidelines may take Into consideration the zoning class!* ficatlon to be assigned to the land to be developed, the particular use proposed for such land, amenities to be provided and factors of density and site development as proposed by the subdivider. The Park Commission shall further recommend changes and amendments from time to time to such standards and guidelines to reflect changes in the usage of land which may occur, changes in zoning classifications and concepts and changes in planning and development concepts that relate to the development and usages to which land may be put. Ordinance No. Page 2 Svibdivision 4, Planning Commission Recommendation. At the preliminary subdivision review stage the Planning Conunission shall, in each case, recommend to the City Council the total area and location of such land that the Planning Commission feels should be so conveyed or dedicated within the development for the above public purposes and/or the total amount of cash contribution to be made in lieu of land. The Planning Commission shall consider the need and location for parks, playgrounds, open space, storm water holding areas and ponds as determined by the Park Commission and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City. 1) The Planning Commission may refer any proposed subdivision to the Park Commission for their specific review and recommendations. 2) Ihe Planning Commission shall refer each proposed subdivision to the Park Commission for their specific review and recommenda tions whenever the proposed subdivision includes forty (40) or more acres of land and/or twenty (20) or more residential dwelling units. 3) The Planning Commission shall refer all proposed land dedications to the Park Commission for their review and recommendations including land dedications offered by the subdivider and/or proposals initiated by the Planning Commission. Subdivision 5. Park Commission Recommendation. !H»e Park Commission shall, in each specific case referred to the Commission, recommend to the Planning Commission and to the City Cotincil the total area and location of such land that the Park CommisHion feels should be so conveyed or dedicated within the development for the above public purposes, and/or the total amount of cash contribution to be made in lieu of land. The Park Commission shall consider the need and location for parks, playgrounds, open space, storm water holding areas and ponds as determined by the Compreh-=‘nsive Land Use Plan of the City. Ordinance No, Page 3 Subdivision 6, Lands Designated for Public Use on Official Map or Comprehensive Land Use Plan Where a proposed park, playground or other recreational areas, proposed school site, storm water holding areas, ponds, or other public ground that has been indicated in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, such proposed public site shall be designated as such and should be dedicated to the City, School District, or other proper governmental unit. If the subdivider chooses not to dedicate an area in excess of the land required under this section hereof for such proposed public site, the City Council shall not be required to act to approve or disapprove the plat of the subdivision for a period of ninety (90) days after the subdivider meets all the provisions of this Code in order to permit the City Council, School Board, or other appropriate governmental unit to consider the proposed plat and to take the necessary steps to acquire, through purchase or condemnation, all or part of the public site proposed under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or similar master plans. Subdivision 7, Density and Open Space Requirements Land area so conveyed or dedicated for the above public purposes and/or its cash equivalent may not be used by a subdivider or owner as an allowance for purposes of calculating the density requirements of the development as set out in the City Zoning Code and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space requlranents for Planned Unit Developments, open space easements, drainage, conservation and flowage easements, utility and road easements. Subdivision 8, Credit for Private Open Space Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision and such space is to be a privately owned and maintained by the future resv'.^ents of the subdivision, such areas may be used for credit at the discretion of the City Council against the requirement of dedication for public purposes, provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so and that the following standards are met: (a) That yards, court areas, setbacks, wetlands and other open space required to be maintained by the Zoning Code shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; and i i • - 3 (b) That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for. by written agreement; and I I Ordinance No. Page 4 (c) That the private open space is restricted for park and recreation purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the tract and which cannot be eliminated without the consent of the City Council; and (d) That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreation purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography. geology, drainage, access, and location of the private open space land; and (e) That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and are approved by the City Council; and (f) That where such credit is granted, the amount of credit shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount calculated below. Subdivision 9 . Funding. Accounting. Budgeting. Expenditure of Cash in Lieu of Lands The City Council shall establish a separate fund into which all cash contributions received from sub dividers in lieu of conveyance or dedication of land for park, playground, and other public purposes shall be deposited. The City Council shall establish separate budgeting and accounting procedures for such fund and shall make from time to time appropriations from such fiind for acquisition of land for park, playground purposes and other public purposes, for developing existing park and playground sites or for debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for parks, playgrounds and other public purposes. Subdivision 10. Administrative Procedures The City Council shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary and required to implement the provisions of this section this Code. II ■ < 4 Ordinance No. Page 5 Subdivision 11. Minimum Land Area Dedication Whenever the City Council determines that land dedication will be required as a condition of subdivision approval, the Subdivider shall be required to dedicate to the City for park, playground or other public purposes an amount of land equal to, as a minimum, that percentage of gross land area as set out below. Gross land area means the entire area within the boundaries of the subdivision, including areas occupied by wetlands, drainageways or existing development. Gross land area excludes land dedicated for public roadway purposes. 1) Residential Development Land areas dedicated shall be located and approved by the City Council and shall be of a size equal to or greater than the minimum area percentage in the following table: Dwelling Unit Density (The greater of proposed density or zoned permitted density)_ _ _ Minimum Percentage of gross land area to be dedicated_ _ _ _ _ _ acres/d.u. 5.00 2.00 1.00 .50 .33 .25 .16 .15 or to to to to to to or more 4.99 1.99 .99 .49 .32 .24 less d.u./acre ,20 or less .50 to .21 1.00 to .51 to to to to or 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 6.01 1.01 2.01 3.01 4.01 more 2-1/2% 5% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 2) Commercial or Industrial Development Land areas dedicated shall be located and approved by the City Council and shall be of a size equal to or greater than 2-1/2% of the gross land area in the subdivision. Subdivision 12. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Land Dedication Whenever the City Council determines that a cash contribution will be required in lieu of the required land dedication, the Subdivider shall be required to contribute to the City for park, playground or other public purposes an amount of cash as set out below: 1) Residential Development -Each new single family dwelling unit fcnn’nn r»o*. --lit structures (three or more units/bldg.) -No contribution is required for existing dwelling units or building sites. : Ordinance No. Page 6 1Snt'^)^^°" Contribution in Lieu of Land Dedication 2) Cpnunercial or Indusiirial Developinent cash contribution of ?500.00 per acre of gross land area. not Dedication Not Required - Dedication will i^a Lenr"" combination of lots into one lot on which there lot linei wJI^ unit already existing nor for any alterations of existing buUdinrsUef in no increase in the neater of Tt lin Subdivision 14. n;LV.elopment of Land Previously Platted Of this s^ctp : auippirerthi^tL;^ $250.00 per dwelling unic for residential development. ^ s.1. S^division 15. Future Subdivisions Any land which is fur^er subdivided, divided, or replatted subleque^t to the imposition tte^in subject to the requicesrents of the ordinance then in effect concerning dedications of land for public purnoses and «1he :S:iL?d previously Cs^ “ndif the subdivider can prove that fees were previously paid. In no of*2 liable for any payment which may be due because reduction in the applicable percentage If lanro/ equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. M,*nno«-ra V This Ordinance shall be published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun and shall be effective upon publication. Passed by the Orono Council this ______ ® vote of ayas and day of nays ATTEST:William B. Van Nest. Mayor Walter R. Benson. Clerk/Administrator Published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun the ‘5®y of---------------------------------------19 •^•■^ *m'«i» .•‘•r • ♦ i r-' «/» 2 &lUl O ^ 2 C ^2 ^ 3 vj" CO^ e%i osi CO cr> r* • C^ C^’ i I- __t ►- ur^ C^ c>> Cni 5 O., » ^ lO^ r-— 0>4 u.. CO r*^^ r - C^ CO I— on riD c>^ '^-O c*“i dz> ^ f-- C-si O-^ CD ro ^ _ r^ on cr^ ” r- -: C%| >^(0 rO @ *-o ^ ^ DO \ Os K I Jos k -on cm u.Osl C7^ 3= _CO 5 I—. ^ - S t/n CO »------ «L 0-4 On •-r----CO rro 5 Cri CO ^ l_LJ •-0 s •^1 v^NO CO r- 1 u.un C^ r- - c*:; ►r- r- " ro 5 CO O i r- v;J- -----r^ CVI on vO CO CO •---- csl CO Osl O^ C%l -----COcvl Os4 . - . £S «_»•<«* CB *>. •vr r-^- OD ♦-— c^ COvOW---------- U-* CN4 C^ @S© ^ s K Os| - Os| "• H-co c^a^eOr'’ r^-r- -»• r~?% cvi 7S g3 on 0-4C>s| CO CO c-s< CO r - CO c^ c^* f<- §5 iKi ro — 1 ►- ^ CO cnr? c^ c-s;:i^i - CO 0-3 ^ c^ C^ C'«i C^' CO X£iJ.->y- - .- - C O ■- CVS CV - ?:: c-> bn •- CO COr^- - 5 C^ Cr>* C^* CO CO c J « CO cr- V\ c-^ X 4n C'j c:»C'-a r on r~ C^ c< O* J CO -• r - CO C--4 ^2 <r^ cvi toi oo cm CV4 p- ^ - O'K* ^ y - X ------ '-O _c^ on OnI u. L-n OnI CT-OnI OiT I.I-I CO on bQ «—■ c^ 0-1 CD 5 c^-J ^ ^ CO CV4 cr- ^ g3 S'- KyX 3 OnI -I o^ •vr^ 0-4 OnI iC/. rzn *-0 CnI C7^ - OnI On! w ^ - CO ^ o< t» J CO •V3 CO 04 0-4 U»-i F - O- Li-J LO :: ?Cn4 Cr^ - r - c--: CO-0 _ CVS C.*' ^Q) ^c^Jld^}) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeanne A, Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator DATE: December 18, 1978 RE;Metes and Bounds Division STANDARDS FOR A METES AND BOUNDS DIVISION 1. Lots to be divided cannot be less than five acres. (Ord. 39.020) 2. Subject property must be a lot of record as of September 1, 1971• (Ord. 39.021) 3. Residential structure on subject property. (Ord. 39.021) 4. Property must not have been part of a previous division. (Ord. 39.021) 5. Maximum of two lots. (Ord. 39.021)1 tw« ftCaMt., Fta A/i ( M .4 ft«V»W<^M>4 Cik^ GnAvTA.fkfi. wh « v^vr» » i--------- * ■> ■ ..,— -------- $ 1 VP l■.gwC•«^.4urt-_/^ _ _ __. J.r «c- 5rcT««OAv^ O0uB*i»'At> (Jhi *I H f H i. !»JTmV.! CjKc ••Mujn *< U . L* -V wit I Q "'1 A*»IU ^i^C. ♦ C«!'>»*r*t i*W f JAJUIV. T?*^w .^J\* \ 5ro tc<» W-! I EeM2_ ‘£-l£_V^T lOSS) F*U06TL.I^TTIC H*T«*. Jka .'NtMa'y OlM*AW»^ir/. #^*** *fuT C<.»mc_4»w 1El.«a< ^ ^<MA O’ ,71 '■ " .Wr, in. "JB6 -'•sr-srsfc ^•. ■, rv L*.g. r •«. lt*U« fiM.ilUlM W c /fi»i»x.?- r% . —"V .......... ........................Ill l|■^■l, t ^ ~T|----- - ^ „ r ------ -.~r-.rr-.,-.-i. 'i#j> Ir':' ' [UJ v-^t2^MT ^VXiMbr-UO^^ -_-A ■ • Ltt^r sip^ CL£i<>fTI o>-^. W /I cr A •"* ill'= -Soi.ufi.”V4*'^i'-o • J iri;i |^■•lp■«^^.™Tl •A" O'-’ tr*- O\JiTY or .ORQN^ I r - N l-fhCAL 'Wfti i A . ‘-Ci.r; U-* r———n -V,- H **crc»»p »»H»HKI >«•««« _ . . |n-w>w ,'• •»»-1 r«K» •* Richatd Dou|^»Tty rffoaa conaents to bet 4 * O <t >»4' >*■* ''A Ooi«„t. cfined in m. S'«S%»SSer Biologlc.1 115# of the Environm«t*l asses i (lit and identified th< j • i' 1. Was the only purpose stated ^as the reason for the interceptor. 2. This was not included in the original intent to provide the interdeptor nzniinfixaaGaiiiOBBii^^ 3. Totally inconsistent with 0 Co^> Land Use Plan 4. Vocational School not within planned construction for 20*25 years if ever. 5. We agreed with this statewnt but feel it should be expanded to include it as the prinary basic reason for wihich the interceptors are l^ing provid^. 6. IXiring the past 2 or 3 years water level of Lake Mtka has reeained relatively stable even thou^the sewagf mBDCMkh of th? 7 • U 7. The Medina Interceptor decision does not seen to be a fine decision at this tine and m 4nel grave doubts for its need^y^nT« 8. This statenent does not reflect the problens encountered with the instability of marsh lands and the difficulties o£ access to the various naidioles located in the marshes. o»U{.La^v 9. This point was not the original purpose of the interceptor and althou^ it is a true statement it should be expand^ to reflect the adverse effects of increased uibmization beyond a tolor^le level in order to preserve the qualities of Lake Mtha'lkn.o 10. Great concern is expressed to the potential damage created by this distrubance area thru our marsh areas. 11.This statenent should be expanded to include the secmdary effects of dreeing to the environment and the potential release of thousands of years of storec phosphorus and other nutriesnts within the material that will be dredged. 12. This statenent be expanded to include the fact that this method of installation would have minimal effect to nutrient release of dredged materials and also destruction of marsh lands 1 13. This statenent again does not reflect the difficulaties of gravity sewer within marsh areas vrith great land instability and difficSlti access paeUana* for continuing maintenance problems. 14. 'fnT^is state nne t should be greatly expanded as the potential tax for infiltration due to marsh instability and other maintenance problens is a critical problem in the eyes of Orono based on our |Mst experience in marsh areas. 15. This statcannt should expand on the disadvantages caused from infiltration, because of the proposed location of the interceptor. Bctixata statenent we do not feel that alternative 1 justifies this _does not reflect the planned but __ J^ake mfirii caused by the interceptor were to be of ilii iiilyn i<i iaiiil miiwil 111 effect 17. This statawnt is not consistent with the 0 (kn|) Plan 18. (As above #17) 19. This table should be updated to reflect current population projections. 20. This statesmt should be updated to reflect 0 present Conp Zoning Plan. 21. This statenent refers to Hackberiy Hills which has been sewered and is no longer a problea area. /'22. The servicing of Uds area is not tiie original intent that the interceptors were brought into the4ratershed. The statoMnt should be expanded to reflect the potential deliterious effects .to Lake Mtka caused bv increased urbanization as a result of an interceptor service this area. 23. This stateaent should be updated as this project is not in the 1975 capitol iaproveaent prograa.and should also reflect the effects of increased uibanization potentially caused in servicing this area. 24. THis stateaent should be up^ted and corrected in light of new population projections by the Metro politan Council. 25. THis stateaent is titally incorrect It is diametrically opposed to the intent Of our Goap Land Use Plan. This stateaent further IWiilOKMK is inconsistent with the original intent of the interceptor which was to reaove the effluent frca the sewage treateatn plants in Orono and LL. ^ original intent of the interceptor and should 27. This vocational school is not planned for the next 20-25 years if ever. 28. This stateaent should be expanded to show the effects of poor quality stoia water runoff on lake mtka created frc» excess urbanization caused by the route and design of the proposed interceptor. 29. This stateaent should reflect the fact that increased urbanization if not controled ,^,fbe watershed of lake mtka can create far more pounds of phosphorus to be liiHwar discharged to lake mtka <hie to the fact Alt poor quality storm water ruioff froa urbanized areas. of 30. Stateaent should be updated to include Orono Storm Water Manggenent Plan and the Marsh Identification Half Section Maps prepared in conjimctim with the Soil Conservation Service of the Dept, of lAgricultural. 31 Stateaent completely inaccurate past growth of Orono has been at a steady rate of qpproxinately 21 per year. 32. Update Luce Line Trail now owned by Dept of Natural Resources 33. Stateaent to be expanded to show the iiqportance of the )^ture Conservancy concerning this particular aarsh area, and the long range potential hazards that aay be created by the interceptor effecting this vital area. I M, Upda^I^l^ Oim Store Water Management Plan, Coqirehensive Land Use Plan, Comp. Zoning Code and other policies of Orono in this area. 35, Stement should reflet the total inconsistency pertaining to urbanization and the desire to protect Lake Mtka with the Orono Comp. Land Use pianT^ 36. Update to reflect current Metro Coincil policy statements. poucies of the Metro Comcil do not “cowistent with thefeoro bnd \J^e flan of Orono and it is the use of this interceptor necessary in the ju***• in relation to the adverse effects store water niioff .installation of sewers in this area should be contrary to Metro Coincil policy. ^hf consis;^t with the peoposed routing and construction of ti^ ^gwgoaed intorreptor. There are other alternatives that could be more consis wi^n uiis stKciftcnt. Final plans and specifications have not been provided to the LMCD at this time. 40. This statomltit should be enlarged to indicate the potential envirommntal damiee fo lake mtka from store water nnoff of urbanized areas. t^^ly ^rrect the interceptor design does most definitely defanirely conflict wito O.Coi^ Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinances. 42. It is ^ present feeling of Orono that the public interest .is not serv^ with the presTOt desipa of the proposed interceptor, which would beS&tft]ttl’^^ue a variance to Ord 12S^ the Wetlands Protective Ordinance. pere are oper alternatives in xuMUna the interceptor that would serve the public intorep and not require a variance3W?'T25. because they would not traverse our wetlands areas. theO?. ^ Sld*uS*Plm revieed and updated to be consistent with 39. **' w«tn^ liM e V of 0. 45. ^ina that pre^t&a present problem is the Edina - Morningside deviAon which ***j s®* other means than to force urbanization of the retire Orono iSf J*®"**^*^*-®**® of tte Lake Mtka watershed creating irreversible dreage to lake Mtka because of the increased urbanization. 47. Statremt is totally untrue. Orono has successfully used on-site septic systeis !S «cw lot developnrets for many years. It should be expanded to ^ow that Orono has rezoned all uisewered areas to a mi^iiui IT lot size of two acres. 48. Staterent not trre. Pullic services required by increased ubranization created by the propo^ interceptor are not available.^ Hig^ay 12 upgrading project is at least 20-25 ydars away . The Heim. Co. ^jn8%*tel^ISportati« ^ign Limitation precludes OrreoM providing additional services in the areas of Police, Fire, Water, and other mmicipally provided services.required by increased urbanization. 49. 50. 51. This stat^t is to^ly untrue, and should be modified to indicate that becuase of Metro C^il policy md Orono ’s legal obligations to provide sewer service when possible that the interceptor will iiiaf dictate iKreased urbanization to use the metro interceptor capacity once the line has been installed. Statoent is not dm consistemt with Orono Land Use Plan. If urbniattion does occur in Orono it will be because of the Existence of the ^rposed interceptor and metro Council Policy inconsistent with Orono's cobb pl*** » This statement should be gre»atly expanded to show the long *to*la5'mtka"**^^* caused by urbanization, thru storm water pollution Ti? ^ relatiowhip to the original intent of the interceptorbtrt^n ^ totally negated by the proposed route and specification of the proposed interceptor mtsh which will cause ecocological secondary damse as a result of the increased urbanization. * Hackberpr Hill nm presently sewerd and no longer an existing problem. There must be other solMions to the Medina Moringside Subdivision rather iJun the present proposal of interceptors having an adverse secondary effect on Mtka. French Lake does have homes located on the lake . evidence that indicates that this potential does not exist. 56. Statmt of an environmental trade-off but does not address itself to which m^od IS to be in the construction of the interceptor. This further should **P**"*® include the potential managenmnt problem of me supervising an rouepeyient contractor who has most likely provided the low bid from making an irrepairable mistake preventing the marsh from being returned to its matural state 57. Tl^ statement is not justified ind Orono has grave concerns that the existence of ♦J generally reverse the quality of groimd water discharge^ atM within the interceptor service ere&» 58. Stat^nt is untrue. Orono has successfully used on-site systems within the Village « two aw size lots for many years. Present zoning ordinances require two aezx miniMM lot size for all tmmnn unsewered portions of the Village. 59. This statemt expresses a major concern and should be expanded to reflect tw potential mx for ai irreversible laistake tm that could prevent the marsh from being returned to its natural state. This major envinxmmntal concern has been given an extremely light treatment by this statement. eentaiirti.. ■■In II h—, i... ------------------ „„ ........ ....... The Hacl^ny Paiic has been updated xecreational equipnnet since Hackbeny Sewer Project has been completed. si “■ «w site of the onn> tnetant plait forproject. The present orono village hall will be noie than SdSSS saturetio, population of SSe^St^SS 2iS**Dj?vSSr^I*}!!LJ“T"^* proposed interceptoriITTkI pnvate residents of orano to allow them direct connectim* to the interceptOT. These contracts were in part the consiSmim MidlS tS? »?SicS. “*** responsibility of Orono in pro»i<uS^Miiciple sMtenent sl^d be expanded to shou the secondary ----to lake «ha&!* S'aISS? SrSe%;:^JSriJS^'eJS?^^ as caused by the inched “■ Sui».rjSin,W« in««id*:?Sti^,s: ^sJi^srefS:[s"riaS^a! **■ ™^Jtki*JSriif? ns* '"T5‘c“ *' **’ "®* the potential ham to lakenm ^t will be created because of poor quality stoin water ruio^ uivauzed areas created as a rrsult of tSTpr^^JS^Jf *”■ *’■ ?5Jte™Mrif’l3li^.SaT~“ “ ** "* concerning the **' h« beofo^eted ?*"“ **“ seuering of Hackberry Hill^ Lions Club and other organizations have doneated fiaids ^ equipenent and the general esastic hvmmt ** ^to^STLSSS w!S?^ *® indicate the potential haiard in gaining access oTLi'S4S“~L“res‘SW£“Eiffi^ 70. Ihidate. The Luce Line Trail is presently owned by the Dept, of Natural Itesouices. "■ ^rsnirs'sj^tiS!* •* “*• of «sid«ts °t?“ have be«i zoned to a nininun two acre lot sire requitenent .^riSce“w!S^S-s‘Js“t.ir “ orano^r^T™* 74. This statement is consistent with the present Coop Zoning cf Orono 75. This statement is incorrect based on Orono*s rest exneriAw.e anA th* aeim^em .P~ificati«s -m lnJpS«o^3'3f^.s ’Se*5^^^J^' 76. Update - In relation to current population projections. 72. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. crfg* oX^fcJirSir^ toSSeSSJL*e dm»10(Miit that win cause adverse envirooMital efSS^to ;^«an“^tS^s^^ SSrJT* interceptor will be to urtanize orono «d^|^'«1Spie ‘ SJIlJS Si;rSs!^JJeS if^hSTiaa^^STde^^r^ quality stem water to lake «tka causeing inepairable daMgeto thTlito. Update population growth rates based on current population projections. Highway 12 tap upgaading thru Orono is at a aininui 20-25 years away. inconsistent with the orono coaq>rehensive land use plan 10.15^22?iJ^T^,£*'*'?!^ devert traffic around lake atka is at least *"• “* •«“« i» these ch-„., • ^ interceptor would not necessarily open up these anas for.■ars SiSrsaas,-* wrss siKir-“ 89. Stateaent sh^d nflect orono inability to provide inenased levBl« «f services in light of the 6t Mill Levy Rate Liaitatioi?? * *micipal i should reflect th>» _______ ?*!_?*•'«?«» *ies not rmfi^t . . K ut6nuitiv!^. ”• -ct J-.tl««. 0^ JL. ^rootiS^ *«*1-* be exMndod to .ko„ ..______ - -----------««w^nuiuve 1. preselected alterStUn ^ ^ ^ 0*T • facts in the cost coBMH«nn wations used to sSS^"J£ - gravity systen In gaining overland ««iuired for iOntenSce Hill i« _________ 59* This steaent « WMtn'SeS ■• SS«s=~ «.» «tet «SX*to“pSjr^J.X 2iVS'??!l* “ '•flly Income,, i. . 10.^ Tk4. ^ vui acre oiinimjHi103. This sfterent p«,«ts a f i ' two acre »ini«, lot sire, land use pain and coapre zeni^ ” inconsistent to the or«o 1^4« 1^1 fS 4.uiixng orainances. ui me orono by uibanization could nave a a**----- los. 108. 110. 111. 114. 115. It is iiqiofsible for orono to defend its position legally in light of the Metro coiaicils urbanization policy after tiie interceptor has been constructed particularly when its designed has been justified on the basis of providing these services to an urbanized area. The interceptor will usae cause urbanization and adverse effects to the quality of lake mtka 106. This statenent is not justifeid and is inconsistent with the findings of orono. All areas of orono that presently present public health probleas and offensive odors have been sewered, to—xjpfartlarzi. . . . . . .. 107. Hackberry Hill ha as well as problen areas in the laisewered areas of the ninnetonka shoreline have been sewered and are presently no problen in this regard. This stateaient should be expanded to show that it is not consistenct with nrmos land use plan and theat the increased urbanization created because of the interceptor will have a deliterious effect to water quality of lake mtka because of poor quality storp water nainoff 109. Does construction of the orono • long lake interceptor via alternative 1 justify the conclusions reached in this statement or could it he in the public benefit to chose another alternative that would not have this adverse enviromental effect. It is inconvceiveable to Orono that short paragraph could be devoted to such a major environmental problem with its potential massive effects on the quality of lake mtka . THis statement should be greatly expanded and addressed in relationship to the possiblity of other altematAs to the design of the interceptor This statement is not justified is not supported and in fact orono expresses considerable concern to the emvironmental impacts of this interceptor not only in regard to the short rui and long nn effects to the wetlands in orono but to the long nn adverse emvironmental effects to lake mtka itself through poort quality storm water nnoff. 112. This statement should be considerable expanded again to reflect the long range potential adverse effects to lake mtka from sesults of urbanization . 113. This statement is not consistent with Orono land use coap. plans that preclude development to a greater density than can be supported by on>site septic systems in the uisewered areas of orono. This paragraph should be expanded to state that if the interceptor is installed as propos^ that the resulting urbanization wst be limited by public policy and planning to a point that would be consistent with a responsible storm water management so as not to cause irreversible damage to lake mtka. The potential cost to collect and cheaucally treat storm water runoff from an urbanized water shed such as lake mtka would present a problem that could not be financially justified, therefore, the levels of urbanization aust be controled . Orono feels that an additional chapter should be incorporated in this environment assessment . useing the data contained in the Harza Study , orono *s storm water manageamnt plan and other recant studies hhat will makax—aDaddDmqttx show the deliteriops eff^t of urbanization of the lake mtka watershed. would recommend uiat the services of Hiuok 6 ‘_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 Associates would be invaluable in providing recent data in this regard. It must be clearly shown in this chapter that the original intent of the interceptor was to remove the phorpdws contained in the waste vrater effluent from the orono and long lake treatment plants.and that the adverse effects caused by urbanization could have a greater dilerterious effect on lake mtka than the reason ~ » for i4iich the interceptor ms conceived in the first place. 11 •. » ^> 1 rt V ' t ^' *. // I r:»t *f . V ' !f '• ; ': it* *l * * ‘ ' ** • ' 1 • <4 ' > •r * I I i • i 2 ‘ I ’'ll' » • • i * r • - • ■ • • ' . . f f! * »V • •! *> . . .. • t .'f ’ll'r. • • . •hr ;• • i»‘ f -, ( • . • ** ♦ f I •* • 4 • f •1 r •: * : T ! i .Mi 4 i . I •r. i • * • . ■ f • t • . t ' * n«•f . ’. ^ • .r v/K . ' VH|I. /, ♦ \ 1; •'!• • •4 : • J y> i .• v,ji- j ^ Ut-^. f > # ' I*. • ■ • *•«:• . :h . I . . f » • i • .I - • ! i 1 .1 ^i^r > i ! I AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1979 COWCIL CliAMBERS - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDE 1. Call to 2. Conprehe PUBLIC INFOR 3. 7:30 P.M P Id , HQ ACTION ITEMS 4. #380 Ph FL, Pd Zt^.i S ! 5. #450 John A. Klnsell, 2455 Scotch Pine Lane VARIANCE WORK SESSION 6. #434 Frederick Herfurth, 225 North Ferndale SUBDIVISION/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCB SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 7. #448 James Lindsay, 2505 Kelly Avenue SUBDIVISION 8. #449 Steven Valek, Tonkaview Lane SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9. Meeting of December 11, 1978 19 I fcATirwr .maia.LJia-’inni