The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-22-2000 Council PacketI II C0» iMrii. meetinq MAY 2 2 2000, i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MAY 22,2^6? ^ ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY - RELAY FOR LIFE APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Reconvened Board of Review Meeting of May 8,2000 * 3. Regular Council Meeting of May 8, 2000 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sherokee Use, Representative LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - Lili McMillan, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Bill Stoddard, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT yAy #2578 David and Lorraine Lundberg, 900 Dakota Avenue - Variances - Resolution #2580 Timothy Pattrin, 1360 Railroad Avenue - Variances - Resolution #2582 Francis and Susan Ann Koubsky, 4784 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution yK #2583 Ro.xann Beisch, 3436 Livingston Avenue - Variances - Resolution 8. Neighborhood Meeting for Narrows Dock Lots # MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT Request for Payment #1 - 2000 Lift Station Projects 10. Quotations for Navarre Parking Lot Lighting Y(. Approve Purchase of Golf Course Greens Mowers [ * * CITY AD.MINISTRATOR’S REPORT il. Scheduling of Joint Council Meeting with City of Long Lake -KT Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department Equipment Refurbishment Invoice Approve Golf Course Seasonal Employee Scheduling of Council Work Session t. 41 i! AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET F»>R .MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT * 16. LICENSES * 17. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2000 05/18- 05/20 - 05/22 - 05/25 - 05/25 - 05/27 - 05/29 - 05/30 - Long Lake/Oronc Consolidation Study Meeting, 4:00 p.m. Leaf & Grass Disposal Program, 8:00 a m. - Noon Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Council V/ork Session, 7:30 a.m. Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Meeting, 4:00 p.m. Leaf & Grass Disposal Program, 8:00 a.m. - Noon HOLIDAY - Memorial Day Observance Summer Hours Begin 06/01 06/03 06/05 06/08 06/10 06/12 06/15 06/19 06/22 06/26 06/29 Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Meeting, 4:00 p.m. Leaf & Grass Disposal Program, 8:00 a.m. - Noon Joint Meeting with the Long Lake City Council at the Orono High School Cafeteria, 7:00 p.m (Tentative! Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Meeting, 4:00 p.m. Leaf & Grass Disposal Program, 8:00 a.m. - Noon Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Meeting, 4:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Meeting, 4:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Meeting, 4:00 p.m. . X Public A ttendance Meeting D ate S a .7- c ^ C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ OTHER ____ : . Please fill out tie information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. tf r< r--: i?:':-Y-‘ y NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 3. ' «■ / y/^j.y f 'f 7 O /'^ 2 tJ rr C/7 iic r 4. 5^c '<Air 1 1^0 u frS Kcj i) y, ■ - kL -e -i'^v AT * Cy>s^/y.Ly 'pi-DS. aJcv /Jyy rf . (y ^ 2> i^'C' JtC\ (Jd^ (^j u3 . ~Pu> • .L-Ui- /X • II 12. 13.. 14. 15.„ mmijt ORONO BOARD OF REVIEW RECONVENED MONDAY, MAY 8,200(P^’ MEETING HAY g 2 aOOQ ROLL Cl I T or OHO/VO The Orono Board of Review met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, Richard Flint, and Bob Sansevere. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Hennepin County Appraiser Kim Jensen, Hennepin County Senior Appraiser William Davy, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Orono Board of Review Meeting on April 26,2000. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. COUNCIL ACTION ON ASSESSOR’S RECOMMENDATION 1. Matt Nicoll of 160 Smith Avenue, #02-117-23-21-0029 Mr. Nicoll stated that when he bought the house he accounted for the lot size, septic system, and his ability tc expand later. If he had known that 2-3 years later he would be hit with the cost of sewage hoo c up in the amount of $23-30,000, he would have had the seller pay that or would hav e reduced purchase price of the house. He hired Paul Hoffner, who is certified with an SRA designation, ic' appraise the home. His appraisal included the 3 most recent property sales in Orono; all 3 sales were in higher end developments. Davy was given a copy of the assessment. After adjusting the most recent sale comparables for square footage and land value, he came up w'ith an assessment of $525,000. Nicoll feels that should account for the cost of sewage hookup. Mayor Jabbour asked if he had an approved and functioning septic system. Nicoll responded he did. He felt he was being forced to hook up to sewage now to reduce the overall cost to the City. His system is as good or better than 90% of the septic systems in Orono. Mayor Jabbour stated that the assessor is the City ’s employee under contract and is an expert. Mayor Jabbour does not feel qualified to decide the value of anyone ’s home. The assessor found the home was valued at $595,000. Mayor Jabbour understood Nicoll's argument, but couldn ’t override the assessor. Davy stated he has reviewed the appraisal by HotTner. The problem with the $525,000 assessment was that it was based on the purchase price of $450,000 7 years ago. Propert>' value has increased 5%-10% each year over the last 7 years. When he looked at the adjustments made, he didn't see where Hoffner adjusted $25-30,000 for the other properties. Dav>' felt he 1 1 * Mil ©mi ^ ORONO BOARD OF REVIEW RECONVENED MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 1. Matt Nicoll of 160 Smith Avenue, U02-1 17-23-21-0029 continued could support his appraisal at $597,000. Special assessments are the burden of the seller, $597,000 is below what the house would sell for today, and a future hookup fee would not be a negative factor for a buyer in this price range. Mayor Jabbour stated that with a home with a perfectly functioning septic system, the owner is paying for two systems and one of them should be taken off the market price. Nicoll stated that if he were looking at a house that cost $400,000 and he knew that as soon as he closed on the house, he would be responsible for a $100,000 assessment, he would not close on that house. Therefore, the assessment does affect the potential sale of the property and the market value should be adjusted. Da\y asked if the assessor should be adjusting for home equity loans too. Mayor Jabbour stated that he would not pick up someone else’s tab when buying a property. Mayor Jabbour moved, and Peterson seconded, that the NicoU property’s (#02>117-23-21 0029) market value be reduced by the sum of $25,000 to $572,000 based on fact that they have a full functioning septic system. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 2. Mr. Otten of Otten Bros. Nurseiy Mr. Otten explained that the outlot behind the nursery has a proposed service road. The county has carried the road at a nominal fee of $200 because of the restrictions on it. Last year, when he added a loading dock, the value went from a nominal $200 to $40,000. The proposed value for this year is $50,000. Otten talked to Ray Shudy from the county and explained that the outlot is still a restricted easement. Otten stated that Orono has access to a well through the outlot and he still feels restricted as to its use. The rest of the property was also raised by $350,000. He is looking for relief on the service road. Mayor Jabbour stated that this is an unusual situation. If it’s City land, he shouldn’t pay taxes on it. Kelley stated that since the City hasn’t made up its mind about the service road, he should be left alone. Peterson agreed. Kelley stated that this situation also reflects on Sid Reber ’s property. Mayor Jabbour stated that because Otten has limited use of the road, it should be kept at a nominal fee. Davy stated that it does have value Ix'cause Otten is using it for his loading dock. Mayor Jabbour stated he understood that, but Otten’s exclusive use is not by choice, it’s simply because the City hasn't decided what to do with the road. ORONO BOARD OF REVIEW RECONVENED MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 2. Mr. OUcn of Often Bros. Nursery continued Peterson suggested a value of $1,000 be placed on the outlot. Davy asked Otten if at some time in the future he would be willing to sell the outlot to the City for $1,000. Otten did not offer a reply. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to assess the property at a value of SIOOO. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. Morris Nelson at 1900 Shoreline Drive #10-117-23-42-0018 and #10-117-23-42-0017 Mr. Nelson stated he was present to discuss the non-buildable property adjacent to his address. His understanding from discussions with Davy is that the property is valued at $182,000 because he and his wife own it. If anyone else owned the property it would be valued at $50,000. Nelson felt the value should be the same regardless of the owner. Davy stated that there are 2 side by side lots, one with a house and one vacant. The vacant lot is under the 2 acre minimum and is not valued as a buildable site. It would be valued at $300,000 if it were. They valued the property according to how it contributes to the primary property. The lots could be sold together as a 3 '/i acre site with extra lakeshore frontage. The vacant lot’s value is $182,000. The overall value of both properties is $495,000. The lot with the house is valued at $300,000. The highest and best use of the vacant lot is to the neighboring property as a part of the homestead. Mayor Jabbour asked Nelson if he provided the Council with a professional appraisal. Nelson replied he did not, he was arguing that the issue was treated differently in the past and he felt it should be assessed consistently. Sanse\ ere asked the value of the lot last time it was appraised. Nelson stated it had been valued at $50,000. Mayor Jabbour stated it is hard for the Council to know the value of someone’s property and that Nelson wasn’t giving the Council ei’.ough tools to vote in his favor. Nelson stated that the property hasn't changed size and isn't contributing any m.ore to his property now than before. Mayor Jabbour replied that the market has changed. He stated he was having a hard time agreeing or disagreeing with Nelson. Flint stated that the issue bothered him because there was a modest house on a beautiful property. If the City constantly pushes property values up, it could force the house to be sold, lorn down, and some other thing put up. Flint stated he favored reducing the 3. assessment. Mayor Jabbour stated the Council is forced by law to look at the market value. Nelson staled that based on conversations w ith Da\y, if he put the property in someone else’s name it w ould become a $50,000 properly. Sansevere asked Davy if that was what he told him. \1 ORONO BOARD OF REVIEW RECONVENED MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 Morris Nelson at 1900 Shoreline Drive UI0-117-23-42-0018 and #10-117-23-42-0017 continued Davy replied he had not said that. The Council has to look at how the lot contributes to the main property as a secondary parcel. Sansevere asked if the values would change if he sold the parcels separately. Davy stated that the value would not change significantly because it is lakeshore property. Nelson stated that a very nice older house will be lost as the property value is increased. He stated he wants consistent and fair treatment. Sansevere asked how many years Davy has made assessments for the City and why the jump in value occurred. Davy replied he has worked for the City for 2 years and last year the property was not pan of the assessment area. Mayor Jabbour stated the City has had a great deal of inconsistency in its assessments. The current Assessor is working to make property values more consistent. Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to reduce the assessment of the undeveloped parcel by $45,000. Mayor Jabbour asked how the council felt on the issue. Sansevere asked Flint how he arrived at $45,000. Flint replied he was trying to guess the value of the whole and felt that $450,000 was a reasonable value of the property. Mayor Jabbour asked Nelson if he had considered combining the properties. He replied he had not. Mayor Jabbour stated he can't support Nelson’s appeal without guidance. Vote Ayes 2, Nays 3 (Mayor Jabbour, Sansevere, Kelley). Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to accept the Assessor's recommendations on the rest of the 2000 Estimated Market Values on properties in Orono. Vote: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. The Board of Review was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor i ,,4-> ti b ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 -------''•i. MEETING HAT 2 2 g ROLL Cii t ur UHONO The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, Richard Flint, and Bob Sansevere. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City' Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron. Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to oider at 7:12 p.m. Item 1 appears after item 2. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approvc/Amend Items 5,6, 8, 9, 10,11,12,13, 14, and 20 were added to the Consent Agenda. Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1. Assessment Hearing—Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Project 1 A. Adopt Webber Hills Sanitary' Sewer Assessment—Resolution No. 4495 Kellogg presented background information on the project. He stated there have been two informational meetings and a public hearing regarding the project. It was decided that the neighborhcoo would be seiz ed by a pressure system where each property would be served by it's own grinder system. The alignment of the system was chosen because of e.xisting utilities and is subject to change. The project will be constructed within the City right of way. Each property will be provided a sewer stub similar to water main type service. Lawns, etc. will be restored to their e.xisting condition. Flushing connections were located where the City can access and flush the lines. Construction time is weather dependent. Machinery will be minimally disruptive to the neighborhood. Wherever there is a service to the property, a hole will ha\ e to be dug. Pipe size ranges from 1 1/4 to 3 inches in diameter. Grinder pumps will have to be placed on each property. Gappa stated the proposed assessment for sewer hookup is $9,500 to get a sewer stub to the property line for each house. There is an option where the homeowner can get a • t V.-{ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 :>:r‘ I A. Adopt Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Assessment—Resolution No. 4495 continued check for $5000 to aid in the purchase and installation of the grinder pump, which would be included in the assessment making it a total of $14,500. Or the homeowner can just be assessed for $9,500 and get his own pump. The assessment is over a 15 year period. The assessment is at 8%. The City had not sold bonds for the project yet. Last year bonds were sold and the assessment was at 6 '/4%, with 8% being the maximum. There are 2 properties along Brown Road that have been added to the project. Their assessment will be $23,700. The addition of the properties did not increase the cost to Webber Hills homeowners. Mayor Jabbour stated that every homeowner is paying for his/her share of the expenses. The Council assumes they won't have any difficulty getting easements. Kellogg stated that is the assumption. If the City has to pay for easements, it will add to the total project cost. Mayor Jabbour stated the City won't pass that expense to other residents. If the project cost gets out of hand they will abandon it. He reminded ever> one that the project was petitioned. He opened the public hearing. Dave Williams of 2055 Webber Hills Road Mr. Williams stated that a staff member said it's a daily battle to keep grinder pumps running and clear and has heard that the West Femdale project has been changed from grinder pumps to a gravity sewer. Kellogg responded that the West Femdale grinder pump cans were steel and they have been replaced with polyethylene tanks that will last longer. Williams stated he has a compliant and functioning mound system. He wondered what compensation he would get for hooking up to the sewer system. Mayor Jabbour stated he doesn't have to hookup. Williams replied he will have to pay $20,000 at some point when he refinances or sells the property. Mayor Jabbour stated that some people with functioning systems should not prevent the progress of the neighborhood. All the City can do for those people is allow them to hookup to the «;ewer when they need to. Williams stated he has received a paper that stated if he opts out there will be a cost of living increase each year. Mayor Jabbour stated that Council understands that there are some new homes or septic systems, so the City has a written policy to let homeowners postpone hookup until they need it. The cost of living increase is based on the construction index. So if you hookup later, you pay the cost of hookup in that year, and not the year when it was billed. Mayor Jabbour indicated the City’s property taxpayers are financing the costs until the property-owners hookup to sewer. The cost of living increase simply enables the City to recoup ihese up-front financing costs. i 1 iM ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 I A. Adopt Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Assessment—Resolution No. 4495 continued Williams asked what the increase has run. Gappa replied costs have been going up 2-3% per year. Williams asked if he could pay now and keep using his tanks. Gappa replied he could. The homeowaicr does net have to hookup to the sewer until his septic system becomes non-compliant. Bill Omera of 2000 Webber Hills Road Omera invested $10,000 in a septic system and was assured by the City Council that his son would be out of college before they considered a sewer for Webber Hills. His son is now in 7th grade. He came to the Council when his sewer was condemned 6 years ago and asked if they were considering sewer. He was assured they were not putting sewer in before he put in the mound system. He is willing to put in the sewage system, but asked to only pay interest on the septic system. Mayor Jabbour replied that is not possible because it is not fair to every other citizen. Omera asked if the City is accountable. Mayor Jabbour replied of course the City is accountable, but they were talking about a universal system that goes beyond the Council and about setting a precedent for the years to come. He reminded Omera he doesn't have to hookup. Omera asked if he can determine where the stub will go on his property. Kellogg replied he can place it wherever he wants on his property line. Omera asked if he can pump effluent into the system with his existing pumps. Kellogg stated he didn't think that w'ould be a problem, but he should consider maintenance issues for the property. Also, the City would want to make sure the tanks are sealed and have no leakage. Kelley stated a mound system restricts the number of rooms that can be added on to an existing structure. Also, a sewer frees up land on a lot so a pool or tennis court could be added. Omera asked Council to be more careful in future of what they tell citizens. He would not have spent $12,000 on a mound system if he had known sewer was coming to Webber Hills. He installed his system in 1994. Mayor Jabbour stated the City was petitioned to do the sewer and if the neighborhood did not want to go through with the project, tlie City could focus on a different project. He reminded Omera that he can opt out of it. Omera replied that when he moves he will have to buy the sewer system, so it only makes sense for him to buy the system now. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 I A. Adopt Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Assessment—Resolution No. 4495 continued even though he ’s $12,000 in the red because of the mound septic system. Kelley stated there is a majority of people who want the sewer. Peter Lytle of 2065 Webber Hills Road. Mr. Lytle stated there is a vast majority of people in the neighborhood who are interested in the sewer. He supports the decision and hopes the council votes positively on the grinder system. Sansevere asked when he started the petition. Lytle replied it was 2 years ago. Edwin Ritchie of 2180 Webber HUls Road. Mr. Ritchie stated that he is noncompliant and welcomes the sewer system. He asked for clarification on the cost of the system. Mayor Jabbour stated that the $9,500 is what the homeowner pays the City to have the pipe available to the property. The City is providing $5,000 on top of th - $9,500 to help the homeovNTier get the pipe and pump. They are using the City ’s available bonding rate to get the homeowner financing on the $5,000 over the pipe. The total cost is $14,500, with interest not to exceed 8%. In addition, the homeowner has to hire a contractor to install the pump. Kellogg gave an example. For one property owner to buy a grinder pump it would cost $3,300-$3,500. In addition is the cost of installation, a yard or 2 of concrete poured around the base, the line from the sewer to the stub at the property line, and the line to the house. $5,000 covers the cost of grinder system, materials, and installation. Gappa stated the City provides a check to the property owner for $5,000 and he will be assessed $14,500. The property owner has the option to refuse the check and pay cash for the grinder system, then only be assessed $9,500. It’s a finance vehicle thiough the Cit>. Omera asked if anyone else can tap into the line. Mayor Jabbour replied they could, if the capacity were there. Omera asked if that would offset his hookup costs. Mayor Jabbour replied that his hookup fees don't offset costs to people who are already in the system. Barrett stated he didn’t understand why one has to have hookup to sell a house. Ritchie responded that banks won't refinance a house if it doesn't have a hookup. Barrett stated that there is no legal obligation for a homeowmer to proceed with hookup. lA. Adopt Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Assessment—Resolution No. 4495 continued Kelley moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4459 adopting the Webber Hills Area Sanitary Sewer Assessment Roll. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. IB. Award Contract for Webber Hills Sanitaiy Sewer Project—Resolution No. 4460 Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4460 awarding the contract for the Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Project to Earth Burners, Inc., Duluth Minnesota in the amount of $215,120. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *3. Regular Council Meeting of April 24,2000 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 24,2000. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *4. Council Work Session of April 27,2000 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Council Work Session of April 27,2000. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS-^AMES WHITE, REPRESENTATIVE White invited the Council to the Park Tour on June 5,2000. Their progress in the parks is impressive. 1 he DNR grant is possibly not surviving the bonding bill. The source of the grant money may not be funded. A Commission member has connected with Gen Olsen to see if the grant is in the funding. The clean up project at Casco Park is going well. A large pile of brush has been left in the parking lot for Gappa to chip up. It's looking better than it has in a long time. Mayor Jabbour stated that the Gale family is giving a large parcel of land to Hennepin Parks that is located in Minnetrista adjacent to the Dakota Line. li ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 Park Commission Comments—James White Representative, continued White stated that a naturalist from Hennepin Parks will come out to sur\'ey the Saga Hills Park at no cost to the City to identify the flora and fauna in the park, then give the City a list of ever>'lhing living in the park. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—SANDY SMITH, REPRESENTATIVE None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *5. #2513 Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Drive—^Variance—^Resolution No. 4461 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4461 granting a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10,56, Subdivision 16(C)(6). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2559 Gilbert Gehle, 1392 Baldur Park Road—^Variances/CUP—Resolution No. 4462 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4462 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; Section 10.55, Subdivision 8; and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16(J) and 16(L) and granting a Conditional Use Permit per Section 10.03 Subdivisions 19-21. Vote: A\ es 5, Nays 0. 7, #2567 Walfred Properties, 2380 Shadywood Road—Commercial Sit Plan Review Weinberger stated that Walfred properties was approved for the Commercial Site Plan Review at the last Council meeting. Since that meeting the project engineer and architect have not had time to finalize their plans. Staff is recommending that the item be continued until the ne.xt Council meeting. The applicant was not in attendance. The deadline for Council action on the project had been extended to June 15, 2000. '■ I 1 m m OKONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 7. #2567 VValfred Properties, 2380 Shadyivood Road—Commercial Sit Plan Review, continued Kelly moved, and Peterson seconded, to continue the item until the Council meeting on May 22,2000. \ ote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #2570 George Stickney, 2590 Countryside Drive—Variances—^Resolution No. 4463 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4463 granting a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(D) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 15(E). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. #2572 Steve Morkrid, 2314 Shadywood Road—Variance—Resolution No. 4464 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4464 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Codes Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(E)(2). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *10. #2575 .lames and Jill Cornell, 2145 Watertown Road—Variance—Resolution No. 4465 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4465 granting a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. #2577 Render Development, 1315,1335, and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive—Final Plat of Tonkawa Shores 2"** Addition—Resolution No. 4466 Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4466 approving the final plat of Tonkawa Shores Second Addition. Vote: Aves 5, Navs 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Jabbour stated it had been an eventful week. The Consolidation meetings have been going very well and they will have a conclusion to bring to Council soon. Last week they talked to MN/DOT. two senators, and two representatives about keeping the Highway 12 project on schedule in terms of funding. They understand that if there is a ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Mayor/Coimcil Report, continued bonding bill passed this year the project will retain its priority position. The Council and staff should remember that the majority of the City is on hold because of the capacity of Highway 12 and sewer availability. Kelley stated the issue facing the fire station committee is how much money MN/DOT will reimburse Long Lake for the construction of the new facility. If MN/DOT doesn't give more than the minimal replacement value, the residents of Orono will have to carry the burden of a large bill. Two million dollars from Orono might be a conservative estimation. Kelley stated they are not comfortable with the site selection and are trymg to resolve a disagreement. Kelley also stated that all sides agree that the fire station could never be next to the Orono City Hall. Mayor Jabbour stated for the record that the Council does not expect the fire station to be located near the Orono City Hall. ENGINEER REPORT *12. Request for Payment—County Road 6 Reconstruction Project Kelley moved, and Flint seconded to approve the Request for Payment of $216,450.74 to Hennepin County for the County Road 6 reconstruction project Right of Way acquisition costs. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. Request for Payment Ul—Head Property Sanitary Sewer Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to approve the Request for Payment #1, Head Property Sanitary Sewer Project to Minneomm Inc. in the amount of $22,896.90. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *14. Amend Program for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age or Older—Resolution No. 4467 Kelley moved, and 1 tint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4467 amending the Program for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age or Older. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *15. Septic Code Update—Ordinance No. 199,2"'* Series 8 i M- ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 *15. Septic Code Update—Ordinance No. 199, Series Kelley moved, and Flint ^conded, to adopt Ordinance No. 199,2"*’ Series, approving the modiflcations to the Orono Septic Code as proposed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 16. Fleming Trail Addition—Revised Site Plan and Amended Covenants Moorse stated that staff have made three changes to the covenants: 1. to enable a 30 foot front yard setback, 2. to allow vehicular and pedestrian access onto Orono Oaks Drive, 3. to insure that the park, open space, and ponding areas are all permanently dedicated. Kelley asked how the Council could move on this without having an easement on Orono Oaks Drive because it is a private road. Mayor Jabbour stated they should pass a plan and then approach the homeo^^^lers and ask for their support. Kelley stated he can't support the movement without the homeowner ’s input. Kelley asked if the City has talked to any of the homeowners, and were they notified that it was going to be voted on. Mayor Jabbour stated they had talked to Jim Murphy, but did not notify him of the meeting. Kelley stated they do not have anything in writing from the homeowners stating they will let the City use the road, and don ’t know if the homeowners will fight the City on the issue. Mayor Jabbour asked if the City has an easement on the road. Gaffron answered he did not know with certainty at this time; there was language in the Orono Oaks Covenants that potentially gives the Homeowners ’ Association approval over City use of the easement. Mayor Jabbour stated that if the City can't take the road over, they shouldn ’t fight the homeoumers over it. Mayor Jabbour stated they could give the City both options and then get the homeowners ’ input. Peterson stated the Council should make no decision, and talk to the homeowners. Flint suggested approving both plans A and B, then work it out with the homeowners.' Evcr>'one favors plan A, but nobody is willing to condemn the road. Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve plan A & B vrith the change of the covenants. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Kelley). I 17. Police Department Super>isory Structure Reorganization •> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 1 7. Police Department Supervisory Structure Reorganization, continued Moorse explained that the Police Chief has recommended a reorganization of the supervisor^' structure of the Police Department that would eliminate the current 3 corporal assignments in favor of adding 2 sergeant positions. The sergeant’s promotion process would begin immediately. Sanseverc asked what the procedure for promotion would involve. Moorse stated it includes a written test, performance review, and interview. They hope to complete the process within a couple months. Sansevere stated he’s reluctant to create new’ positions when they r •; hiring a new chief who might want a new structure. He asked if the new' Chief would be required to keep the 3 Sergeants. Mayor Jabbour stated that no one comes in and immediately changes the structure of things, but that would be an option. Sansevere asked if the sergeants would lose their union protection. Moorse stated no one would lose their jobs because the City still needs that many sworn officers. Peterson asked about the outside firms helping with the reorganization. Moorse stated they'll talk to a couple of police departments and may invite a chief from a different department, to sit in on the interview panel of 3-5 people with a couple of outside sources. Candidates would probably be aware of the panel members, but the panel would probably not know the candidates. Flint stated he was impressed with Chiefs presentation that the existing system wasn't working well and that they should go to a new system before the new Chief arrives because it w ould take the chief a couple of years to get settled and decide how he wants to reorganize. He felt the City should take steps to improve the situation now. Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to approve the elimination of the police corporal positions effective May 15,2000, to approve the creation of 2 additional police sergeant positions, and to authorize the Cit>' Administrator and Police Chief to initiate a police sergeant promotional testing process immediately. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 18. Respectful Workplace Training Sansevere stated that the cost of the training seemed excessive to him. He checked with some lawyers and the cost he found was far less than the proposed expenditure. Moorse stated that the training would be more extensive than a lawyer would provide. The cost will be approximately $50 per person per session. He stated that they went with the least expensive quote of the consultants they queried. I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 18. Respectful Workplace Training, continued Peterson moved, and Mayor Jabbour seconded, to approve the City’s participation in respectful workplace training for all employees at a cost of $7,650.00, and to amend the General Fund budget to reflect the $.xpenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays I (Sansevere). 19. Declaration of Reimbursement Intent for Sewer Projects—Resolution No. 4468 Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4468 declaring reimbursement intent for sewer projects. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *20. 1999 Budget Adjustments and Transfers Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to approve the 1999 budget amendments for the General and Special Revenue Funds as presented; to be effective December 31, 1999; and that $37,000 of the Improvement and Equipment Capital Outlay Fund budget amended on 10/25/99, for the land management system project, be transferred to the 2000 Improvement and Equipment Outlay Budget; and that the Sewer Operating Fund temporarily transfer $62,000 to the 1997 Sewer Construction Fund. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *21. LICENSES Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to approve the following licenses. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Home Occupation License 1.Design & Layout Services (Floor Plan Design of Coffee Shops) Tom Palm 1685 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 .rr ; 1-:^ r ORONO cn Y COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 '•1 r k" *21, Licenses, continued Temporary On Sale Liquor License 1. Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 One day event to be held on May 17, 2000 22. Home Occupation License for 740 Orchard Park Road Steve Melco, the applicant, was present. Moorse explained that Melco is seeking to use his property for a tree service business. The City does not normally allow a home occupation that requires buildings and machinery that are not normally present at a residential property. Melco stated that he is only asking to park his vehicles at his home. Everything he does is off the property. He has spoken with his neighbors to the south and north (Sansevere), and has not met any opposition. Sansevere asked Melco if he has any employees. He responded he does not currently have employees and if he did, he could have them meet him at the job site. Mayor Jabbour stated that the City does not want a lot of activity at the home, especially involving trucks, tractors, and early morning noise. Kelley stated he was not sure Melco needed a home occupation license if he only wants to park his work truck on the property. He asked how the Council should determine what kind of vehicle requires a license. Barrett asked Melco how his clients reach him. He replied by mobile phone. Barrett asked if he does paperwork from his home. Melco replied he has a PO Box for business mailings, but he does do paperwork in his home. Melco explained he has 2 work trucks and a car. He uses the car when he does estimates. He uses I truck on jobs and keeps the second as a backup. Both trucks are the size of Chevy Suburbans. Sansevere asked if the license is renewable every year. Moorse stated that there could be problems with potentially revoking a license a year later because of changes to the business. Mayor Jabbour stated the Council should grant a license based on the information Melco presented them. Barrett stated they can describe the conditions under which they granted the permit. If the business did not change, the Council would be obligated to renew the license, but not if it changes. L -.. y ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8,2000 22. Home Occupation License for 740 Orchard Park Road, continued Mc'co stated that he is intending to build a pole bam to house the trucks and some personal property. Kelley stated he would like to see all business equipment kept in the bam, there should never be any bmsh or other debris dumped in his yard, and firewood should only be kept for personal use. Sansevere moved, and Mayor Jabbour seconded, to approve the home occupation license for 740 Orchard Park Road. Flint stated that in signing the home occupation application, Melco stated that he would not have employees unless they live on the property with him. He questioned if Melco could rim his business without the license. Mayor Jabbour asked if Melco’s business activities are acceptable without a license. The Council agreed it was acceptable an ’ that if the business grows and changes, then the Council will reconsider the license. Sansevere withdrew, and Peterson seconded, hb motion to approve the home occupation license for 740 Orchard Park Road. Mayor Jabbour advised Melco he could run his business as he described it to the Council. *23. BILLS Kelley moved, and Flint seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor m Application Date: 4/14/00 Completion Date: 4/14/00 60 Day Deadline: 6/13/00 Crti imc<L MW 2 2 2000 QHY OhONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 5/22/00 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2578 David and Lorraine Lundberg 900 Dakota Avenue Variance Zoning District: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area:32,508 s.f. (.75 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Notice of Planning Commission Action C Approval Letter From Adjacent Neighbor D Staff Report and Exhibits of 5/15/2000 Application: The applicants are proposing to construct a 26' x 26' two-story garage addition to the existing residence. The addition will consist of a two stall garage on the first floor and a master bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. The proposed addition ties into the existing first and second story floor plans with the bedrooms located on the south end of the residence. The proposed garage addition will use the existing driveway. The requested variance is: to permit a side yard setback of 1 T where 30' is required. I. Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B): Side Yard: The minimum requirement for side yard setback in the LR-1 A zoning district is 30 feet. Variance Request: To permit a side yard setback of 1 T where 30' is required. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: Approve the application as presented, subject to obtaining a letter firom the adjacent property owner to the south stating their approval of project prior to City Council meeting. I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: C\To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. WTtTt] MOITiT*^ rOTi[-r«»if^ itroif^ FsTmiiwaci^ wnirrmwii Riivaisncivnira 11 [•■(ifli rtBiit WIH rtTtTtltl riKt r«v:icvjrti rtntrf]\•mw^ Blilf irT^ ■;''V i rtii; 4. 5. A.The 3/4 acre lot is small compared to the LR-IA zoning district 2-acre standard. B. C. The residence was built prior to current zoning standards, The locations of the sewer line and well limit where the garage can be located as do the existing house room layout and a number of mature trees on the lot. D. The 500-1000' hardcover on the lot is decreasing. E.The neighboring residence adjacent to the proposed setback encroachment is sufficiently distant so as to be not negatively impacted by tihe encroachment. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generallv 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 propertj’; 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. Page 2 of 6 i ■i t 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 6 (B) to allow a side yard setback of ir where 30' is required to permit the construction of a two story 26' x 26 ’ garage addition to the existing residence. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Conunission and City Council review. The applicants shall remove the shed on the property v» ithin 90 days of receiving the building permit or prior to final inspection, whichever is earlier. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 22, 2001). 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 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 6 Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of May, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss, ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on tliis 22nd day of May, 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. , Notary Public Page 4 of 6 If ‘ I • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On tliis day of,2000, 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.i Notary Public j STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this__________day of ____2000, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be Ae person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 ^ ^-------- - Prepartd for! Exhibit A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RESIDENCE Au£ U>y^c^ d*^lc(T , MfJ , I • - .>1 *.4^ > % .| ^ w* • v***i LEGAL DESCR\PriONS U 3, Block 1, TOHN^roN’S Rt^RB^N6£ME^^T OF A^LBEE’s long LAJC.E AODVTIOhJ, ywKl'05 +0 kht recorded pUV -Vhtreor Hewktpin Coonttji Wlinnesora. 'OFOP.O'IO —. ^ -k (iwm;:'', pi aw -^1 /;>^’r’V>T; ' llPi'viSlONS n oi:;Ar-v!-o^LD 3Y ............ N X. ^<cv ^ --7 ----- •H ^-4 ■Gp ifi1.1 ji tV.''-../ • - .' r . . —•• J40.03 ’”"* GENERAL NOTES TiiSJ iT:;?! ^j.5 sCP !■•«'■; ; OoMits iron mcnument DtnoUs cross chitoltd in concrcts Osnotss ssistino spot sleyotlon Dsnoiss proposed spot etsvolion 4------- Oonotes surface drolnoge Ooshed contour lines denotes proposed (eotures Solid contour lines denotes existing features at .t.-metro land • # * • A • . Proposid top of foundal on tlovotion * eltvaffon > elovotion * Proposed botimtnt floo Proposed goroge floor BENCHMARK: • •. SURVEYORS 2340 Oonitls Street Long Lake, Minneioto 55356 Ph: 475-1433 X Mreby certify that Ihle tun»ey, plan or report woe prepored ^ me or under my direct lupcrmion ond thot I om 0 duly Regtitered tond Surteyor unde r thf lom of the Stole of Minneioto. SCALE I" » 30 ’ OXTE. M 'I. 'I A I REO NO.17029 Page 6 of 6 PILE NO. eio7o-A }■ " CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 ZONING FILE # 2578 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; May 16, 2000 TO:David and Lorraine Lundberg 900 Dakota Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF NIEETING: May 15,2000 Planning Commission recommends the following: VOTE: 5 FOR AGAINST Approval as submitted, except a letter from adjacent neighbor to south stating their approval of project prior to City Council meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on May 22,2000 at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. m ■I s I * i ■ ■! flPTMMU Mi«1 a: I • M. 1 c. 860 Oikota Avf. Lor>g Lake MN 55356 I 7 2GG0 May 15,2000 Gi i Y OiSOuO Dear Sir or Madam; Julia and I reside at 880 Dakota Avenue, which is contiguous to David & Lorraine Lundburgh at 900 Dakota. We are cognizant of there remodeling plans at»d are both supportive and excited about the expansion. Sincerely. Timothy & Julia Harrison • t ii k TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator » J* N FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Admini:>trator/Planner ^ % • • • DATE:May 15,2000 5^/- ^ H- -• \ SUBJECT:#2578 David and Lorraine Lundberg 900 Dakota Avenue Variance --Public Hearing \ . i/y - t* ;vr> *• Zoning District: LR* 1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:32,508 s.f. (.75 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Analysis Worksheet Application Site Plan/ Survey Floor Plan/Elevations Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Location Map Photo of Property Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B): Side Yard: The minimum requirement for side yard setback in the LR-1A zoning district is 30 feet. Variance Request: To permit a side yard setback of 1T where 30' is required. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to construct a 26' x 26' two-stoiy garage addition to the existiiig residence. TTie addition will consist of a two stall garage on the first floor and a master bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. The proposed addition ties into the existing first and second story floor plans with the bedrooms located on the south end of the residence. The proposed garage addition will use the existing driveway. The propert}' is serviced with sewer and a private well. The locations of the sewer line and the well were determinants in placement of the garage addition. The well is located on the north side of the residence and the sewer line runs parallel to the driveway (Shown on Exhibit C). it2578 David/Lorraine Lundberg 900 Dakota Avenue Variance 5/15/2000 Page I i ! w The adjacent residence to the south is approximately 60 feet from the adjoining property line. The property is located within 1000' of Long Lake. • The addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,136 s.f. (6.6%), where 1,460 s.f. (4.5%) exists and 4,876.2 s.f (15%) is allowed. • The addition will result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 500-1000' setback area to 4,068 s.f (12.5%), where 4,100 s.f (12.6%) exists and 11,378 s.f (35%) is allowed. Statement of Hardship ; t The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The location of the sewer line and well limits where garage can be located. 2. The 500-1000' hardcover on the lot is decreasing with the removal of shed and fish house. Also, there is a section of landscape material under rock that cculu be removed, although hardcover is not an issue on this property. 3. The structural coverage on the lot is increasing but still well below the allowed 15%. 4. There are several mature trees located west and northwest of the house, which the applicants wish to keep. 5. Conformance to existing house floor plan and driveway limits placement of garage. 6. The residence was built prior to current zoning standards. 7. The 3/4 acre lot is small compared to the LR-1A zoning district 2-acre standard. 8. The residence to the south is approximately 60' from the adjoining property line. 9. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance for side yard setback. H2578 David/Lorraine Lundberg 900 Dakota Avenue Variance 5/15/2000 Page 2 km ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Side Yard Setback Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acre)30' Actual 32,508 s.f. (.75 acre)11’ Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 32,508 s.f Allowed: 4,876.2 s.f (15%) Existing: 1,460 s.f (4.5%) Proposed: 2,136 s.f (6.6%) yiardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 250-500’32,508 s.f 9,752.4 s.f (30%) 4,100 s.f (12.6%) 4,06S s.f (12.5%) '-A J i 6 Application #J/S7K 01.^') Date Received Q-- IQ- ~JDOc:>c:i Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 9oo 0*<.V.oVtk « . _____ - Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3.*^ ' OO/^ Attach legal description to application ^ not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^ / 9 I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property resident!^ ___pother (specify) Zoning District: /-y^y/7 __________________ .(month/year) .'.t •a- *3 APPLICATJT Phone (honie d Name Al. j.^..>iLcl^one(\vork ) ' ) nxL.. /\\ 7m-Addres^ ^00 A City: 0)^^Zip: j-riJX OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (liome)_ Phone (work)__ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ ••• (attach additional sheets if necessary) VAIOANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback:Front Lot Width Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify)A HARDSraP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual compliance \v^ Zoning Code requirements:/^ ______ property conditions preventing CO (attach additional sheets if necessary) Prepartd for! r.ERTIFlCATE OF SURVEY RESIDENCE 6o>^c| 6i^er, M^3 oS3::fe» ^ M .s;i 'Cv.'y*’•;.* »!viV rjiV t-l'.t ..'. \EGAL DESCRlPrtONS lot 3, BlocH, JOHNSTON ’S RIARRAN6£MEMT OF ALBt£^ U)N<i IAIC.E ADD aioN, +0 ^hc reconied pUV 4htr«ot. Htftfttpin County, Mlnne8<na. ^ 0OFQmHd ..K ^:: A^4__Or.AOlJi'’. PI A!'! Mv»R(jv.:i»v/n:r»]^vi3!o:j3 'i"! pi::-Ar-vtO^LD cr ........... C‘i‘?0)y- X '4 K N ''v<? a 5? V./ .i\«.' ^i.o -•’* * n.o I. ■> rA . CsK^J I -••• I40.09*’*- GENERAL NOTES TiiiJ ‘153 /H'i : A ^ Dinolts Iran monom«n» Dtnctts crau chiooltd in concraU Oanotii tiitting spot alevotlon Danoltt propostd tpol altvolion 4 Danotet aurfoce dralnoge Dothad contour linti danoloa proposed (aolurea Solid contour lines danotaa existing feoturaa I # • .* •■ «. Propotod fop of foundot on tlevofion ■ etevoflon * elevation « Proposed bosement (loo Propossd goroge floor BENCHMARK; AT.L-METRO fiTTRVEYORS 2340 Ooniels Street Long Loke, Minneaoto 55356 Ph-. 475-1433 1 htraby Ctrlifr that this sersay, plan or report "If mv dnwot pripered by in# of under my direct luptrviiio ond that 1 cm a duty Reelttered Und Sunreyor under IM lawi of the Stole of Minneiolo. SCALE |- *30' q u u. 'I /i«, ) _ ItCO. NO /70?i FILE NO. 8607O-/A i o T) v\ T1r 1 J »N \ \ % > fi. \ ^A • r I % jy. \ii 24' M C:> : '^;' O Tr i.................... “■)) V } • :V6 •• i. ; ‘ ^ • ■•4' .^•i? £IaM- 9^ -ft--. xy X \ % \ —irrtil ‘^y % -U.-tcr?^ ■ U \ %. ^ o ^ • o y- < vV n Q r-' r^; o W:%«4 . i* .'/^"'^llrW vL-^ y o •■/ ■’ ' ' ; ■,:. '?i;i ■ ' ‘ * .. V • ••'fj i . »■■ : J • , ■■■•■ '. j' 3\ j •• • •• ->• — 10'iw' • W .*■ , ■: ' :''Kr^• % * * •' Hl^VdtioA ^00 DoJ^of^ Avt*. (a £)\^-e/.Soo*^ E/.\s-\vxj + Pfo^ou:4 I" •ri^o' ^/lO/oo Hi. •A 03 • ••••HAIUDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ 250-500’^OO-IOOI £ EXISTING HARDCOVro IN ZONE A. House . x cSLi? Leatxh fCCCi^IW X X X Wkldi /O iLo B. Garage • . *- C. Driveway (9^X X /n7' D. Sidewalk X X I ■1J . E. Patio/Deck m tin mric. X X F. Landscape Uaderlain By Plastic Or Fabric . f— X X X /j^D 'fibhhoiiit 8 JE TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^irr + B. PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ A. House i-rH-______ X QLc. Lcogdi WM(h pCNcn h.X X X £ B. Garage C. Driveway '9Lp 6lU 19- 13L X X D. Sidewalk X X , •• E. Patio/Deck 1C) t^X flO Lo Cif'rKre X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric f X X X to O. Ocher X -I TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL AREA MZOME^ ■S.F. i.->n S.F. • cs S.F. S.F. •*S.F. • , * - •• • SS ' ICL^U ' • • S.F. »STD S.F. •• . • S.F. B •S.F. • 6VQ.._.S.F. B S.F. ► /An S.F. S.F. S.F. •• •SO B S.F. • 4100 S.F. •S.F. xioo :*».(/y % • S.F. bb S.F. B S.F. B S.F. • • MO>S.F. Q9U>S.F. B .^4D _S.F. fa S.F. • • •• •S.F. B ^0 • S.F. B!S.F. lOO > */AO __S.F. B S.F. S.F. • • .S.F. 4ck>^S.F. •S.P. xlOO -/^.D_% A B ii. SZ'' m <^C?-11? s 2 <!?> «' a M 7i,^~ ^^12%V *ALBEE*S LONG LAKE ADDN** CjFTOFLOTI R (32) PT Of LOT 2 (M) 91 ot) LOTONfi r<^ALBEE*S LONG Z * A VyS(3in _s (21) I » r> \ O') '4r»l t( /I A.! (i;j lake LOTTWO -S 200 53 2 \ < y- ' ; • ) m I m k»‘> i * y:t Vi *’ yj I ’ «f'’‘: F^■' •' v^f ? I. I J : ¥!‘S:: ^ ii M. fli' II hr: '•■' !•'• ■ ‘* ,i; • f J / !. \,i . . . '-41 - f'. * ••• ■."■^r ► * •••*••' ^ • % * • . - • ' vT'.i u I \ Yu.. //»cC ’ .V* ’ -“^ ' •>*'•*’ ‘ • '*-i—^ ** ' * .y “ • .'/ •A'^—-» • >Tp^*'^/.V; »,/•.* t l./iy-ii I ■ • - :. P-"' ; ia • »• -Ta'Ti ■^•“ B * ^ 'TTT ~ I fci.’ ■■ fc. .'i.''.;'-:' J ;BB ■-jy Vifcjy i- • . 'f'\tr v-„ . . • . .*< .• •■:;-'i:*.-' /-y ; ■ V% ij^aaggas^^- »‘/vf ^1 '' i* • _ • • I •^?-T .>. V * , .• • ' ■ J •",..• •• '■ * .-'. :i iv • *. T'- J * ^ ■ * / *' ' .: • ‘* • ' • . f X- // Hi '■(' ’ r- . ; •T--.V* ;:. .-■■ j// ' ’ '•. •'•' '/• mKm riSSS • ’ • •■■ ■’ '::: J't; Jt.-—-----r.*x‘«''^r>rA*L‘fc^‘"'-‘'' ^ RUN DATE HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1A35401 PAGE 12 BATCH SRA PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SB 24-118-23 33 0001 01404 LONG LAKE BLVO J W GARDNER 0 A L GARDNER ANITA L GARDNER 1484 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE NN 55354 SB 24-118-23 33 0014 00940 DAKOTA AVE 8 P 8 K H ARNE GERALD P 8 KARLA H ARNE 940 DAKOTA AVE LOtn LAKE HN 55354 38 26-118-23 S3 0017 00920 DAKOTA AVE LECH GENE GAWRON 8 WIFE LECH 8 NANCY GAWRON 920 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 24-118-23 33 0018 00900 DAKOTA AVE DAVID C LUNDBERO ETAL DAVID 8 LORRAINE LUNDBERG 900 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 38 24-118-23 S3 0019 00800 DAKOTA AVE T J HARRISON 8 J H ALBAUGH T J HARRISON 8 J N ALBAUGH 880 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE tM 55356 38 26-118-23 S3 0022 00908 DAKOTA AVE S R KNUTSON OJA KNUTSON SCOTT R 8 JULIE A KNUTSON 908 DAKOTA AVE N LONG LAKE NN 55356 AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 24-118-23 33 0023 00910 DAKOTA AVE T 8 K STEINKE THONAS A 8 KARX A STEINKE 910 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 38 24-118-23 33 0024 00930 DAKOTA AVE THONAS C ODEAN ETAL THONAS C ODEAN 930 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 26-118-23 S3 0029 01485 SIXTH AVE N W PEARCE 8 8 A PEARCE TRSTES WILLIAN 8 BARBARA PEARCE 1485 CO RD NO 6 LONG LAKE NN 55365 ft PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 24-118-£S 12 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNfcO S B 8 S 0 NORRISON SCOTT B 8 SHERYL G NORRISON 1E25 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE NN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 504 00010 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE OH THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE It a vr '"•'J'’ \ J O v/8 r/LJ \A f'* ■ I f m Permit No i?i 4o /> .?-/ ^ iti'ciil ‘=}6Si 9^'v’sl A*. ^ ^ myy.'T PERMIT RECORD Date ^-c> rs ]0 -•& ?s 9'30'§6 //' iv Y6 O /D'an ' ^7 /^) ^jl7 ' 7 d» rr Type of Permit txAgg/^ ic o-c£l yitujj-r r-Jrs (S^ccuc)^ a Sd-c. i »- Application Date: 4/17/00 Completion Date: 4/17/00 60 Day Deadline: 6/16/00 Cr'MMr'ii MEETtNQ may 2 2 2000 cut or UHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 5/22/00 40a ^ITEM NO, Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2580 Timothy J. Pattrin 1360 Railroad Avenue Variance Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area:22,137 s.f. (.51 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Notice of Planning Commission Action C StaffReport and Exhibits of 5/15/2000 Application: The applicants are proposing to construct a 624 s.f. (24' x 26') attached garage addition to the north side of the existing residence. The property is located on the comer of Railroad Avenue and Spates Avenue. The existing driveway will be used to access th; proposed garage. The proposed garage will be located 23' from Spates Avenue. Spates Avenue is not a heavily traveled street. The property is serviced with a well. The well, along with a three season porch and deck are located on the east side of the residence (behind it). The existing garage will be remodeled into a master bedroom/bath, laundry room and a 1/4 bath. The property is 1/3 in the 250-500' hardcover zone and 2/3 in the 500-1000' zone. Hardcover is not an issue with this application. The requested variance is: to permit a street side yard setback of 23' where 50’ is required. 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B): Street Side Yard: The minimum requirement for street side yard setback in the LR-IA zoning district is 50 feet. Variance Request: To permit a street side yard setback of 23' wherj 50’ is required. PLANNLNG COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: Approve the application as presented. I • * »^ ' • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. i I ' r L J r rje ■ *! -I'j" 'v-’a ! ;■. 4 ki -W'-. *:.jr 11: ihmt !>■ | a1. 15 < #i -iA i’i' 'iim Y <■/ I-'.^1-1 '1 M A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO Ml^TCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B) FILE NO. 2580 WHEREAS, Timothy J. Pattrin, (hereinafter "the applicant") is tlie owner of the property located at 1360 Railroad Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: All that part of Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly line of Lot 6 of Elbridge S. Barnes’ First Subdivision distant 205.08 feet Southeasterly from the Southwest comer thereof; thence Northwesterly to said Southwest comer; thence. Southwesterly along the Easterly line of the right-of-way of the Great Northern Railway 179.06 feet; thence deflecting left 90 degrees to an intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning at right angles Southwesterly from the Southerly line of said Lot 6; thence Northeasterly to the point ''f beginning; subject to that part thereof lying within Central and Railroad Avenues, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 1 0.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow the construction of a 624 s.f. attached garage to the existing residence to be located 23' from the street side yard where 50' is required. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Plarming Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 6 - M nM ta liiglil ■ ill Cl am ' P\\ II III ■IBli I IMT ■1111*1 !■! 1 I iTTlIlMBr flJ[inP~¥l tT~I I ------------------^ t y 3. 5. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2580. 2. This property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District, where 2 acres or 87,120 s.f. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of approximately .51 acres or 22,137 s.f. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application ofx May 15, 2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made tlie following findings of fact: A.The structural coverage on the lot is increasing to 2,160 s.f. (9.76%), but still well below the allowed 15%. B.The 500-1000' hardcover coverage is increasing, but well below the allowed 35%. C.The well is located on the east side of the residence, limiting the ability to construct an addition to the rear of the house. Also, the existing lesidence already encroaches the front, side and side street required yards, and any addition would require encroachment of one of these yards. D. E. The lot is small compared to the LR-1 A zoning district standard. The driveway will continue to access from Railroad Avenue. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 1 f 6.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variance*; to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow the constiuction of a 624 s.i. attached garage to the existing residence to be located 23' from the street side yard where 50' is required. Approval is subject to the follo'ving conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Pl.'inning 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 e.xercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 22,2001). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of diis 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 of 6 irmm Ar i i i Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the22ndday ofMay, 2000. . ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jab.^our, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of May, 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. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 II^ TWBfT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this davof 2000, before me a Noiary Public within and for said County, personally appeared________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this__________day of____j 2000, before me a Notaiy Public within and for said County, personally appeared _______________________________________ known to me to be Ae 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 t Page 5 of 6 Exhibit A 1360 Railroad Ave., Crystal Bay, Mn, 55323 LEGAL DESCRIPTION; All that part of Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly line of Lot 6 of Elbridge S. Barnes' First Subdivision distant 205.08 feet Southeasterly from the Southwest comer thereof, thence Northwesterly to said Southwest comer, thence Southwesterly along the Easterly line of the right-of-way of the Great Northern Railwr^ 179.06 feet; thence deflecting left 90 degrees to an intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning at right angles Southwesterly fiom the Southerly line of said Lot 6; thence Northeasterly to the point of beguming; subject to that part thereof lying Vtithin Central and Railroad Avenues. LEGEND: Scale: 1 inch-40 feet Bearings are assumed • Denotes Iron Pipe Found •© PP. - Denotes Power Pole M - Denotes Current Measured Distances D - Denotes Original Deed Measurements Area “0.52 Acres • ’« \\ fa I hereby certify that this CERTmCATE OF SURVEY was prepared by me and that I am a duly Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. As surveyed by me *' of 7/£>C O.t % . 1 Page 6 of 6 L,Garv L. B$wfcbr, Land Surveyor, Mn License No. 10948 ^3* n D CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 ZONING FILE U 2580 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 16, 2000 TO: Timothy Pattrin 1360 Railroad Avenue Crystal Bay, MN 55323 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF ^ETING: May 15,2000 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted..j i Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on May 22,2000 at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ^ 'O ■ Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner May 15,2000 SUBJECT: #2580 Timothy Pattrin 1360 Railraod Avenue Variance — Public Hearing f Zoning District: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (J'acre) Lot Area:22,137 s.f. (.51 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J Analysis Worksheet Application Site Plan/ Survey Floor Plan/Elevations Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Location Map Photo of Property Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Section fm 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B): Street Side Yard: The minimum requirement for street side yard setback in the LR-1 A zoning district is 50 feet. Variance Request: To permit a side yard setback of 23’ where 50' is required. Application Summaiy: The applicants are proposing to construct a 624 s.f. (24 ’ x 26^) attached garage addition to the north side of the existing residence. The property is located on the comer of Railroad Avenue and Spates Avenue. The e.xisting driveway will be used to access the proposed garage. The proposed garage will be located 23’ from Spates Avenue. Spates Avenue is not a heavily traveled street. The property is serviced with a well. The well, along with a three season porch and deck are located on the east side of the residence (behind it). The existing garage will be remodeled into a master bedroom/bath, laundry room and a 1/4 bath. The property is 1/3 in the 250- 500' hardcover zone and 2/3 in the 500-1000’ zone. Timothy Pattrin 1 360 Railroad Avenus Variance 5/15/2000 Page I *• The garage will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,160 s.f. (9.76%), where 1,536 s.f. (6.94%) exists and 3,320.5 s.f. (15%) is allowed. The garage will result in an increase of overall hardcover coverage to 4,480 s.f. (29.9%), where 3,556 s.f. (23.7%) exists and 5,250 s.f. (35%) is allowed. Statement of Hardship;j The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration; I. The structural coverage on the lot u increasing but still well below the allowed 15%. 2. The 500-1000’ hardcover on the lot is increasing but still well below the allowed 35%. Hardcover is not an issue with this application. 3. The lot is small compared to the LR-1A zoning district standard. 4. The well and pipe are located behind (east side) the residence. 5. The deck was constructed in 1990 meeting all setback requirements. 6. The property along Spates Avenue has mature trees that the applicant plans to keep. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation! Staff recommends approval of the variance for street side yard setback. #2580 Timothy Pattrin 1360 Railroad Avenue Variance 5/15/2000 Page 2 ...................... II I atn — ■ A .. : /V -A. Vi. ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IA Lot Area Street Side Yard Setback Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)50' Actual 22,137 s.f. (.51 acre)23* Structural Coverage; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,137 s.f.Allowed: 3,320.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,536 s.f. (6.94%) Proposed: 2,160 s.f. (9.76%) Hardcover Calculations; Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 250-500’7,137 s.f.2.141 s.f (30%) Os.f 0 s.f 500-1000’15,000 s.f.5,250 s.f (35%) 3,556 s.f (23.7%) 4,480 s.f (29.9%) B Application #2SSO Date Received *f/n/c C Amount Paid tSX> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 H COOV Atta.'h legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d j ft ^__________________!__________.(month/year) I (uo) Present use of property; X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:____________________________________ APPLICANT . Name Address: o C~/ Phone fhomel *7 7 T~-)^X- / ^ J Phone (work ) ~?Hr^<r/nC ‘.vf.r City: /^o y--------Zip. 3 I; • • M OWTSER (if different than applicant) Name ______ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. Estimated Construction Cost $ z?<g>^gDESCRIPTION OF REQUES H nc^ . //tLAifA-j fn (attach rraditional she^*ts if necessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover i-- ‘ •! Lot Coverage ^ Setback:F-ont XL Sid.Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing comoliance with Zoning Code requirements: \4 4-a hwilJ I ef- t (attach additional sheets if necessar>) ? •«---- REQUIRED SUBiVnTTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for reproduction. . Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy VA" 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 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 your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true^and correct to the b^^^f his/her knowledge. Date ^////anApplicant's Signatur^^^^^jj^^^^^j^ 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^^pHnyestigation and yeripMtion of this request. DateOwner's Signaturg''''^ I Applicant must have aH^ubmittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of tlr change prior to the meeting. 6 1360 Railroad Ave., Crystal Bay, Mn, 55323 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that part of Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly line of Lot 6 of Elbridge S. Barnes' First Subdivision distant 205.08 feet Southeasterly from the Southwest comer thereof, thence Northwesterly to said Southwest comer, thenw Southwestern along the Easterly line of the right-of-way of the Great Northern RaUw^ 179.06 feet; thcace deflecting left 90 degrees to an intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginniog at right angles Southwesterly from the Southerly line of said Lot 6; thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning; subject to that part thereof lying within Central and Railroad Avenues. p- LEGEND: / Scale: 1 inch ■ 40 feet Bearings are assumed • Denotes Iron Pipe Found ■O PP. - Denotes Power Pole M - Denotes Current Measured Distances D - Denotes Original Deed Measurements Area *0.52 Acres •». of •a 'ioaOt Oarv L. Biiwr, Land Surveyor, Mn License No. 10948 . • ? /•l • i i b i t »• • hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' CTSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 4^ X 75-250’ Ltogex WUdi X' X X B. G«se •• •t' . C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paclo/Deck F. Landsc^e Uaderlain By Plasde Or Fabric rg.-X X X X X X X X X -4/ O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -A • • + B t^/?rr>iL x lOo . PROPOSED FABDCQViro IN ZONE A. House h<~i ______ x <3jI Leogth • Widtfi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric ito___ .^O X X X X X X X X X __________ 3Q_____ G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ „/ 44g0 + B I6.0CG > Xioo £ 250-500’ (’’'5^1000^ /niA 5U-f- T‘Ho 6 • S3n /536 IlOO AO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ’S.F. 'S.F. S.F. S.F. A __S.F. B 7----- S.F. S.F. S.F. >.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. - % r *• . '•i S r i ■■» f* ■ >' f- I- .r^ ' r r 1. I:- KCf I . rf3^/ 125.^26) r^> o? (27) 6 <v^' ^ :.9^1 118.9<o o PART OFLOT 5 (7) 9 9 Mtr p {. . ... .1 V .:.* > • ,/? *'******-‘~ TT rrin«iiaiitiiii III I ik^iitf.n --------- --- •* - ------- - _- — ._ -----------------—^ 1 [>uS ^0. 3 » _____jg SOMERSCT g ^^ FOX Noereaberg I -■ Isioi mitTE \ 400 a *®?r,e3 800 [CsUvK 3V lONBVIEW cnABM600N WATORONO \ ^ •'«*'iiotin ^ vrOursc • •■ •.«• •« FRENCH lAKE RO • •• cs •• #* - • * : r *J*• ;• ' •» V- • • .1* • ' * • • . * * '!• • 4 : - ‘'.•.I • •••••■ •:,.Hohru.Point ;. Crystal Bay ’* . . • • fc ^* **•••.'*•** • •'• * • • • • •.•••• ^ _ — I___^ ■____________________• "■ • • :. {pra^ fOODHill DCKUIOi 2 ^ ^•!^ **** Tanager rlaJktf g '. •- it 6REENT|I^; *'* RO^ f I i'' -i- '•' 1 • ;. *. i r ;j; •- ^ • •. • ^ V * • • • ^ • • Smith B iypRONOyV/ ; .. , .. i .. ^>v . ; . • •’ J..^X- S • 1600 r // • **• * • • Ufayetie . '■ VT/f. .. ,.;': .'.'. ^ j' : • t^MiitryC ub ;yW • '-: ’ •' " MINNETONKA BEACH „Lafayette Bay )10 V I ■i/’- ; • .. m V ♦ • • ■' .Muntington Point y^j •,• V- if' . . i v-^:v-v.j5-^ ivcva; ':</.;.; <-*. • • m • • \-r • X \• J Bracketts Point • • .J-. . . ■■»■• • • •-#• • # •. • • •i .• • •. * Point 4 i ' "v .' /A.r ■- } • fc V • ' ;: -4®TSagfl‘■Im (M ‘ -B;;?',Vi? ’ I • ^ * • ^ •, . "5- -■ •^. ’ ;f'' . '. t;- J*-------- - - v»^ » s.^ •*’ \ :^• *v*‘ .• i' :4 '■ V •.•S'--«r“‘ ■ • *>!i. ti ::k;:^-. ___Jj |4* - *t n 4 Igil^ .... .-i. ■ *^’^ •V^w vk^:#fv; MM DATE 14/17/M HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PACE 37 •ATCH il7 .♦S' PiOP AODR DNNER NANI TAXPAYER IMNE/AOOR St lt-117-23 11 MM CttSt ADDRESS UNASSICNED NCLEOO CNTY RED RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC » ADAMS ST N HUTCHINSON HN SSSSt St lt’117-2S 31 tool MOlt SHORELINE DR MICHELLE MARIE HUDSON-HILLER MICHELLE MARIE HUDSON-HILLER 2010 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA MN 55341 St 10-117-2S SI 0002 02040 NORTH SHORE DR K I L ERICKSON KEITH R ERICKSON 2040 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MH 55341 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR St 10-117-2S SI OOOS 02040 NORTH SHORE DR L 0 OOOPREY 0 N J COOPREY LYLE 0 t NORMA J OOOPREY 2040 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55341 3t 10-117-23 SI 0005 01540 RAILROAD AVE OLAZ HANSON ETAL OLAl HANSON DON 124 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 St 10-117-23 SI 0004 013t0 RAILROAD AVE SHARON V EVANS SHARON V EVANS 13t0 RAILROAD AVE NAYZATA HN 55341 0 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR St 11-117-25 51 0007 01S40 RAILROAD AVE TIMOTHY J PATTRIN SR TIMOTHY JON PATTRIN SR 1540 RAILROAD AVE PO BOX 51 CRYSTAL DAY HN 55S25 St 10-117-23 SI 0000 02055 SPATES AVE MARIETTA H ANDERSON ET At MARIETTA H ANDERSON 2055 SPATES AVE NAYZATA HN 55341 St 10-117-23 SI 0040 02040 SPATES AVE MARY A STINSON MARY A STINSON 2040 SPATES AVE NAYZATA MN 55341 * ** •4 •A I /-• . . A*. . • \ *v;1 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR St 10-117-2S SI 0045 MMO SPATES AVE T t C HORSE TERRY D NORSE 2M0 SPATES AVE NAYZATA MN 55341 St 10-117-23 31 0044 02040 SPATES AVE HARRIET SPATES TOURANCEAU HARRIET SPATES TORANCEAU 2040 SPATES AVE NAYZATA HN 55S41 // TOTAL BATCH 507 00011 tf' yj I CERTIPY THAT THE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AlO TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF MY KNDNLEOCE AND BELIEF., ^ '' DATE f H ■r b ¥ f- I Li^L- .. Permit Ko. J22Q.___ (.01^ ^'7'7'J> \^0 KouJ-roadl fh^ O' PERMIT RECORD Date 9* 9* :r*/7-4,7 Type oC Permit ATT. ^ARAG€ PdAth A CO /yj^rCH //■/ 1 2m^’,ZEidi ^ V ... Application Date: 4/18/00 Completion Date: 4/18/00 60 Day Deadline: 6/16/00 MW 2 2 2K>« C\1 Y ur UHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 5/22/00 t IpITEM NO. Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2582 Francis and S le Ann Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive Variance Zoning District:LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:18,073 s.f. (.41 acre) LUt of Exhibits: A Resolution B Notice of Planning Commission Action C Staff Report and Exhibits of 5/15/2000 Application: The applicants are proposing to remove the existing access at North Shore Drive and construct a garage/room addition and deck at the northeast comer of the existing residence. The deck will replace an existing one that will be removed for the garage/room addition. Access to the property will now be via “Park Avenue” (addressed as Tonkaview Lane) along the north lot line. The topography is steep at North Shore Drive making access during winter months a haz^d for both applicants and the public who drive North Shore Drive. The garage/room addition will meet all required setbacks except for the street setback at the north lot line. No other variances wll be required. The requested variance is: to permit a front yard setback of 10' where 35' is required. I. Section 10.24, Subd. 6 (B): Front Yard: The minimum requirement for front yard setback in the LR-IB zoning district is 35 feet. Variance Request: To permit a front yard setback of 10 where 35 is required. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: Approve die application as presented. f *1 ;r'C' J >1 % . Y^' p e ».,M . -... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. V r - ■ l?r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 6(B) FILE NO. 2582 t. WHEREAS, Francis Edward Koubsky and Susan Ann Koubsky, husband and wife, (here inafter "the applicants") are the owners of the propert>’ located at 4784 North Shore Dr ve within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 7 and 8, and that part of Lot 9, lying southeasterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 9; distant 15 feet northwesterly from the most easterly comer of said Lot 9; thence southwesterly to the most southerly comer of said Lot 9, and there ending; all in Block 3, Bergquist and Wicklunds ’s Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow the construction of an attached garage/room addition to the existing residence to be located 10' from the front yard where 35' 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 May 15,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 6 H. !-■ T A 3. 5. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2582. 2. ^ This property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. is the mirimum lot area. The property consists of approximately .41 acres or 18,073 s.f. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 15, 2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The structural coverage on the lot is increasing to 2,139 s.f. (11.8%), but still well below the allowed 15%. B. The 75-250' hardcover on the lot is decreasing to 0%, well below tlie allowed 25%. C. The 250-500 ’ hardcover on the lot is increasing to 3,540 s.f. (29.9%), still below the allowed 30%. D.The proposed yard encroachment near the north lot line abutting “Park Avenue” is necessary to allow construction of the proposed two stall attached garage at a location that will not conflict with the existing house room layout, and will have minimal impact on neighboring properties. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 p 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and 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 6 (B) to allow the construction of an attached garage/room addition to the existing residence to be located 10 ’ from the front yard where 35' is required. Approval is subject to the following conditions; 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to this resolution as Exhibit 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 one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 22,2001). 3.Access to the property shall be gained via a driveway within unimproved public right-of-way known as Park Avenue at the north. Applicant shall provide address signage at the intersection of driveway with Tonkaview Lane and at north lot line of property. Applicant’s address shall be reassigned to a Tonkaview Lane address. Applicant shall also agree to participate in the upgrading and ongoing maintenance of the privately maintained shared access driveway to property. 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'. Page 3 of 6 —fii r ■ L ft Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of May, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of May, 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. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 J,[ ' V r ■ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Ont^s day of.2000, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared_______________________________________ known to me to be Ae person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this__________day of ____2000, 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) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 Exhibit A ' a'" A S* Ss CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR FRANK AND SUSAN KOUBSKY ..i.'f' Ih/ LOTS7,8&9, BLOCK 3. BERGQUIST 4c WICKLUND' S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA • ! 4M««a raUf tiyrn ir«v<» •* %m%94 m »• vm J \ ) Vw •! il HM U #« hm •! •)« €«ktM fmtmk mm wm mtmitm •» a ««•«« -rww««v UWtVt It 4ms pkr#«^l (• #«« «thtr vrvrtv^martt or oncroetfwwott. i l•«wni•lr OMfr ■HMH Coffin & CRONiitRL l\Ci I Wiil* ^ ^ •IMI ^ CWlogiWW I tttJktmmm. . •■ I . i ♦ *: i" • o «kr k«« if Sm« tCMM r*SBT ttift iMt Page 6 of 6 L_. 6 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612>249-4600 ZONING FILE U 2582 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 16,2000 TO:Francis and Susan Ann Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: May 15,2000 VOTE; 5 FOR AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is conflrmed as: City Council on May 22, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available firom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: fr-. FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner May 15,2000 #2582 Francis and Susan Ann Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive Variance — Public Hearing (-P uP rvV V '0 Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:18,073 s.f. (.41 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L Analysis Worksheet Application/Applicant Letter Site Plan/ Survey Access Map - Residences Using Park Avenue Topographic Map Floor Plan/Elevations Plat Map Hardcover Calculations Photo of Property Location Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.^, Subd. 6(B): Front Setback: The minimum requirement for front setback in the LR-IB zoning district is 35 feet. Variance Request: To permit a front setback of 10' where 35' is required. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to remove the existing access at North Shore Drive and construct a garage/room addition and deck at the northeast comer of the existing residence. The deck will replace an existing one that will be removed for the garage/room addition. Access to the property will now be via “Park Avenue” (addressed as Tonkaview Lane) along the north lot line. The topography is steep at North Shore Drive making access during winter months a hazard for both applicants and ‘.he public who drive North Shore Drive. The garage/room addition will meet all required setbacks except for the street setback at the north lot line. No other variances will be required. Francis/Susan Ann Koubsfy 4784 North Shore Drive Variance 5/15/2000 Page I j>:vm In 1996 the applicants submitted a proposal for a garage addition and deck at the northwest comer of the existing residence. The application was tabled due to issues regarding phasing the addition and removal of the driveway. The application did not proceed to the City Council. Review Exhibit D, applicants' property is identified at No. 5 on the map and is the next to the last property served by the private drive. The property defined as No. 4 on the map obtained a building permit for a new residential construction in 1996 and has been assigned a Tonkaview address. The applicants should also change their address to Tonkaview Lane with the relocation of the access to the property. The property is located within 500' of Lake Miimetonka. The garage/room addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,139 s.f. (11.8%), where 1,260 s.f. (6.9%) exists and 2,710.95 s.f. (15%) is allowed. The garage/room addition and deck will result in a decrease ot i»ordcover coverage in the 75- 250' setback area to 0 s.f (0%), where 6,234 s.f (28%) exists and 1,558.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. The garage/room addition and deck will result in an increase of hardcover coverage in the 250-500' setback area to 3,540 s.f (29.9%), where 2,475 s.f (21%) exists and 3,551.7 s.f (30%) is allowed. The lot is a through lot, defined as a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lot lines shall be front lot lines for zoning purposes. For this application, the front yard setback variance is for Park Avenue. Park Avenue has been used as an alley in the past, however for this application it is considered a street. The garage/room addition will be located 10' from the property line where 35’ is required. .Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. iMues for Consideration; 1. The pattern of residences accessing from Tonkaview Lane is consistent with adjacent properties. 2. The applicants’ driveway is the next to the last driveway at the west end of the drive which will now serve a total of six properties. This driveway is 600' long and privately maintained within the platted right of way. At this level of use, is there any neighborhood or City support for the City taldng over its maintenance? U2582 Francis-'Susart Ann Koubsky 4784 Sorth Shore Drive Variance 5/15/2000 Page 2 ■iii« I im- ■i 11.««-■ I >'IM All ii f. .. i- n ■ - }V • vttv h- 3. The structural coverage on the lot is increasing but still well below the allowed 15%. 4, The 75-250* hardcover on the lot is decreasing to 0%, well below the allowed 25%. 5. The 250-500* hardcover on the lot is increasing but below the allowed 30%. 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation! Staff recommends approval of the variance for front yard setback and the relocation of access to “Park Avenue”. Fu^er, staff recommends that the neighborhood erect a nameplate sign on Tonkaview Lane. •.*t <■ , i #2582 Francis/Susan Ann Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive Variance 5/15/2000 Page 3 'I',: l V A ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Aren; LR-IB Lot Area Street Setback Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)35' Actual 18,073 s.f. (.41 acre)10 ’ Structural Coverage; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 18,073 s.f.Allowed: 2,710.95 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,260 s.f. (6.97%) Proposed: 2,139 s.f. (11.8%) Hardcover Calculations; I’- % Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 75-250’6,234 s.f.1,558.5 s.f. (25%) 6,234 s.f. (28%) 0 s.f. (0 %) 250-500’11,839 s.f.3,551.7 s.f. (30%) 2,475 s.f. (21%) 3,540 s.f. (29.9%) h- ' . >r \ , f 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) Application # Z 2, Date Recehed" *// /8/oQ Amount Paid 0 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Shavx, dt'Uvio {slS3i£^________ Property’ Identification Number (P.l.D.) 01-ni'Zl> 32. Qot2^________________ Attach legal description to application i: not included on required survey. Date Property /(cquired V/ ____________________________________^(month/year) I (do) ^^oft also*.own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential Zoning District:* other (specify^ APPLICANT^=j.-j;^^^^-^ ^ei!<JC: {.do^KjLj V Name Susaw^ Addiess: VTfry 5 he m Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) City: Ortryvo_________Zip: 0^^'NER (if ditferent than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Z^,0€O,co Describe request in detail; v- /H^chetsL____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Q O (fey ^ - 7 Hardcover Lot Coverage ; *.* ft cs • • •Setback;Front Side X Rear Average Lakeshore *5--• 7 Other (specify) ILVRDSfflP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: g itp cr\ shju.t a ttfi cixtcL^______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) « •# REQUIRED SUB>nTTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. AJ/^ 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property 0%vTiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hermepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required In .ad<^ition, provide one (1) copy SYt” x 11" for * reproduction.-*, / Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 Vi" x 11" for reproduction.-• Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one^l) copy SVi" x lU’). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all pqr$br^ with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applic^j^s^if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attaclr^a j^’eparate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application: = ’ Ad vfional items as'may be requested by City Staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign tliis application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and coxrect to the best of his/her knowledge.1 IS uue ana coxrect to ICCK Date 1*4-00Applicant's Signature, ___ 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 ofjnvestigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature fUSCA^ O Date H'N-DO Applicant must have all submittals into the^City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If w applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ' m ■i .■ Frank and Susan Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive Orono. MN 55364 612-472-1896 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: We are requesting a rear setback variance in order to accommodate a two-stall garage and a small additional room. The garage doors would open at an angle to the drive and will easily accommodate at least two additional off street parking spaces. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: We are planning to build a garage using the Park Avenue (or the alley) access to our property because of the present hazardous driveway access on North Shore Drive. Our d'i' eway ’s very steep pitch, combined with the location of it being on a sharp curve with limited sighting distance created by the steep topographies on both the north and south side of North Shore Drive, creates a serious hazard to our and the general public’s safety. It is our desire to start a family and we do not feel comfortable using this driveway with children in the car, not to mention the fact that it is a very busy road with many excessive speeders, which would create a dangerous situation for playing children. We currently have to cross the county road to receive and send our mail, and have had many near misses with speeding cars. We have also had our cars slip out into oncoming traffic when it has snowed and the drive ^'ay gets slick. Because of the above-mentioned h dships, our only alternative is to build a garage accessing the alley. Because of the i.‘eep topographv of the front of the lot, it leaves us with limited space in the back. The land is flat an .y suitable for building. It may not meet the setback guideline, but the structure is cc. .ing to the adjacent property sightlines and, most importantly, very safe. 6 if • \ V i \ / ? % Mill C m CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR FRANK AND SUSAN KCXJBSKY 1.'“' IM LOTS7,8&9, BLOCK 3. BERGQUIST Sc WICKLUND'S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA aoMPr i iMvM m M mc M • m M m tua «f m M \M I. 4miml IS HtA hwm tfm tmtt •mlmff tmrm «r eM L«t thii« • : It Wmm m^lhmm^trh !• 1^ • «i*iK ii b» ttMfe X ~ •r mM Lot f. and I mM wickWMto* • PoriL Iron fvwtor «• Odood i#on m dttww — ■•> • j I * TMd oddndt t« m^rn ftn Itodarlt tn* idr ■ doacr^od proddrlv ll« Motion of M o»iot«i| ttouoik and Iho Motion of ol «ioM *nordeo«of* UMOO% < Moo nol Mtort to MOV My otMr bnorovooMU or or Cumin &GKOMU KG, L\c I M«0« onrdt Ml M ynnoMd »T «v iv anM VT fMo. o«i dot I • dM n^MPiid LVd Cnpnnn Md LM W Mlmif viiRM».a » » l\ MAS Cn<«On|iOMViM t—nv sCwr»»* t^n n A« w w f I ■ V Stuart Whitman 4735 Tonkaview Lane LanyA^alerie Greenhagen 4739 Tonkaview Lane Don/Chris Schanzenbach 4736 North Shore Drive James £. Thompson 4750 North Shore Drive V V Tim Olson/Lisa Wallace 4751 Tonkaview Lane Francis/Susan Koubsky 4784 North Shore Dri’/e H t **Troy Keepman/Jennifer Murphy 4798 North Shore Drive N V. '. / \ * V.N, D V- ;V • ' -V ^ / .«.*___1 _________________ * -■ * **‘* r ........... ws^%% i ■• .1 ' ♦ • • .•\if v#n.i f^%fi v*Jm ■i # V • HaW itv3fJU,>, ‘.'•. i '•*? . • •i- '• »• • "4’• *. • ■ : • ':*.•'*: * . ••••*' I;* . •*. * '■ ''***.;. • * • * *.* •’•v!*'' ■ . •• ^ • • • •.U • • -•.^• • •• * . • •" '•=•• ■ “ • -i;’•;' .-■ ' ‘ .*■ ^■ lvv4-> , . . , ‘•'I*- 'll*/ « '* ‘ Vi ,,* :•</•. r - ••<• 07-//7-c^3-^-3 c- LOTI Ikr- ^7^ __ (10,^/^(30, ^ // "1 I ^ /c^ _//7-«?<^V/ (58) § TRISTANi 01 ^^OVigl; -nff y i• « (IJc7 >. - • . y \ .• N \ .iZ AiJiZ '• m k ’.- V ^ ^ AjAli, ‘M«• ^ ■ HARDCOVER CALCULA’HON WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ <^-150^ 250-500* RXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X ______________ ■ 500-1000* Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONEnc;n_ b + B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. t et^dscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X H57 3^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (p TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE / - O + B (oVh^ X 100 - 0 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. H S.F.A S.F.B % %• i* ■ f S.F.\ A S.F.\ S.F.• • S.F. \ S.F. . , ■ .■) S.F.' • a S.F.■/ •. -,y S.F. S.F.t • j 1 S.F.1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.A S.F.B % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKS SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' RXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 75-250'500-1000* h A. House 2jJ2.4^ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0. Other X X X X X X X X X X X 10 A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 094^ ^ B X 100 X 100 X 100 S.F. S.F. B —S.F. B S.F. S.F. S.F. B —S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 'LM S.F. —S.F. —S.F. S.F. m S.F.A m 1 S.F..R.-- m %L''~ m ^ ■%\ . S.F.0 0 • S.F. # \ * •• • m S.F. B B>>S.F.VN S.F. ^. .S.F. A*!* ' .V* c. •'«S.F. m 64 S.F. m —S.F. S.F. B S.F. S.F. B S.F. B S.F. S.F. S.F.A •S.F.B B % r /^4 a; /ic. •-'-'c'tL m ffp V*: , / '✓#»• i tl:*- •"'>^ ‘^ ■- ■ >e 1^ - - V t t ? w-v: ^ .* "v V • ■ • * V '» m i . ** |Y^ .r - •X^.v ^..\J yT'- jtt> . » wr • I ■-flft *- •' > V ■»- ^ -^, - —- -- ■ <•,„• ••».vV.:- ;;-’V K'' * • - . *V^ 1 rv'* 'v - «iur-i > • •r,.::$5f;|?^B ) mmmI ^ ■ V/c'o — -\7 h’* *" *•'* r*. ^ i^> .> . C t.s;:v 3c U. ;:•• ite.•.'j'rrj. \ . ■— 'J ■>„. ^ N * i vy"' ' : ) ', ^ V.\/..' ■■ 'v \ 4C0 CHIPPEWA U ORON BATSOE QFOHI cia 0 > Ni HTH ‘,.400 tha:is ..1 V| END CM ^keview Hi: 1 .. »• . ELM, x: •. : HIGH EILEEN ST SCHASTINE OR ■ /i/--- BAYS • • V POX 8C0 RED OAX 7 Red . Oat • • Gol£. Ccxirsc t: • ■■Nort. i : ■ 51 V W w oahlbo •• •Affljo k' » • %\ ^ 8RAN0V1EWV\aj^ Forest ® IM 3AV • • « •• - '.V i/--‘ -- ?1 ! N S kogsberg Point SC^ X. ' ■ •tr*. •* • rX.i M . \«BKti ■* lOOO c Vif. * ••.-"•;•*••" ■ ••AX'' •'••’ •:>.:•• * 9ewiRRT^ *• ^ -4 ORONO'^s Arm \ J600 9 Crystal : • •e 5AfldWootf P«*/!/ ?f V' m PEERING •.* Riinn/ iT\l MM MTI 0S/27/««HfNNEPlN COUNTY PROPEIITV INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIAS5A01 PACE 15 BATCH BOB OMNEB NAME TAMPAVER NAME/AOOR S4 12-117-24 41 •••! R4B01 MINNEAPOLIS AVE C S THOMAS A E H TRADER C S THOMAS SEN TRADER 4001 MINNEAPOLIS AVE HOUND HN 55SA4 30 RT-UT-ES 2S 0027 04745 TONKAVIEU LA D A A P E AFFELDT DWIOHT A PATRICIA AFFELDT 4745 TONKAVIEM LA MOUND MN 55S44 SO 07-117-23 32 0010 04750 NORTH SHORE DR JANES R THOMSON ETAL JANES THOMSON 4750 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55344 PROP AOOR OMNER MANE TAXPAYER NANE/AMM 30 07-117-23 32 0011 047B7 TONKAVIEW LA T B OLSON A L N WALLACE T 0 OLSON A L N WALLACE 4757 TONKAVIEW LA HOUND HN 55344 • •* 50 07-117-23 32 0012 04704 NORTH SHORE DR S A SCHAUER A F E K0U8SKY S A SCHAUER A F E KOUBSKY 4704 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND HN 55344 30 07-117-23 32 0013 04790 NORTH SHORE OR T D KOOPHAN A J A MURPHY J A MURPHY A T D KOOPHAN 4790 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55344 OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 07-117-23 32 0021 04755 NORTH SNORE DR 0 R EVERSON P H E EVERSON OARRY A MARIE EVERSON 4755 NORTH SHORE DR MN 55344 30 07-117-23 52 0022 04775 NORTH SHORE DR D E BOLL A S E BOLL 00U6US E A SANDRA E BOLL 4775 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55344 30 07-117-23 32 0023 04795 NORTH SHORE DR HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ABOR SO 07-117-25 52 0057 04755 TONKAVIEW LA R L BROWN A K N JENAL ROBERT BROWN/KATNERINE JENAL 4755 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND HN 55344 TOTAL BATCH 505 oooio I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AH ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION.OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION« TO THE BEST OF HY IWLEDOE AND BELIEF. DAT few r- I: •. : k I '] / . I •. 1 ) A /.) • % Permit No. I im. MOy- S<6jO ZM ?ar4-». • .y /ut.r4-k PERMIT RECORD Date 7.zSL-hU 9-au6>g /!3^W^7 /r-p 7 V-/4^-75 7' ^3-77 Tvpe of Permit ^CLjlJ^ - /Ztf uJtXL______ .<in/'/(^f^-ejLLf<n ^ i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 22 2000 DATE: 5/18/00 ITEM NO.: 7 Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator/Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Zoning Dbtrict: Proposal: #2583 Roxann Peisch 3436 Livingston Avenue Variances LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre minimum lot size, Sewered Variances to permit replacement of an existing one-stall garage. List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Notice of Planning Commission Action C Planning Report Application Summary: Property owner has proposed to remove existing detached garage and construct a new garage. The existing garage is located over the rear property line and on the west property line. The applicant has stated the hardship is the existing garage has a dirt floor and is located on the lowest point between the adjacent properties. Following rain the water runs into and through the garage, making the garage usable during dry times in the summer. In the winter, the ground swells with frost and the doors cannot be opened. Filling the low portion of the property was discussed, but it is the only place on the properties that is collecting water. Fill would force the water in another direction. The proposed site plan would allow the garage to be located out of the low area and place the structure within the property lines. Thb application requires the following variances: 1.Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) Side Yard Setback to permit a 5' side yard setback where 10' is required. Minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure: Proposed side yard setback: Existing: 10' 5' On property line '-*S r' L'vS; fW r : •" I. , t if'-. L; - i/'- r' » r i A Jb:, ’■•tw* ' - "r 2. , ,. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit anL *y\ additional 152 s.f. hardcover on the property. Allowed hardcover in the 500-1000' lakeshore setback: 1,575 s.f. (35%) Proposed hardcover in the 500-1000' lakeshore setback; 1,968 s.f. (43.4%) Existing: 1,816 s.f. (40.3%) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION By a vote of 5 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended approval of variances to permit replacement of a garage that is located over the property lines with a garage 12' off the rear lot line and 5' from the side lot line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances subject to the finding and conditions noted in the draft resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. I a \ TnTainiirir iit*tti ~riiniTi ri h ■ ■ n■ m ~i■ ■ i riurii ■ ■ m-^^-sunir: rV4*wT7v ..I jr^i . .till 9 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2) AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 2583 WHEREAS, Roxann Beisch, (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3436 Livingston Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: - The South 90 feet of Lot 20, Block 2, Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota ■ •“ (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 May 15,2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 1,968 s.f. (43.4%) hardcover in the 500-1000' lakeshore setback where 1,816 s.f. (40.3%) exists and 1,575 s.f (35%) is allowed, and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit a 5' side setback for a garage where 10* is required to replace a detached garage. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2583. Page 1 of 6 • ' <1 f**- ■■ • This property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where 1/2 acre or 21,780 s.f. is the minimum lot area. 3. • V- % The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 15, 2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following fmdings of fact: A. The property owner has proposed to remove existing detached garage and construct a new garage. The existing garage is located over the rear property line and on the west property line. The applicant has stated the hardship is the existing garage has a dirt floor and is located on the lowest point between the adjacent properties. Following rain, the water runs into and through the garage, making the garage usable during dry times in the summer. In the winter, the ground swells with frost and the doors carmot be opened. B. Filling the low portion of the property was discussed, but it is the only place on the properties that is collecting water. Fill would force the water in another direction. The proposed site plan would allow the garage to be located out of the low area and place the structure within the property lines. C. A 5' setback should be maintained on lots for accessory buildings due to the Code requirement to maintain a minimum setback to all other structures of 10’. The adjacent garage located at 3438 Livingston Avenue is 3' off the property line. If the garage is replaced in the future, it should be replaced 5 ’ from the property line, thus resulting in a 10' separation between buildings. D. The minimum setback required for garages from the rear propert>' line is 1 O'. Most other garages in the locality do not meet the minimum setback required by code. This garage cannot be located closer to the rear property line due to the low area that collects water after rainfall. However the 12’ setback is in keeping with the setback established for garages in the zoning district. ;■ ‘ Page 2 of 6 5. 6. E.The relocation of the garage would eliminate a building located over the property lines with a structure closer to conformance with the intent of the Municipal Code. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not i^ply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, repiorts by City Staff, conunents 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) (2) to permit 1,968 s.f. (43.4%) hardcover in the 500-1000' lakeshore setback where 1,816 s.f. (40.3%) exists and 1,575 s.f. (35%) is allowed, and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit a 5' side setback for a garage where 10' is required to replace a detached garage. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Page 3 of 6 t: 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 22,2001). 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, Mirmesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of May, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner Page of 6 i i L • iiJl II f ' f,, F-. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of May, 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. h!- " - STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this__________day of, Notary Public 2000, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _______________________________________ known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT A I' \ i I ' ' - 50-0- » ^ f ) j^efAO' <'■ / I %,m Vf«f>n'T V /__/ f a M -TO / -50.0 0- UMlVlfaMoNl '}. DEMAES-GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. JOJO Harbor Lana No. PNwoirtfi. UN 35447 Phona:(812) 559-0908 Fax .-(812) 359-0479 ass? « cny, frum or on said lend. l+»____dayor&fflk— •As survoytd ty me this David E, Crook Ulnn. Reg, No. 22414 Page 6* of 6 tm i i.^ ■ a i . I fe-v •/ K- I . t ■<r B CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 PHONE:(952)249-4600 FAX:(952)249-4616 ZONING FILE #2583 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 18,2000 TO:Roxann Beisch 3436 Livingsion Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION:_Variance ___Conditional Use Permit ___Subdivision Other DATE OF MEETING: May 15,2000 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Plau fling Commission recommends the following:I Approval subject to conditions noted below D« mal for reasons noted below Tabled for reasons noted below No action required NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: You are scheduled to appear before the City Council on Monday, June 12,2000. 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 Conunission. iiu 1^1 . r.> !* O /c TO; FROM: DATE: RE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Plaimer May 10,2000 #2583 Roxann Beisch 3436 Livingston Avenue Variances If'/- If. Zoning: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre Minimum lot size Application: Variances to permit construction of a one-stall detached garage to replace an existing one stall garage on the property. Lbt of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Site Survey Site Photos Sketch of Proposed Garage Hardship Statement Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Owners Notification Form Application Summary: Property owner has proposed to remove existing detached garage and construct a new garage. The existing gars^e is located over the rear property line and on the west property line. The applicant has stated the hardship is the existing garage has a dirt floor and is located on the lowest point between the adjacent properties. Following rain the water runs into and through the garage, making the garage usable during dry times in the summer. In the winter, the ground swells with firost and the doors cannot be opened. Filling the low portion of the property was discussed, but it is the only place on the properties that is collecting water. Fill would force the water in another direction. The proposed site plan would allow the garage to be located out of the low area and place the structure within the property lines IV2583 Roxann Beisch 3436 Livingston Avenue Variances May IS. 2000 pagt-l k; ' h ANALYSIS Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) 2. 3. Minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure; Proposed side yard setback; Existing; 10' 5' On property line If the Planning Commission does recommend approval of a side sc‘^ack variance, it should not be for less than 5' from the lot line. The logic behind requiring at least a 5' setback is a result of the Code requirement to maintain a minimum setback to all other structures of 10'. The adjacent garage located at 3438 Livingstcn Avenue is 3' off the property line. If the garage is replaced in the future it should be replaced 5' from the property line, thus resulting in a 10' separation between buildings. Section 10.03, Subdivision 12 to permit 8* between accessory buildings where 10' is required. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit an additional 152 s.f. hardcover on the property. Allowed hardcover in the 500-1000' lakeshore setback; 1,575 s.f. (35%) Proposed hardcover in the 500-1000' lakeshore setback: 1,968 s.f. (43.4%) Existing; 1,816 s.f. (40.3%) Hardcover to be removed;concrete pad (for new driveway)40 s.f. part of existing rear deck 88 s.f. garage 200 s.f. Total Hardcover to be removed 328 S.f. New hardcover;driveway extension 200 s.f. garage 280 s.f. Added Hardcover 480 s.f. S25t3 Roxann Beisch 3436 Livingston Avenue Vtfiinces kky 15.2000 pas*-2 Structural Coverage ; r Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 4,500 s.f.Allowed: 1,500 s.f. Existing: 877 s.f. Proposed: 957 s.f. Hardcover Calculations : f' •• 'I . a, ■ !■; -- —v., -VO w Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover 500-1000’4,500 s.f.1,575 s.f. (35%) l,816s.f. (40.3%) 1,968 s.f. (43.4%) Surrounding Properties: All properties surrounding the subject lot are zoned LR-IC. The applicant ’s property has a 50* lot width which is consistent with all other properties in the locality. The property located to the west had a variance approved in 1998 to permit construction of a new one-stall garage. The garage is shown side by side to the existing applicant garage in the photo attached as Exhibit D. Most lots along Livingston Avenue, with garages, have detached garages located behind the house. Oarage Location: The proposed location of the garage is not consistent with adjacent oroperties because the garage would be located 12’ off the rear property line. The minimum setback required for garages from the rear property line is 10*. Most other garages do not meet the minimum setback required by code. This garage cannot be located closer to the rear property line due to the low area that collects water after rainfall. However the 12* setback is in keeping with the setback established for garages in the zoning district. ...i 1^2511 Roxann Beisch 3436 Livingston Avenue Variances May 15. 2000 pagt-3 r I j "if’*. viaii Statement of Hardship: The applicant has submitted her Statement of Hardship attached at Exhibit F. Primary Issue for Discussion: The proposed setback from the side lot line is 5' where 10' is required. Due to the size of the lots in the locality (Navarre) is it more appropriate to permit a 5’ setback to preserve the backyard of the lot? Staff Recommendation: To approve the variances noted on page 2 subject to reducing the size of the existing rear deck to the size indicated on the site plan based on the applicant's Statement of Hardship. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Approval of variances based on the Statement of Hardship. 2. Denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. 4. Other Action. i i25S3 Roxann Bcisch 3436 Livingston Avenue Variances May 15, 2000 pagt-4 r A Application # ^ ^ S 3 Date Received V//^loO Amount Paid ^ 2.SO CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION a t ^ a ) Site a.6. ( „;.. f, V. /t V P , . ^ ------- Property TH^ntification Number fP.I:D.’l / T * /17 * *2.3——002A-----------------— Attach legal description to applicativn if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____I \ f ---------------------------------------------- * -------------------------------------------------------• ..V Present use of property: residendal ___other (specify). Zoning District:_____________________________________— APPLIC Name a Phone (home^9f^^/ i^s3 j21Phone rwork^ 7<o y ^ ^ 1 w ^ m J ■ #Address:t /Wq_— City: ------Zip. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work).V. Address:City:.Zip;.! A *L description of request Estimated Construction Cost $—^COO. Describe request in detaU; ^ C Q:kC ' VARIANCES required Lot Area _Lot Width V Hardcover 50c “lOC^b Lot Coverage y Setback;Front XSide XR«ar Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions pre g compliance with Zoning Code requirements;. (attach additional sheets if necessary) A--* - A. ^ A T** Wk fcJl i. %K A i. *\ ■ -- ■ . » ‘ 1^ B bK v\- ■\ j®0.1-«0.2ii>U.iK»0:^S^'®'^^>x ' : -r- 1 — T- !ro <0 HtSii-—•< 8 r7 6 ^ 5 4^ ,i (11)(10)i (9). (8) I (jy ^ ! / 5Q I 50 /5Q % (1) V. (' so 50 50 22^ / V' ts^' so; 5(ij biih 5Cii\50 "g«?r5Ch 50j bOrj bOJ bm43.a(«J; ,1 J Jil,5 .5 J , S J );S )• 50L-tn^ CO (69) (68) 50 I 50' 50 (1^ « • is s'" 17n8 ) l (73) (74) in CO ^ 50 ISQi^ in in m 50.\ jsa ^ ^ ^ s^ CO CO CO ^ 19- 2CK- 2-r 22^ 23^ 24^ 25 (75) (76) (77) (78) (5) 26^, 272fe; 'l <!1) (15) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 l(79) ,(80) 7 I ,47.48^ \Q2) 50 : 50 I 50 I (8) CO CO CO CO 5 ^ ^ CO ^00 O (9) ” 1^ if- 1? 95 «5 7f-6?; 5S 4 ) , (89); (88) I (87) (85) t- (83) 6 ■'ffl1861 \ 2 2 srssfTSQ^sisrs^Qrsb;^^ 5o^ so^ ®5!?>3§-'§0 T? —:.*in J.l Cijir^5^ i,v I' » jk'« Y' -t',:.; \ DEMARS-GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. J030 Harbor Lana No. pymeutti, UN 55447 Phona:(612) 559-0908 Fax :(612) 559-0479 I hanby eartify that this ia a Ova and eorract rapresentatioo of a aurvay of tha boundariaa of tha abova daaaibad land and all viaibla anefOdCbmenta, if any, from or on xaid land. As aurrayad by ma this ______ day of APWU__ C)J6.U David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 f. 10 Bo 3 1 D f Z r; Ee *'--'V^^<' i 3r *A*V >.•' ' V * ,>-=' \- A V- ,:l-X \Atc. mmsi 1 m ^<•1 ; -r.-::-*: --IS. ^•cy r .•-•v —i — S*,..1 V'' I . J FTfeJ y .ag=^-cf D ■)0^2 ij \ .V r W^&SMmm,:m ►’-* # SM^- ' ■) .■\Lt: -p ^ * *• *••••-*• • vBt ' ^ ’tVfV.'W .'• r» ?1-'‘ <••'''-' I » I '■.: i: I^5*i MCNARPS 4/18/2000 icic4c Design # 52941 *** Take this sheet to the Buildinj Materials counter to purchase your materials You selected a garage with these options: L 14' Wide X 20' Deep X 8' High Cable roof w/ 4/12 pitch truss construction. 12" gable/12" eave overhangs. S/8" OSB Roof Sheathing. 2S yr. Biltmore, Slate Shingles. White Vinyl Soffit. White Vinyl Fascia. White Aluminum Regular Roof Edge. White vinyl overhead door jamb. 8" Pine Grooved Vertical Siding. St**'^ a 1L' r*' .. 77^A ' Freot Vieir rf I?* 10mrnjHii iiul I Today's cost for materiais estimated in this design: $ 221432 Base garage without options: $ 1168.47 *The hate price inclu/ai: 0" Eave/0" Gable Overhangs, 2X4 Wall Studs, 7/16 OBS Reef Sheathing, 20 yr. riberglaii Classic - Onyi Black Shingles, Pine Fascia, Galvanised Regular Reef Edge, I" Tevtured Vertical Hardboard Siding, No Servlca Doers, No Overhead Doors, No Wlndoifs, or Any Other Optiens. L. •V ri * I F 3436 Livingston Avenue Wayzata,MN 55391 The lot is a very small and slopes down on the north end, making it lower than the adjacent properties on either side. The existing garage is approximately 12 ’ X 16 ’ with a poured foundation and a dirt floor. It is located over the property line on the backside (north end). When it rains, the water nins into and through the garage, making it usable only during dry times in the summer. In the winter, the ground swells with frost and the doors cannot be opened. I would like to have a garage located within my property lines, on higher ground with a concrete floor. n >- I A SETBACK ZONE: EXISTING HARDTOP FR IN ZONF A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway/ klAltil PATtCS X X D. Sidewalk X X E. P«t!Prt)eclj/p<>J^g>^X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Odier A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B + B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7r>Mp, A. House Length Width X X X as s= 8. Garage C. Drivewayy X X D. Sidewalk X X E.X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __ _ _ _ _ _ _ + 3 X 100 - 500-1000 U7 ZOO 2.yr / 8/U 2^ Lni •z %o g 5: y /^7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. I J (pB S.F. G S.F. % A B A B i MN BATt M/M/9B HENNEPIN COUHTV PROPEtTV INFOtHATlOH SYSTEN PNOPENTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PlASBAtl PAGE 1 MTOI m OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR 30 17-U7-2S AS MAI •SIRS RAVVIEH PL R P NEYERS A J E HEYERS RICHARD P A JANICE E HEYERS tiff RAVVIEH PL NAVZATA NN SSSRl SO 17-117-2S AS •••2 A22RA SHADYHOOD RD DAVID T PICK DAVID T PICK 22RA SHADYHOOD RD HAYZATA NN SSSRl SO 17-117-2S AS OOOA 022RS SHADYHOOD RD K H t S A ROOEHALD KEVIN H A SHIRLEY A RODEHALD 229S SHADYHOOD RD HAYZATA HN 5SS91 OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 17-117-2S AS 0005 •SAAS CRYSTAL PL AIL RODEHALD ADELDERT N RODEHALD SAAS CRYSTAL PLACE HAYZATA NN BSSRl SO 17-117-2S AS OOOA OSAAR CRYSTAL PL E L HATTSON I C A HATTSON E L HATTSON OCA HATTSON SAAR CRYSTAL PL HAYZATA NN 5SSR1 SO 17-117-25 AS OiOT •SA57 CRYSTAL PL STEVEN J LEWIS STEVEN J LEWIS SA57 CRYSTAL PL HAYZATA HN 5SSR1 TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SO 17-117-2S AS iOlO •SAS2 LIVINGSTON AVE WIUZAN R NAXHELL XI 0 HIPE HILLXAN R NAXHELL XI SAS2 LXVZNOSTON AVE NAVARRE HN 55SR1 SO 17-117-2S AS OilR •SAAA LIVINGSTON AVE PATRICIA J COAR PATRICIA J GOAR SAAA LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA NN 5SSR1 SO 17-117-25 AS 0020 OSASO LIVINGSTON AVE SUZANNE CAOLA SUZANNE CAOLA SASe LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 55SR1 PROP AIRR TAXPAYER MHE/ADOR SO 17-117-25 AS 0021 0SAS4 LIVINGSTON AVE ROXANN N REXSCN ROXANN N REXSCN SA5A LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 55SR1 SO 17-117-2S AS 0022 0SA22 LIVINGSTON AVE D A SERNA t 0 L SHELOON 0 A SERNA 0 D L SHELDON SA22 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 5SSR1 50 17-117-2S AS 0025 OSAIA LIVINGSTON AVE ROSENARY P DURHASTER ROSEHARY P DURHASTER SAIA LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 55501 r-r PROP ADDR > *•TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 50 17-117-2S AS 0002 OSASS LIVINGSTON AVE JEPPRSY A KLEHAN JEFPREY A KLEHAN SASS LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA NN 55S01 50 17-117-23 AS 0005 OSASS LIVINGSTON AVE D V 0 E N BRUCE DENNIS V I EVELYN N BRUCE SASS LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 55301 SB 17-117-23 AS OOOA OSAAS LIVINGSTON AVE DENNIS L HEOER DENNIS L HEOER SAAS LXVXNOSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 5SS01 TAXPAYER NOHE/ADDR SO 17-117-25 AS 0045 OSAAS LXVXNOSTON AVE CAROLYN H TILLOTSON CAROLYN H TILLOTSON SAAS LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 5SS01 SO 17-117-25 AS OlAl 05A75 LIVINGSTON AVE SARANNE H ANDERSON SARANNE W ANDERSON SA7S LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 55501 SO 17-117-2S AS 015A 0SA05 LIVINGSTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SHERYL A PATTEN SAOS LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA HN 55S01 r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COi meet^n® may 2 2 2000 gilYUI* OHONO DATE: May 22. 2000 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Neighborhood Meeting for Narrows Dock Lots n; Introduction Parking restrictions and access to the Narrows Dock Lots have been discussed at several Council meetings. In June of 1999, "No Parking" signs were installed along both sides of Shadywood Road north of the Narrows Bridge. These signs were installed because of safety concerns caused by vehicles parking in this area. These parked vehicles were creating an unsafe situation for access to the driveways in this area. Below is a summary of this issue. Summary of Issue Attached you will find a letter from a resident on Shadywood Road requesting the installation of "No Parking" signs. Cars parking along the wide shoulder in this area are creating a traffic safety hazard. The City reviewed the safety concerns raised in this letter and determined that they were valid. The main problem is that the shoulder area is used as a deceleration lane by vehicles entering the driveways. Without being able to use the shoulder as a deceleration lane, the turning vehicles slow down on the highway causing a safety concern as other vehicles attempt to pass the turning vehicles. This is a problem because of the limited sight distance for vehicles crossing the Narrows Channel Bridge. In June of 1999, no parking signs were installed in this area. On the Tonka Bay side of the Narrows Bridge parking is not permitted, and there are turn lanes along the highway A copy of the resolution ordering the installation of "No Parking" signs is attached. These dock lots are 20' wide lakeshore lots, without a house, that contain a dock. These lots were originally created in the 1950's before the current zoning regulations were in effect. The dock lots are non-conforming to current City zoning regulations that prohibit accessory structures on lots that do not contain a principal structure. Over the years, there have been many discussions concerning these dock lots. In 1985, the Council went through a process to formalize the existence of these dock lots by issuing Conditional Use Permits for those lots not owned by a resident of the immediate neighborhood. I have attached a recolution for one of these lots for your review. The resolutions provided one parking spot per dock on small lots between the dock lots and the County Highway. At previous meetings, there have been questions regarding the status of cross easements to allow for use of the access road by all of the dock lot owners. • Fsl Previously because of the uncertainty about the status of the easements for these dock lots, several options for access to the dock lots have been discussed. One possible option discussed with Hennepin County was the construction of a new driveway entrance on the north end of the dock lots. The existing entrance had always been off the private road along the south side of the dock lots. The space available for a new driveway, on the north side, is severely limited because of the steep site topography. However, obtaining the necessary easements for tliis new driveway became very difficult. Another option presented for consideration, was allowing for parking along the southernmost 100 feet of the southbound shoulder area. Although the sight distance problems from the Narrows Bridge are less severe, there is still a safety concern from bicyclists moving out into traffic to pass the parked vehicles. This option received a generally unfavorable response because of safety concerns and difficulty in controlling the use of the parking for dock lot owners only. Recent Research Appears to show Necessary Easements are In Place Since the previous meetings. City staff has spent time researching the easement issue further. We have obtained copies of recorded easement documents from Hennepin County. Copies of these documents are attached for your review. Researching this issue was a time consuming and complicated process because of the way this area was originally subdivided. The dock lot area and several residential sites to the south were plated, in 1955, out of Lot 27 from the Pheasant Lawn subdivision. Pheasant Lawn was platted in the 1940's and created numerous lots north of the dock lot area. Lot 27 was a large lot in the southernmost portion of the Pheasant Lawn Subdivision. Lot 27 was platted by four different Registered Land Surveys into approximately 30 small lots labeled by letters. The dock lots are "Torrens" Property which provides for a higher level of assurance than "Abstract" property. The "Certificates of Title" for these dock lots list easements that are recorded against the properties. We have obtained copies of these easements that are listed on the Title Certificates. These easements are listed in the 1955 documents conveying the various lots from the original owners of Lot 27 Pheasant Lawn Subdivision. Because of the large number of lots referenced these documents are complex, but a review of tlie documents appears to indicate that road easements were granted to allow for access to the various properties. This is logical that easements would have to been granted before these properties were originally sold off. However the research we conducted is not intended to provide a "Title Opinion" or other legal advice, and the information provided should not be construed as guarantee of the validity of these easements by the City of Orono. If the property owners would like more detailed information regarding these easements, they should obtain their own legal advice or Title Opinions. Existence of Easements Diminishes the Need for City Action The finding of the recorded easement documents diminishes the need to consider changes to the current no parking area. The parking of one car in the area adjacent to the dock lot is in conformance with the Conclusions, Order and Conditions listed in the 1985 Conditional Use Permit Resolutions. f|*3 Neighborhood Concerns Regarding Dock Lot Usage The neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about the use of the dock lots. Their issues of concern include larger boats, longer periods of use for these boats, electricity at the docks, lighting and noise associated with use of the dock lots. They are questioning if any of these factors constitute an expansion of use for these dock lots. Input from Neighbors and Dock Lot Owners The Council has directed that the neighbors and dock lot owners be invited to the May 22*^ Council meeting to provide ii^ut to assist the Council in determining what action, if any, is necessary to address issues regarding the dock lots COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of neighborhood issues regarding the dock lots and clarification of the Council’s position on issues related to the dock lots and future City actions or involvement regarding this issue.4 S(•I• •• f* 0 100 NWl/4 SEC. i T117N.R23W lENNEPIN COUN FOR Oronot Minncoo ^Sr> ) HORIZONS. /A -# AERIM. HAffiRC MOftSSiOR > / t.M< «Mf. M vm*iiS4 • •••»»*• 4hM tll4J • «••»»•* HORIZONS* FILE 3-ZZ* t m •Tj- . fr ’■ V- 'S tt,. m,to- 11 “ m ILLS SCO.;.....i. .i-:; V ;..• • ••»#. • ^, • • • *•*•*'. *•* ««/V- 4:20 l< O A D /V/ tit fJCJ ^ :a|i I'B 97^4 A ..•4*< >K. »v •:r / / Ag /j / /f-V. I5 / > /::; S 7 ./-X ft' » \ \ \. f/ 1 < i|I ’ j ji III icn 2S) (rAl'v/n fini I hit^hy ffccct'y^f?c£ wi/J? //f£ pyVy/S.'^/f^ c/* Scdk: /’’80' \ \o/'Ay^/7^sp/^ /fivv /:— /?y/5,4v.rr 7T/^^ All dacK \(j\^ '^r'c)rv^ L^^i- 17 lPhec/sen-1 by Land Sav'Ve\| (p oc\<; loA s c^fo^^e4 1 \ ^5-^ s ; itrf ' m pm I * orcfe Lens'" •052 » City of ORc|^m m Mil! • 7J RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1846 - B TvVlc()i- P-ls. P^\i-\i\knt 1A RE^bttJTiON GRANTING A CONDITIoi^ USE PERMIT PEP muni^al zoning code SECTION 10.03, Sn^UVlSION 5 PILE (197 OJ toyi OME Cj^ WHSRRA.S Paul R« Nutt (hereinafter **the applicant ) is cribtS afTracts o ° P, Registered Land Survey No. 41S (herex^- after "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has 10*03^ property as a 1®9®1 \ varilncl to Section !r2%^°"subdivisio“n 4 rArt^allL an accessory structure (dock) i^a propert^that-is unable to sustain a principal structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File §941. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. ■a nn rncucit 19. 1985 the Orono Planning Commission re viewed ti\is application as proposed and recommended approva based on the following findings; A) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J); "Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the orior applicable law, the Council i i unreaIonabl?^equire strict generally look with favor on gran g The substandard tracts were created prior municipal zoning and controls in February of 1955. B) The Orono Council minutes of 1958 and newspaper article published in of f^e existence year confirm that the City was aware and use of accessory docks by non-ad3ace _________5 A \ k r' City of RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLfKr6^ NO.1846 - B QKOi'rO J C) The proDertj^^aSriubcivided in the mid 50 ’s without the bene^fit of:8”^S;£bontrols, is a unique situation requiring spec'^^rap^msideration. D) The limited^e of these tracts as proposed by the City will not create hazards to the public safety. E) The property, because of physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited dock use. 4. The City Council, has considered this application including the findings and the^ aoolicant Commission, reports by staff and and the effect of the proposec use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5 The City Council finds that granting a conditional use to «Lo« continued use of the property as a riparxan lot with an accessory dock not to be detrimental ilalth, safety or general welfare of the public would n^ adversely affect light, air nor pose a danoer to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or core of the above the Orono ^“nLrcSde^ec^ro? lubdTvis\^°n%' to%l™lt conti-od irnciaT s\rurt^?e-th^°r=eV"es\arS ^’’t^garn Sse of^the property, subject to the following conditi . ^ 1. Applicant/owner is limiter, to the mooring of one boat at zero lot line dock. 2. Tract P shall be used for the parking of one car by applicant/owner. ________ _— ----^ 3. The existing dock at ^tact o measures 42 feet i^ and 3 feet in width. The applicant must file a conaiu use permit with the City if an increpe in the length dock is considered at some future date. Page 2 of 4 r 7 vK-«v, # ■ L»‘ ^ wm^ i L’^t•'V V : City of ORQI^H BiS BEEB RESOLUTION OF THE CITY |i.i|0 NO.1846 - B 4. Violation of or rish-compliance with any of the terns and ^4-nr\nc nf f*hin va^laiicB shsill constitute B, violstion of the zoning code, shall’automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has bv aarees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himsllf, his hc.rs, successors and f\Ytl^ H the recording of this resolution in the chain of title the property. September, 1985 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of ATTE >T; _,ry C. Bugler, Mayor Tom Frahm, Acting Mayor (1) Property Owner r-\ R{. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OFTHECITYCOU.NCIL NO;4 S A KESOLTjnON RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON SHADYWOOD ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 19) TOTQ nvfsni 'rmON oassed this 28th day of June, 1999, by the City of Orono in Hennepin =on>oraUon shell he^n^.e: be celled the "Cty". WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, Hennepin County hes jurisdiction uver County Road 19. also known as Shadywood Road; and xTrtnrxjir A c t%A 'Tltv" and Hennepin County have concern regarding traffic safety WHEREAS,the City f tq ^otth of the Lake Minnetonka caused by vehicles parking in turning lanes on Co ty Narrows Bridge; and^ • • right turning lanes. Adopted by the City CouncU ofthe City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held June 28, 1999. ATTEST: • Gabi^Jabbour, Mayofy^ lAriclaC Vee, City Clerk t- ‘ •r'' *r, . V" W. 1/2 P3CS1V2D June 22.1999 ju;\ 2 3 v^fCrXKO Mr. Greg Gappa City of Oroao P.O. Box 66 Cryst^ Bay, 1/IN 55323 Dear Greg: I am following up on your conversation wi ri Dick Ogle regarding the parWng ^d safety situation on the sLtch of County Road 19/Shidywood Road, just north Orono. I am writing on behalf of a group of Orono neighbors that live m the immediate area. There is currently a very significant safety risk on County Road 19, in Ae area indicated on the attached map. Unless something is done, we beUeve its just a matter of time before a very serious accident will happen in this area. from the entrance to the driveways. The deceleration lanes work well since they give on 19^>^no° a down without disrupting traffic flow on County Road 19. Ear y on, p j.-.Vi-ation lan*s on problem, but over the past few years parking has become a P“ ” Lth sides of the road. There are frequently cars parked along both sides of 19 and sometim overnight or all weekend. men cars are parked along County Road 19 we are not able to safely get over ^"dslow dotvn to ^e a turn. cL are forced to ei*er stop on 19 before turning O': ” „r Sget around the car tumfng, leaving less than 100 yards of cle« vistbih^ Na."iows bridge. Cars coming north on County Road 19 the north side oHhe xxrAAn» v.»/~2itci» tVi#»v Vnow the SDced limit goes up to 40 Narrows bridge. Cars coming north on.t-ouncy x^uau ^ V 7k 7n north ride ofthc the Narrows Bridge because they know the speed lirrrt goes up to 4 tndge. This creaks a situation where cars are .... .h.t... .n..Hin(, tin to oass caTS turning oft County Road 19. Cas at.-idge. This creates a situation where cars are sP«“-‘‘5 ?d . rCaslre acceleratm^towids cars that are speeding up to pass cars turning oft County Road 19. Cars arc accel. towards each ottier with limited visibHity in essentially the same lane. d&OUUAliJ ■'< > i- % As rwidents of the area, we see how well the deceleration lanes work when they are clear and usable. We have also seen the extreme danger created when cars are parked in the deceleration lane, forcing us to turn direcdy off of 19. We have all witnessed “near misses” and do not want to see a serious accident or worse resulting from the parking problem. • • • • , • ■ • ♦ ••• • * * . * • * • Parking was never intended for this section of County Road 19 and w’e would like to respectfully ask that the city permanently and officiallv designate the area as no parking. That designation will eliminate a major safety problem and provide peace of mind to the homeowners in the immediate area. Thank you very much for your pro.npt attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Jim-2!mimerman (2745 Shadywood Rd.) on behalf of the homeowners on the north side of the [mows Bridge 0 ^ • r Kr UJ h- pr*" f Donald R. Miegel 683 Sullivan Drive Columbia Heights, MN 55421 RSCi?;3D AUG 17 m q "Y of Cn0i\O August 15,1999 City Council City Of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Resolution 4316 Dear CouncQ I petition the Council to reconsider its action as to resolution 4316 on 6/28/99 no parking on Shadywood Road North of the Narrows Bridge. As the property owner of tracks Q & RI feel you have crewed a hardship for me. I’m limited to one car on my property by the conditional use permit other property in the area is not. I believe there to be adequate room for parking and right turn lanes in the area. I started parking bn the street per the request of a few of the proj^rty ^ ^ owners on the south end, as they felt I was damaging the slip road by dnvmg on it, even throu^ I have the right to do so. Your reconsideration m this matter would be very helpful in restoring my faith in the theory of Due Process. Sincerely; Donald R. Miegel Donald R. Niiegel Home 612-572-9045 Cell 612-221-8708 683 Sullivan Drive ME Columbia Heights, MN 55421 January 18,2000 Mr. Gregory A. Gappa City Of Orono Director of Public Services PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: No Parking Regulations County Road 19, Narrows Bridge Area Deju-; Mr. Gappa I request that the above issue be placed on the Council Agenda for reconsideration, for the following reasons: A. I believe the council acted with incorrect information as to legal access to the Dock Lots. We now know the only legal access to the boat slips is from County Rd 19. There is no so called slip road. B. The parking problem presented was a once a year event on the lake, the usual Summer parking is on the weekends for 2-3 slip owner cars. C. Hennepin County will not grant a curb cut permit because of the steep embankment on my property, unless the property is allowed to be filled in. I’m not requesting that all parking be restored just enough for the slip owners use, maybe on some type of permit system. If the residents in the area are really concerned about Safety they will grant the necessary easements that would make parking on County Rd 19 unnecessary. Sincerely; -:t don ’t know what dates the council normally meets, but I will , -;^m Feb. 22 through Feb. 29,2000. HopefliUy it can get put on the agenda before or after those dates. Thanks =T,' % L'' ' * t . ^-.-r i:' i‘ .'l February 23,2000 TO: Mr. Mike Gaffron FROM: Jim Zimmerman, Richard and Sue Gay, Dick and Marlys Ogle SUBJECT: Resident and Non-Resident Boat Docks E 0 We understand that one of the non-resident boat owners has asked the city to revisit the parking situation along County Road 19. We also noticed that one of the non-resident dock properties is now being surv'eyed, and we’re concerned about what may be planned for this property. The docks along Country Road 19 were set up to be resident docks for homeowners of the Pheasant Lawn Development. They were obviously never intended to be sold off as independent properties or rented out as rental property as is now the case. What started out in 1985 as the sale of a couple of docks for normal recreational use has grown to the point now where vve have essentially a condominium marina in our small neighborhood. It’s creating a number of problems now, and we have a ver>' real fear about what could happen in the future with these properties. There is also the issue of conditional use permits vs. no permits. The dock properties break into the following three categories: • Resident Docks v>ith No Conditional Use Permits — Olson and Casey ■ Non-Resident Docks with No Conditional Use Permits - Gunther and Ault • Non-Resident Docks with 1985 Conditional Use Permits - Huber, Miegel, Wittman, Cook There are currently issues relative to all 3 of the above categories of docks. Rather than address the issues one at a time in isolation, we feel it is important to look at the total issue of the docks and look at both short and long term issues. In the short term, we want to work with the city to clearly understand exactly what the rights are of the neighborhood and what the rights are of the non-resident dock ov%-ners. Longer term, since these properties are completely non-conforming and do not fit within the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City, we would look to work with the city to bring this area into compliance v\ith the current Zoning Codes and requirements. Detailed below is background and history on the dock area in question. In addition, there is a summary of current concerns about the dock area and the expanded use of the docks beyond what was in place in 1985 when the permits were granted. Ujf- -1 . , In looking at the situation, we thought it made sense to look at it in five different ways: ■ The physical characteristics of the area in question and what is appropriate • Original intent for the dock area • The history of what’s happened relative to these docks in the last 15 years since the Conditional Use Permits were granted ■ How the current use of the docks no longer conforms to the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit ■ Resident docks without Conditional Use permits Specifics of each are as follows: Physical Characteristics of the Dock Area # • The area where the docks are located is very shallow, ranging in depth from 2-4 feet. ■ Because the area is so shallow, docks need to be 40 feet plus in length to be usable in periods when the lake is low. • There is a very narrow channel leading back to the non-resident dock area. At the narrowest it is approximately 60-70 feet from the end of the dock at 2765 Shadywood to the other shore. • Because of the shallow depth of the channel, the navigable area at the narrowest part of the channel leading to the docks is only approximately 20 feet wide. • In testifying before the planning commission in January, one of the non-resident dock owners, Miegel, testified regarding the narrowness of the channel and that there wasn’t room for large boats. He stated that a 33-34 foot boat was the maximum that would be appropriate for the area. This is smaller than a number of the boats currently docked at the non-resident docks. • Due to the very shallow depth and narrowness of the channel, extremely large boats are not appropriate for the non-resident dock area. In 1985, the boats docked at the non-resident docks w ere much smaller than those docked there today. Original Intent of Dock Area • In taking a historical look at the dock situation, it’s important to go back to the original intent and plan for the neighborhood and docks. ■ The docks were established when the neighborhood was originally plotted. • The docks were created solely for neighborhood residents. • The covenants of the neighborhood development clearly specified tliat the docks were for neighborhood residents and the path behind the boats was to be used to take things to and from your boat, and not as a car park area. There was certainly no overnight parking envisioned or allowed. > what ’s Happened Since 1985 • As the neighborhood covenants expired, a few of the neighbors who had lakefront footage and also a dock in the channel sold the channel docks to friends. • There are a total of 5 docks now owned by non-residents. • Since 1985, there has been a gradual but steady increase in the size of boats moored at the docks, the amount of boat usage, and the number of cars and amount of traffic due to the non-resident boats. • The parking and safety issues became so severe this past summer that the city posted the County Road 19 in front of the non-resident boat docks as a no parking zone because excess car parking resulting from the non-resident docks created a major safety issue. • There has also been a substantial increase in the infrastructure of the non-resident boat docks with the addition, since 1985, of electricity, running vs’ater, a flagpole, burglar alarms, ,high intensity' anti-crime lights, gravel car parks and other amenities. • Along with the substantial increase in boat size has come a significant change in boat usage. In 1985, the non-resident dock owners were using their boats in the same manner as the neighbors, which was for recreational boating. In the past several years, however, as new owners have come in and established owners have purchased larger boats, the boats have come to be used for weekend or overnight accommodation. Generally, a number of non resident boat o\vners stay on their boats from Friday to Sunday. This results in cars being parked for the whole weekend. While generally boat ow'ners do not spend the night tied up to the dock, it is not uncommon for owners to sleep in their boats while they are tied up at the docks. There have also been a number of instances of partydng on boats and loud music on boats late at night that disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. ■ There have been a number of break-ins on the non-resident boats. One non-resident boat owner put a motion sensor burglar alarm on his boat when he went to the 1996 Summer Olympics. For the three weeks they were gone, the alarm went off many times each day at all hours. Since the dock owner was not from the neighborhood we had no way to reach them and instead were aw'akened every night when the alarm went off. ■ Over the past few years some of the non-resident dock ov\ners have used their slips as rental property ’. In 1999, at least two of the slips were rented. Current Use Compared to 198.5 Resolution The Conditional Use Permits were granted for the four docks in 1985 based on the assumption that granting a Conditional Use Permit for docks would “not to be detrimental to the health, safety' or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property ’ will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City'.” Given the significant changes since 1985, we feel the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit no longer are valid in a number of important areas as follows: ■ “Docks would not adversely affect light” - In the past few years, a high intensity' anti-crime light has been installed by one of the non-resident dock ow'ners. In addition to the very negative message an anti-crime light communicates for a neighborhood, this bright light that burns all night is a substantial and adverse increase in light in the area. L "Nor pose a fire hazard ” - In the past few years a gravel car park has been built (without permit) by one of the non-resident dock owners. This car park is immediately next to the only fire hydrant in the vicinity of the boat docks. Frequently, cars are parked for 24 hours or more directly in front of the fire hydrant. There are also frequently 4 cars in the car park preventing any easy access to the fire hydrant. This poses a significant increase in fire ri'sk to the neighborhood. VVe also believe that the large boats with correspondingly large gas tanks that are left unattended pose an increased risk of fire to the neighborhood. The boats have been broken into. It’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that vandals co .Id set fire to one of the boats, which could pose a sen jus fire risk to the whole neighborhood. “Nor pose other danger to the neighboring properties ’ - The non-resident boats have been broken into a number of times. A recent article also indicated that boat crime on the lake is on the increase. The large, extremely valuable, untended non-resident boats are an obvious target for thieves and vandals. Their presence is an invitation to burglars and vandals to enter our neighborhood, where they are not likely to stop at the non-resident boats. The presence of the non-resident dock ovMiers makes it veiy difficult to practice Neighborhood \Vatch since neighbors never know which cars belong in the neighborhood or who is supposed to be in the non-resident dock area. “Proposed level of use” - The Icv’el of use has changed substantially since 1985. In 1985, the docks were used for normal recreational boating and the boats were much smaller than they are today. None of the slips were used for rental property as two of the slips were used in 1999. There was no electricity, water, lights, flagpoles, car parks or other amenities in 1985. The level of use is quite different than in 1985. “Use of the property will be iti keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and prehensive Plan of th?* city ” - We’ve all been told that no other situation like this exists in O. ono and that no docks are allowed without a structure. We’ve also been told that these properties are all non-conforming. We don ’t understand how in 1985 these docks would have met the criteria stated above but they certainly would not seem to meet these criteria today. “Nor will it depreciate surrounding property values” - We believe strongly that the current situation does depreciate our property' values. There is no other place in Orono where a condominium boat marina is allowed to exist and that ’s because it goes against the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The city mandates that only lots with structures are entitled to docks because this is the proper use of land to maximize property values and proper lakefront usage. While in 1985 an argument could have been made for these non-resident docks not harming property values because the boats were much smaller and used for normal recreation, this is no longer the case. Having a condominium boat marina with large boats, break-ins, substantial car parking, rental slips, noise, ligiits, etc., in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood most certainly adversely affects property ’ value. Given the city ’s rationale in the 1985 resolution, we believe that if the city applied those guidelines to today ’s situation, the conditional use permits would not be granted for the size boats, infrastructure, and current use oi the non-resident slips. Resident Docks without Conditional Use Permits The two docks owned by residents without conditional use permits are Olson and Casey. Neither Olson and Casey were owners in 1985 when the conditional use permits were granted and neighbors agreed to provide access for the one car that was allowed to park for the three non-resident owners entitled to park one car. Access for the non-residents to park cars has always been granted by previous owners of these properties and Olson and Casey. While no permanent easements have been put in place, we think the access issue is probably governed by the fact that it’s been done for 15 years without protest from anyone. Also, the land behind the docks is clearly a right a way to access the docks and was always set up that way. Specifically as relates to Olson and Casey’s docks, they are separate tracts on the plot map but were purchased by both Casey and Olson in a single purchase agreement anc. transaction when they purchased their homes. The docks and homes have always been tied together, and as neighbors we would like to ensure that they continue to stay together. If these two docks are allowed to be sold off to non-residents, it will only increase the problems and potential problems we already face. Conclusions We feel strongly that since 1985 there has been a substantial expansion of use of non- conforming properties (specifically the non-resident boat docks). • The non-resident boat owners have gone substantially beyond what was approved and intended inl985. We would ask that the city carefully review this situation to determine if there is any w'ay to bring it within the current zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Since the non-resident docl^ are the only non-conforming dock properties in all Orono, at some point in the future we feel these non-resident docks will need to be eliminated. Given the continued expanded use, the current problems and the significant potential for much greater problems in the near future, we feel it is important to address the issue now. At a minimum, we would ask that the city eliminate all of the expanded use since the Conditional Use Permit was granted and bring these properties back to where they were when the permits were granted. Specifically that w’ould involve the following: - Only 1 car of parking per boat slip for the three boat slips whose Conditional Use Permits allow 1 car of parking. - No overnight parking. - Removal of anti-crime light. - Removal of flag pole. Removal of gravel car park. - Elimination of parking that blocks the fire hydrant. No partying on boats tied up to the docks. No overnight accommodations on the boats tied up to the docks. - Removal of electricity to docks and running water. Given the narrowness of the channel and the shallow depth of the area in question, we’d also like to see boat size for the non-resident slips restricted to the boat sizes that were in use in 1985, or the 33-34 foot limit stated in the January Planning Commission meeting by one of the non-resident dock owners. t > 1 •IT Mr. Gaffron, we would like to work with you on this issue to develop solutions ^at protect rights and maximize the quality of life for our neighborhood. It’s unfortunate that this situation exists and there probably is not an easy answer, but the issues need to be addressed and the sooner the better. Well plan to call to set up a time to meet and discuss. 6 I l- t % % --------— V- ifM: 'f t'l.I-'*- . „ ’■'■ 'f S / i ■ '■ j. t, i March 8,2000 TO; Mike Gaffron Greg Gappa FROM: Jim Zimmerman, the Ogle’s, the Gay ’s SUBJECT; Non-Resident Dock Issue i .'tiD n > coon 1 I . * E Following is a summary of our position basea on the meeting at City Hall between Greg Gappa, Mike Gaffron, Richard Gay and Jim Zimmerman. Also included are comments from Dick Ogle based on a briefing of last Friday ’s meeting and his historical perspective of the issue. Dick was present for and part of the 1985 discussions and Council meeting that dealt with the 1985 conditional use permits. The conditional use permits are very clear about parking. There are 3 dock owners that are allowed only one car and it is very specific where the cars are to park. Dick Ogle indicates that in 1985 there was significant discussion about parking and it was agreed that parking was to be limited to one car per slip with no parking on the road. The shoulders on both sides are turn lanes for the driveways as w'ell as bike trails and have never been intended for parking for non resident boat docks or neighborhood residents. For many years the non-resident dock owTiers lived up to their agreements from the conditional use permits and there was no problem. They parked the one car they were entitled to in front of their dock as required and things worked out fine. It’s important to reiterate that there have never been written easements for this area and there has never been a problem. The paperwork in place today is exactly what it has been for 15 years and none of the non-resident dock owners has ever raised an issue. I am also certain that no dock owner can ever cite a single example of being prevented access to their dock. The only reason that parking ever became an issue is that the non-resident dock owners in recent years have consistently and substantially abused the parking restrictions they agreed to. The neighborhood would have never had to come to the city vrith our safety concerns about the parking along County Road 19 if the .non-resident dock owners had lived up to their agreements. Over the past few years there have been increasingly more cars parked along County Road 19, creating an enormous safety ’ hazard for bikers as well as neighbors that need to use those lanes to safely exit and enter from the road from driveways. This information w’as all documented to the city, including pictures that showed the level of car parking and the safety hazard. It’s important to note that these cars were there strictly as overflow’ for the non-resident dock owners. The cars that were parked on County Road 19 were in addition to at least three cars parked on the right of way where they should be parked. It’s ver>' clear that the reason the non-resident dock owners continue to approach the city about the parking issue is that they want to find a way to park multiple cars per slip. As stated earlier, there has never been an issue with having access to the parking spaces designated in the conditional use permits. The issue has only arisen from the non-resident dock ov\ners expanding parking beyond what is authorized and approved. When the City Council met last Fall and discussed this issue, the agreements were as follow’s: • The safetv* i.ssue of parking on County Road 19 was a significant issue and the area should continue to remain no parking. There seemed to be unanimous agreement on this point, and certainly nothing has changed since last Fall that would now make it safe to park on County Road 19. • The Council asked Uiat the neighbors and non-resident dock owTiers meet to discuss the parking issue. We did that last Fall and both groups were in agreement about how the 3 cars that were allowed to be parked could be parked. We talked about adding gravel to the roadway and asked the non-resident dock owners to trim the bushes back so there would bem easy access to the three parking spaces. From the neighborhood perspective it was very clear from that meeting that there w'as no problem whatsoever in accommodating the three parking spaces that were allowed by permit. We felt comfortable that we had done what the city had asked us to do and that the issue was put to bed. One thing that’s been clear from the discussions at the City Council as well as our discussions with the non-resident dock owners is that Meigel in particular does not want to abide by the one car restriction that was agreed to for these docks. He has indicated that he and the woman he bo:it.s with come from different directions and they need to park two cars at their dock. Because of that, they continue to push every angle and option to get around the one car restriction that’s tied by permit to their dock. This latest attempt at asking for parking permits along County Road 19 is just one more attempt to accomplish his objective of being able to park multiple cars for his boat. We’re quite confident that if permits were issued, he’d request 2 to 4 citing the fact that he has multiple cars and needs multiple permits. We’re also quite confident that if those permits were issued, on any given w'eekend, Meigel would have 1-2 cars parked along County Road 19 plus a car in front of his dock. This isn’t about making sure that he has the right to park the one car he’s entitled to, it’s about his trying to find a way to expand the parking rights he was granted in the conditional use permit that governs his dock Summon’ } To summarize, the key points of this issue are as follow’s: • The papenvork in place today in terms of permits and easements is exactly the same as it has been for the past 15 years. ■ During that time there has never been an issue of non-resident dock owners getting to and having access to the one parking spot they’re entitled to. • The non-resident dock owners have consistently and increasingly violated the agreement on one car parking which created a significant safety and nuisance issue prompting the neighborhood to petition the city for help. ■ The city agreed with the safety issue and designated the area along County Road 19 as a no parking area. ■ The non-resident dock owners asked the city to readdress the no parking issue, which was done at a city council meeting. The city once again agreed that there was a significant safety issue and left the no-parking restriction in place. • Tlie Council asked the neighbors and dock owners to addrccs the parking situation, which we did last Fall. At that time we all agreed how the one car per slip (or total of 3 authorized) could be easily accomplished. As a neighborhood, we did what the city asked us to do and resolved the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. At last Fall’s Council meeting, one of the Council members summed up the situation very well. In addressing one of the non-resident owners, he told him that these properties were very unusual in Orono and were all non-conforming lots. Because they were non-conforming, they had special restrictions that had to be adhered to. He suggested that the one car condition mandated for the boat slip was appropriate for this area and that the dock owners needed to conform to the requirements of the conditional use permits. It was suggested to the dock owner that there were hundreds of properties in Orono that would allow the parking of multiple cars and if that were critical to this dork owner they should look at purchasing a home in Orono or other community that would provide for multiple car parking, but that that wouldn’t be possible with this property. As neighboi:s, we agree wholeheartedly with that point of \iew. There are marinas and homes on the lake that would accommodate their parking needs, but we feel that the permits governing these docks were well thought out as relates to parking, and we would not support any change or amendment in parking for non-resident dock owners. Frankly, from our perspective, it’s very frustrating that the City Council will be addressing this issue for yet a third time. We can’t^ honestly understand why there is such a strong feeling that the city needs to accommodate the non-resident dock owners. Their parking rights are clearly spelled out in their conditional use permits and they have never once been denied their right to park the one car they are allotted. As a neighborhood, we are vigorously opposed to increasing or expanding the parking for the non-resident dock owmers and we would ask that the city vigorously enforce the parking restrictions set forth in the conditional use permits. Further, we see no need to once again address the parking issue that has already been addressed twice by the City Council. As far as we’re concerned, the issue has been resolved per the direction of the City Council. If, however, the City Council w'ants to address this issue for a third time, we’d ask that it be postponed until at least May when the Ogle’s return home. Without them, any discussion about the dock properties cannot be verj' productive since their property' is the one that controls all the others. -r-f ’ t-* ! .t fc ,; I- /■ :'i ■» 2- March 8,2000 TO: Mike Gaffron Greg Gappa cc: Dick Ogle Richard Gay FROM: Jim Zimmerman SUBJECT: March 27 Council Meeting E I got your phone message at home about the March 27 Council Meeting. I personally feel that we shouldn t be addressing this issue again since it’s been addressed txWce already and I felt quite conclusively at the last meeting where it was discussed. I also believe that if the non resident dock owners really feel the issue hinges on written easements, discussing the situation without the one person whose easement is needed for anyone to get to any docks will not be very productive. While it would no doubt be a hassle to send a letter to eveiy’one postponing the discussion, I think tae alternative is much worse. The alternative is every’one comes to the March 27 meeting only to conclude that no resolution can be reached without Dick Ogle. At that point, this issue will be put on the agenda for a time and people will have to all clear their calendars again and show up for a fourth time only because the non-resident dock owners are unwilling to live with and accept the parking restrictions set forth in their conditional use permits. This doesn’t make sense to me and I don’t think it’s right. As a neighborhood, we’re concerned about Tom Randgaard’s dock situation. Richard Gay and I sat for over 3 hours at a Planning Meeting only to have Tom not show up and the Commission decide that without Tom no decision could be made. The issue was postponed until the next meeting. We cleared our <alendars for the next meeting to again testify only to get a call late the day of the meeting indicating that Tom wasn’t going to show up and we would once again have to clear a third night to testify on this issue. It seems that in the case of Tom Randgaard he can inconvenience people as many times as he chooses and the city will grant him unlimited leeway and only reach a resolution w’hen he ultimately decides he’s willing to attend a meeting. If the city is willing to hav'e an unlimited number of postponements for Tom Randgaard, they should certainly postpone this discussion in deference to the Ogle’s. The Ogle’s are as essential to the discussion of easements as Tom is to the discussion of his dock. The major difference is that Dick called 3 weeks in advance to request a postponement vs. simply failing to show up or calling at the last minute as Mr. Randgaard did. I felt w'hen w*e met tliat you w’ere in agreement that a postponement was warranted to get all the background information on the issue and to be sure Dick was at the meeting. You indicated that you were going to gatlier the following and thoroughly review prior to meeting on this issue: A title search of the dock properties to see w’hether right of way or easements are addressed in the titles. • The minutes of the 1985 council meeting that dealt with the parking issue. ---- t ^ r 4 1*^ I#- A discussion with the city attorney to see if the parking rights are either grandfathered in or if imminent domain exists after 15 years of driving over this property'. 1 think it is also relevant to talk to Hennepin County about parking on County Road 19. Dick Ogle indicated that he had been the one that had initiated talks about no parking with the county and that they were strongly in favor of no parking. If the city is considering changing their stance on parldng on County Road 19, the county should be consulted. Also, whoever has jurisdiction over the bike path should also be consulted. Eveiy’one has agreed that parked cars in the bike path pose a real threat to bicyclists. If we’re going to put bicyclists at risk, I personally want to be sure that all appropriate parties have agreed that that’s an acceptable thing to do. In order to have meaningful resolution, we need not only have all of the relevant people, but also all of the relevant background on the property, titles, etc. If we do need to discuss this again, we need to make sure that all key decision-makers are present and all necessary research has been done and data gathered. I would ask that you share this memo and the attached memo with city council members as soon as possible. I’d hate to get to the March 27*’’ meeting and discuss this information only to have the council members agree we should have waited until we had all the people and information in place. ‘ * Ifcr-.,- ,1. ' ■•r '■ fc*' Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2000 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mayor Jabbour & Council: I am writing you regarding the Narrows Dock Lot parking and access issues that you will be discussing on May 22. We have owned one of the dock lots (Lot E) for twenty years, having purchased it from Dennis Anderson in 1980. As you know from Mr. Gappa's backgrounding, our lot has a cross easement and a conditional use permit granted by the City of Orono. The extent of our use has been to keep a boat in the slip for the summer months. Electrical service to this particular dock v.'as installed by Mr. Anderson in the mid- 1970's primarily for the purpose of pumping water for boat cleaning. Other dock owners in the area have used our electricity at various times, but in the last few years have hooked up their own. We have been informed that there are residents in the area who would like to restrict the use of the dock lots by disallowing electricity and/or limiting boat size. If their ultimate goal is to rid the area of those of us who do not own residences contiguous to the docks, I assume the law is on the side of the dock lot property owners. I would also assume it would be legally very difficult to cut off our electricity or limit the size of our boats given that there are no such regulations on the books in Orono or the LMCD. We are also disappointed that the City (or the County) has revoked the street parking on County Road 19. We understand the basis for this decision was that a few home and/or dock lot owners abused the privilege by using the street to park overnight or for overflow parking. It is unfortunate that the "transgressions" of a few impacted those of us who have been good neighbors and property owners. We request that you consider issuing permits to the dock lot owners for temporary parking on Cty. 19. You could restrict the hours of street parking as well. We urge that you not penalize the non-resident dock lot owners who have the same property rights as do the resident owners on any of these matters. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Robyn & David Cook 680 West Hillside Drive • Wayzata, MN 55391 cc. Greg Gappa - Public Services Director owns 12-15 Njv.^0bcr, /£h J •* !*• •*.•V//;/.-r-V ^i.y'k'gytfrs \ .*•> .: o •••» .V” A| Dj f SBIJ ^PSiwV , B, 0,1.T, C Cti\el« $gc K 4- O’ 51 COUA^TV [t]ajpi4[i OA D ^-Kj- !•% •0 •j V*'•4 *U ct t .:'! v;« ••. •*. Mi ■. -j •• fi i1 s Q vni A F»~(7 m i(r\ 2,7 77/if^ Lf^. Ihir^Sy c^r///y //rp/i/f ffccor/fi/Ke wi/h /^£ prc>y;s/a'f» (/"ChyfJifr ff/'gg I/7gyg ggryg/gg^ //rg h//omg^ a(igcr;i,e(/ /rgc/ofMir;/J^ Cot/rf/yo/'//gg^gp;^s^j'Syg of mgj^gp/g /p^vt/:— m Q) 'All dc-cK \(f\s '('»'c)ty^ L(3i- 17 Ph«c(sen1 Ld-iyr) t>Y Uttfl ^a^v«\js^ (pocV; LoAy crfoAM S\^SS^ 0««4 Ia4NMmI r« ln4H Form No. 1-M Cic\ ■J •y MlllvvI>ivU Ca. MlnuMnlU. MtiUk Mlna«wi«« |i«if«rm CMi*ryaiMlnt fl«ili fW 3nbnitnre, i.*»t briu,-.-n D»aloX t, muip* sad liaa «, Riillipt, fautead aad »lf«. 1 Ulaaoteta of thr County of . Garlud part .X ■• of thr rteond part.and State of ArlcamM Or,m ratd part itt of the flmt part. In eon.nderatfon of thr nnm of .■..OBO..i»iJ^...aad.etaat..cood..aaA. T«l\uk)lo eoatldmtieas - -- -- -- -- ’‘ttozaics ■V. \( • • !. •raatm HI 4 J Migl»Ur§^ tmud Surrojr loabar 3S8, m«a of B«cl«tror of Tltloo. wooatx of. Kaaa^ia, naomac «a wooMai for road pupoMO oror a ^4(0thar OltK aa oaoo»oaO far-roaA iiig pQaoo orar r a 100^X.-aata l~(^*C&of said Xaad ftirrqr aSr^o araaad^*., aav eoastsosasa oa tha roar or aorthaastarl/ part of Traat A of aald oarr^, J '^?***?‘ IM* Sor?«r taHtr 4U, »U — t ladMiu of ntlM, . w rfr w* •>r>n ^5^. ‘ Vkat part of Tract I, lodstar '^rCooatx of laaaapla, Ixlsc ' aoatbaoftorlx llaa of Sra . lo« 411, XUoo of Baslsti«r of Tltlss, ti - -_r .. .- - - -' — *As aorthaaotarlx axtoosion of tha•torlx Um of Craat 0 of said sarrsx. • .i.SS,^SiS“'a’2;SL“3^mss of Bsclstrar of Wtlos, Coaatf of Esaaf^l^ «aoor y:ry if |j \ eoastraatsd aad kipt* UiL r, 0^4 •rr " ' . ^ .. ;.V *. .* - ■ *“ * V: *Vv:.* • %:? V.' • r. ■ •t d • "• ’ ••• ' . -•W. ^ ^ ^ *a . ♦ . • o«- . A. .V / 4 **. Tbt lOfnliw hmyrnioform coujmMSd an «obi«ot to tho foilowliig coronaat# mad gootrictiom t , V-- \ 1 .* :V^> ; -• • •’ A \ *■ • * i.- „ Ro->.-, L'iY\'»'?n M •■<• -ww T^' oy^p 'y Doc Mrr,ofr\QA^ —....____________Oe\q Oalv ------- • sa^jsi.wf’S™ S2j*sf iJSit.^’isr's” *"j ‘ “•*‘•‘•'•1 i«M'* ««4«pa, year around Surrey Ho. 4U, ^eh ■htiT^i !!**.“!?.!!““nuS.'LJS.t***““<« roi-«VSS.' %- -1^^?^::.: r “fJ:" ■ 4- No boat houses, sheltere or Sa^v-- v of tfact H« . traete. *»• orooted on the Southorly shore of the seas as oonUlaed^ k2! 2^ ♦iS **■“ " 0 traete X B d A > as ooaUlned in k^ 3! * / If ® “^«rtered land Surruy 415, ^/«.S8S*fSi§!fir2 S’tSj!l.,^JT-'SS*2i- Sor*?-^«* •U of said Tracts except S^aboso ^ ^ first be graded aaS erarelled^hf^lLff*®»ese said roads ahell 3- At no tlafSaU SrtSI iJ ?h5^ free traffic on eSld semL roadI!“* otteapt to «oaopoU*e or obstruct the '^«^'llSStnL!^5^^JeM’aJi^5sS^" »ogl*trar of Titles, subTset to " !!*2** ”•* »o«l.tsred land 8 - in conjun •*■> m.s .; s t \ A V «T»y Ho. 411, aad eonjtnction nth tbs ceasre SuSnns*lliltIu«"*JeiSletlSran*uJMJ Bsgletrar of Titles, subject to the enntd S“Ih«I n*fiS!thIrtJ ‘*,5 “f??*“^f**^i i“**‘ oholter and dock say be dock and boat house aay be ar«a^s*f * * H«tharly end of Tract C. a — oTTlce road F. ^ ^ °***" ^ ». parallel to show aM ^act Ap Regiatorad Land Sunrey No« 411 d ftaet 7. Bagiatarad Land Surray No. 358 a®xa garden d ahxubbery areas. i^is^L'^ddUiU S'thJeflit Jlt“ibJj^: ^ f»llona« imtatloas, restrictions and i* No JSnJiJ ^offeJn?B*2adS^or"lSlTlt reasonable control, 3- Dredging of the la^iroft^e wt^^rS f?all tba property ownere and It shall be eooaldered beneficial to owners unis as the count^ abeoJbs thTJSeSf shore la the lagoon la a prlrate expenS^ Dredging or looting of a prlrats ^ JiJdjSrJa"SrSSle“ .han be 5- If th^^partles SJ^to or thiL "f®®* clalnlcg under then until Fanuary 1, IJ65,aoroio, or inelT halre, or assigns shell rlolate or •tt*-** ^ SrSu Coreaaats herein, it Aall be lawful for any otl^J^Son <r so doli-.g or recorer dazsgse or other dues for such wloiatlon. ^ • r. t i • ;* A ? V I t t ey •I i I 964 J , I • iud ihrahttrr haF^uhifii ami dpuitlrtl tamh amt In the quirt and pruvniblr unntrMnluu i»f thr aiiid part X II*** »rruud fnirt, bsr hrlra ami aMaig$iM, againat all prraoua lawfully claiming or to claim the wlwtcorauy part thereof , mu hjert lotnrunihranceMjfany, hereinbefore meHtlnned, the nald piirt\M% t»f the firat part trill Warrant aarl Defend, 111 Ctittmoiip • The nald tnirt \9%of the prat part ha hereunto art .......... hand^ the day and yearpret above a ritten. ^ tn Preaenerof ^C* I .. ^^^^Tt^[rfSirr irtlTi ’oTTt ITe^H'e redi t a m tail a a at) app^rtea a a era thereunto belonging nr In nnywiar appertaining, to the aaid part T of the aeennd $Htrt, heira a$id oaaigna, y*»rei*er.,Inti the aaid AkillUpV i4ld VlflU lU PIlljLLlpSt InsbSflA. part of the prat part, for %h®lF heira, exeeutorm atn! adminimtratt$ra, do eorenan I with the aaid fair! T of the merond part, \t^T hrtra amt uaaigna, I hot SP® U’etl aeiseil in fee of the lamia and premiaem a foremaid . and ha gottd right ft* nett and rttiivey the amnein manner nml fttnu aforemtid ,and that the name are free from at! iot'oott»raarem. >• , . • • *1 • • *♦ y , ‘r •*' • ‘I . . . Kt,‘ ■ •/* r>. »• ^ • ■ t • ■r'fV •■A':0 •4 * • • • • % .♦‘V • , • • , 4 • ft a Vi>. • * ■ 1 • . i •*r » t' F- r ■♦•' 1- » ’ r » K. , ''■' • r > bi 964 O3I e •tott ot iMinittfota nmttt/f nf fiM Ifttm auh •I'lU-f i»gu% ./.'*86 . hvfnrr mr. lotanr MbXia uHhiH timl f*%f *<#/»/ CuhhIh, firrmuhttUu uii^rmnl ff. muipt «1A fi» lU fhilUpt* «iA »lf«» ffl Wif k'tmu tt ht hf Ihf • I Ilf ««fNif f|Jt tlvmvriltrtt U'Uf thr furr^ttih^ iii»t futurtti, timl thtif rMi*rutrti /f' f »irl HU*! t/t t ii .1//^ rnitlHliaminti tel.V,\! ’.• t "Si Va .•rS «vyf ^r» ■ ’s, .♦:V ,*r* * :’-l* •riii? ' .•^•V i . **. • V V ■v^V^'M >?n F| ' r'.' .» *v vVpl M "••••*; • *V? > ILL5c t\j%. • ij* *^* •* /**• • t w • /v- 4 20 • • •» / I a ■ \ 3 1 G A/^ /9 0f.$4 • i *y* ['To^'\ icr\ 2J? Ijc K\AJY\ Ihit^iy Cif'/i/y i/f ffcC0f ‘i/f/fC£ \V//Jf /Jf£p/Vi-is/^/r^c/'C^9p^> A70/f^so/^ ss f hwtVf^^ C^scn'hac//fgcr o/^Couff/y o/*//(f/f^fp;// or /ffvv,/:— Tjvc/A ^<rA/s/<fra/ /y/SSS, r=//^s ____________ /'-.../. »<sp^ i , • ' ^ll olocK Icris C^^cC\^<^ ^rc)ry\ L^*t X7 Ph^c^seni LcxU;yo PLoi*^ by \ieg\s'^^i^^c\ Lay\d Sav>ve\^^ (p oc\^ Vd\ s cr(c\\^i\ l! \ ^5-^ I II mmmm ^0,llb7 H W«»fMfVtti*4.»trv9« rtiWtyf. hetwtim5^ *"W Fattn No. 1-M. 24tll pmrn mnn tCSraCw iftMi. Aawrf-----jf UU#__ lai Miai.ll> Phil Uni, ha iba nd itad idZA. ifJS. •/ i4# C0mmti^ 9f ■HtaataiA a#/M MdL Ftoli o/.Kiimosoto flaay ylo _jBolooj #/ a# Commtif #/.in pmHt----- • I' • : ' <'k» n^n». JHbAL •t ^ _____ JBtaABUiJUfll m/W- IkMts X A L, B«|lat«r*d Land Sqgwy Moabar 41$, Xllaa of Radatrar of Titlaa, County of ------r*~ i TTirrT*“B M Of fotjflad popoaaa orar id aewaa tea***- f- —** uaay. Zt la uadaratood and agraad tnt thia araa la kaom aa doaklaB araa to ba uaad by party of tha aaooad pai*t, bar hdra and aaal«aa, la eoijuotloa nth Traeta B C d 0, Eaglatarad Land Buraay Manor 55«» lllaa of Raglatrar of TlUaa, County of Baonapla. Ah a part of tha oonaldoratlon for thla daad party of tha aaooad part adooa that any daolUnc built on TTaota B * 0, Haglatarod Land Murray Wiud>ar $$8, niaa of Badatrar of Iltlas, County of HaaMpU, nail ba oat back at laaat 15 foot froa tha alda boundary llnoa. Ca Oabt anh ta Aolb 4c Onte. rogMhar irtth att in knaBCommtc aM apiwCn^^ [\\5 S(^C Is tlS^Pc# _m U»a •/ all umpaU fulla tlalnUmi or lo !to irholo or any Ikm»f, mtijte* to l««»m*rBaoo —--------horoiahc/bra WuntUnW, «• roU r -IlOO-----a/ Mo ^ pari t^U Wmrromt aad In q^cnUtiMo 44tna(. rhoooidnar«tta_o/Mo^ponhaFa nTwa*oift_lhm_ kaoit- Ihodoyaidhoor^ahoioiorllloa. /. . /a Frtomt* of V 1 - - a / ^ ^ _ t # • - , / • 0 •*l .t .1 *•. ' . luaii ;u-v-• r >• f I i i •:. *• !• . » I . : Y» •• K .■ * -•' * h |<V : V?Ciw c a 5 e'^ •r-* WttnrvArr Di»<. Kact^t Ami laAtvIAMJ M lAArrMhMl. Fonr No. S«M.IMfaai€S«i«waMiAOlMfti IX^V tC^iK ^i?it 24th 409 •/-----^UUL 2t^ PhiUi— 0»i Mti»* M. PhimpOf hnoM~l .bO lOf #/ tt« CoMAlir •/ffAKHOftt II mA 8Ud§ of.IH flaoBfia 8* Mil iftn •/ iks Cmni^ •/.HBOffpj 4 a o/ lA# wull toiM^ iMil; no« Oo mU 90.4Jtl-----»/ flU /bo4 90f4 U «/ ftA „fl nthm -wt ti^—«-'- ^ — bmju. J» hoMi ootf l9 Mo m M laHXi.—Mo awM 90Hl Oo mm M' IM Mrfo. MO. Mi Omv m4» M< loli^ I Trooto K * b« loctotond UaA Samjr Huahor 415> Vuoo..«f Boflotrv of XitlM, CouBtj of BoaaiilAt iXooorvlac u toT rood pwpoMo «ror m4 atiDoo ftroot L of oolA Mmy. mtfai- l.-J^ >•- i* -"i t.-I 2'" !*♦* > V ^ * Xt io wMmtoM OE* ogrooA ttat thlo ana lo kaaaa ao AookUi taoa to bo aood bj parti of tho ooeeaX parti hor hMro oad aaotgaOi la o«JaaotlOB «th TMOta B 0 4 0* Boglatorod laai Mwor BoMor 354. niaa «f Boglotnr of Tltlaa, Oonati of Bonaipla. {2 5 «C -r^w <^o>. ---------------------------------------------- . ------------- ^ V i ub A 8tf?qr Makar 358, PUao of Roflatrar of Tltloo^ OouMp of ^ J ^ <oa»pia, MMl bo aot baok at loaot 15 foot frea tho aUo boaaiary ‘c ha a part of tho ooaalioratlaa for thlo Aoof parti of tho oaooiA part a^aaa that aaz AaoUlag built oa Traeta B 4 0, Boglataroi mr Co JlaBt «IB to Moll i|4 Oimt. iifMA i.4M oU M« i. {STS *Ti"n?^^ gafr^r. jiafl aOa, V M. MM port,/»>.hlMoinf^ io— Mi ftrm o/AWali. MiMoi Mo mm or*/M/mm oK loMMhfWMiU, *«Mp# 1 'it Mm - t //i4 Um of M ^■i M* *»—« bartaltud OMi fmiOM toaii oi^ pfomtac. to «nM ^^*aa«aM Mo Moontf |P«Hp - . — ^ fuUf tUiinUg *r I* MU m U u wM* *r oop poH Mmm/. oM/wI to Umimt tfOuuU hmoAnUfmo fe: mMttouAM*Mli|Mr«.loa-----of too/toto port i*ta ravfMl aai 2V<«i-SS^' Itt Ctitltimi ■Amof, rioMiiportlaa—o/A* Ortport «T—*■ M* io| OMi r*or irtt otoa* wrtitoa. a I^.00. 7' Li.3^!>r=X. d-iAi. / 'mm at rhUiwgj'r~ fitTf.*!.,.. 5?',,X ;■ V • I ^ * V f f 1 . * V s'- t* l-i .‘•fk' : * •. r . « . !*■ \ . I ;■ •* I : I L-i ■•/7 •/ f02.271 OvsQh Si 4t ftttRit Together with all the keredUamenie and appurtenaneoe thsreunio belamglmg or in amifwim aprmdmUUt^g, fo the said partiee of the eeotmd part, their asdgms, M# twroUfOt of said partiee, and the heirs and aedgne of the eurvioor, Forever, the said parlies of the second port toMmg as J^t tenants and not as tenants Us eemmon, And tJte said ......BMlitl JL. AilUpa jnd I1biil .IL. Aillipi*. taB)Mnd BBd. lifB,______ part of the first part, fer tUtPiflTiitL ttillX! .. .. heirs, txscitiore and administrators da__ eovenant with the said parties of the second part, thdr assigns, ths survivor of said parties, and the heirs and assigns of the survivor, that ..thttg ATB... ^ ssieed in foe of ths lands and prsmims aforesaid and ha ^ good right to sell and convey the eanse in manner and form aforesaid, ami that ths sams are free from all incumbrances, cjxspi _________________ __________ nm •xo^tioiiB «zc€pt — the lien ef all fin^<l special assessments and interest tkerwn. And the above bargained and granted lands OJid premlsse. In the Qulst and peaeeahte peeecselon of the said parties of the second part, thsir assigne, ths survivor of said parties, and the hri s and assigns of Ou survUfor, against all psrsone lawfully claiming or to elaim the whols or any part thereof, subject to ineumhranee heeeirhsfors mentioned, the said part iBB of ths firti part will TFarrani and Dsfemd. in Ccfttamv Hlmof. nc t^d luHln of the fint pari Xa V* Uertuntomt . handa the day and ysar frst uU •' written. In Presenes of ,» y ■ >»< w '■ A r: r • ^ . r r I k•o /I 271 O\sov\ y ^ .. \m IMote of iHinneoota. County«/- Bona«pi»} On thU . .%%!h (itnj nf Oetou«r tU 56 ^ hefott mo, u • loitfun and /nr »nid Cmtmhj, ftrr^tnuUu appeared Dinitl 1. Fhilllpi iuk I HIaa U« PhiXIip«« anr wifi« fn nir Kn>^rn la l>r the />rr%w •9*r\^nKd iii. and trim r.rmticd the fw^tnh^ in§lrumrnt nnd arkntiwh'tl^rd thrj ^hrT r.vrrittcd *he %»nir n$ N no ) th#ir tiff and d rd (Ace ^-MO %*. iT^. •Atff fftnttnijtninn r.vpin 4 _ •tOTC Tkte ¥iai*4 liMC • irio4 ' Xoc !! ••«** uf# |»o «m •K«« iW lacir^MOMi !• o«t«at<4 ^ •» !■ (ttt mi i* I' ■ 5 STT^A-S 1 '4 I '•A' il i ^ •5:l t ■s 1 siv IJUn% II i. iS r V \•>? i *.Vt •ir • ^•1 ‘%.e£U. Xntnn/ l*nfdi\^ Cownfp, Minn. .10 \r ( >y. *• •/!■••>'(il? I- ■;•{■•*;■ ;>V/- ‘irT; •'• s^;.^ '•v„v A : •.jf.-. - . •• .,’'<'115• *•: I ‘ 1 • ■• •\K j; ''/S I ’■ ^'V(•;v'Jv-l•^'■■‘■. .*. .* • • ■•• ■ i . '• V. r- .>• V*I j! . •■•/♦*• 'r*' .•(. V ‘>K* ■S I ■,.-S «* \JJ\ 0W1\S — ••••/* *»% / SiJii. •.• •••‘V- ^(.y^eytfrs\ ;.'» .; ^-r .-•,.V- ; >. I i-i I •• lu ! «:; -f 1 f" 1 <•. Wvv L^r\ Z7 5a.^*v LAWy^ FIni TT/^r^ //i I Si ICff^/y fJrp/i/f ptco/’i/fi/?c£ \vi/h ^/f£p^c>\7s/ff/f^ c/'C^sp/^/“ /\4/h/7^So/^ // 9/ff^/fi/ir(/, <:‘ry \*yec/ hUam^^ <^crii>e(//rgc^o/'i/7Coiz/r/yo/'^iT/f/^fp.'/^S'fi/y/a^c or /om/:— 7ivc/A^e^is/<fre^ /g/f^^c'/'^yy SSS,/^/gs of fo/r/sZ/g^.-rf All docK cr'?rf\«’d 'f»'c3ivN l_oi 17 Phcciseni L aWY) Pl-oi^ O.egii'lev'e^)! Lancl ^a'^ve\jS^ (p oc\<; LoA s Cr(c(\e4 1 \ ‘^> mm .!; ^90173 \AJ n a C?l/Pr |>^ S'^oV'SVi/iJft cm%l^m A Fonn No. 6M«Uaiira CM^rni^t MmIm|3m|. IKi inteittorc,.!/«{. MU . }•}.day of noreaibor Duilol f« PhilUpi And Hlaa lU Fhlllipip. hpabapd ond vlfi» of tks CoaiUy of -------aoimopir------------------and StaU of...........JUnr«0f9t» .. . , poHlM. •/ iko lira part, and SfUtOXl JU .Oiattf!rt0n.lUld nmlarmm V. tamt^jirtony hMm’hmnA nnA w|f»p, ^EfUfMiplll .and StaU of Uinn9»ota --------o/ IA« CommPy of , pariiso of iko meond pari» HUtItItfCiL riiol lA# raid poH .*.91.«/ lAa /ln< pari, in oongidotation of tho turn of QjPd. PpUat JM«A to UMB------ia hand paid hy IA« raid partUo of tho o^oand pari, tho rceotpC wTtoroof is korAy aoknoud^ odgod, do _ htrtlfy Orami, SargaU, Soli, and Conooy umU tho oaid parUot of iho oeoond part as fobU UmamU and mot as UnamU In common, thsir assigns, tks suroiaor of oaii parSUo, and tho heirs and assigns of lAa mervleor, Fomor, all tho traeS ... rr parosl ..... of land lying and being in the County of .Honn^iJI ond Stole of d»im^Wd ue foltowe, io-teii: fmett Ip Ip Op B, Xp Jp< of Baciatrar of Titloo, deo^hedue Sanmj Foaitar 4X5. Tilat of EonnoplAp roaarTia^ oa »aio—at for rood pfOxpoMi ovor and oorooo Troeto I« I d Faari.ir.a'jitrg'.girt rnysi ^ .... around eirslo li Koroaftor oonitTUOtodp all la ooid ourroar Vu^r 415« To^thar with on oaotoont for rood yurpooao oror and ocrooo B, D A Fp Ro|^ot«rod land OarTWjr Vnbwr 4Up and Ip F d 0 and a 100 foot turn around olrolo aow oonatruotod on tho roar or oorthoaotorlar port of Tract Ap Bocistarod XdOBd BurroF ITudbor 356p fileo of Hodittrar of Tltloo, Couatr of Eaanopln« Tho promlnoo horotoforo 90ari)*od or# tubjoot to tho foUowisf eoronanti and roitriotionot )\\s esw?\ Jioo ys Vs\j5l to C0rt\“f\cai? df I p r i/ ■J: f: I M * r 1 . • i.», ..I- t::.i ;v-!- .* * 'irr 0(7113 uy^ivvi :rnct« Q i K« PfelJtflrect Liind Survay Ifiuabtr 41!:, ril«!i of S^islttrar of Titloi, ubjoct to tho following lioitatiOM, rottPlcUonc and uiott 1-Only ont, ono fa&il;' dtialling i*:\all oraotod on ouid Tracts ft & B, wt'.ich thiC.1 bo a Bodom, yoar around structiira of not laao than firo {5} roooo with bath, utl2*ty roon and double attaohad garaco* ?• Ho trailer, bMeanent hocM, teat, ohaok, bam or other outbuildiogi ihall be erected, either tenporory or T^emanent* Dwelling Boat be eet back at least sixty fife (65) feet fron the preteat water line of Lake Uinnetonka and at least fifteen (15) feet froB the enstsrly bo':ndnr>’ line of Tract H and the latterly botundary line of Tract G, Ho boat housss, sheltert, or docks shall be erected on the southerly shore of said tree to. Tracts f d 1, Begistered Land Surrey Hukber 415, files of Registrar of Titles, subject to the fonowing liaitations, restrictions and usesi 1-Thete are a part of ownriee roads to be used by parties of the second part in eonjunetlon with the owners of other treots in eaid Registered Lsad Surreys K>iaher 356, 411 find 415, 2m Parties of the second pert shall be rtiponslble for their share of the upkeep nf fhnf #if i>viA ruBs alocLgside Of their tmets These eaid roads shall first be gradedwith all usere of said narts of serriee roads, nnd l^'arelled by parties of the first part. At no tine shall parties of the second part attempt to aonooolise or obstruct free traffic on said serriee roads. Tract P, HeglBtsrsd Land Sumy Kunber 415, Piles of Registrar of Titles, subject to the foUowinc Unit/itions, restrictions and usesi !• This is a part of the setrlce road BD^ Registered land Svurey Hbaber 416, and Lm7V« Reristsred land Surrey Humber 411, and shall h. re no structures thereon and ohall be used ii« cozvjuiiotion with the owners of other tracts in said subdivision. Tracts J A 0, Recisteved Land S\irwey timber 415, Piles of Registrar of Titles, subject to the following liniitations, restrictions and usesi 1* Thsse are known at dookini; areas, PsnoaaeBt beat house, shelter and doek My be erected on Tract 0, A snail dock and boat ehel4iir My be erseted in oenter of Tract J, close to shore ano parallel to senrloe road 1, Vo boat shelter nor dock shall be ereoted either ia front tosords Like Uinnstohka, or on lagoon side of Traots X, P A 0, Registered Land 9uzrey Humber 415, All of the above tracts shall be subject to the following liaitations, rettrietions end uses in addition to those set out aboTS, 1- Ho animals, except dogs and eats shall be kept, and such animals shall be kept under reasonable control. Vo noxious or offensive trade or activity ohall be oarried on upon said tracts. Credginc of the lagoon or the entrance to it shall be considered beneficial to all of the nroperty owners, and the expense shall be distributed equally among oil ownrrs tinleas the county absorbs the expense. Dredging or Inoroving of a nrivats s‘-cro in the lagoon is a orivate expense. ?>.s arove covenants and restrictions are to run with the land and shall be binding on mU piTtles end all porso:;o claiming under them until January 1st, 1965, If the parties hereto, or their heirs, or ascigns, shall violate or attempt to violate eny of Uie covenants herein, it shall be lawful for any other parson or persons owning any real property sitiuited in said ievelopasnt to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or atter.otln^ to vioLits any aiioh oOTenants and eiUier to prevent kirn or t^ ea from so doing or recover danages or other dues for such violation. t - fT • J M -J V •'<r. • ■; ^ Vw.3. ■•V- ' *1 *‘.r' ♦ .V •c ' lij ' •. > r. ■ 4 V ^90173 IMate of iRtnneoota, Cfmniy of ^zmenl^ 1st I day ofOn thU XetAi7 Public I»al«I i. FbUUpi «nd BIulU. SUHUpa. husband and vlfe. ____________W56 . m*. a • fdffUn and for mid Counii/, permnaUj/ apptar^ fa me known to the person * mote oi Cki Noit) their f,Ye nrf nml deal tUserih*‘d in, and who exeeuied the fore^om^ ’nslrument, ........ and arknmrletlied that ^ hdf exer$itcd thr (Sm lfM>) A'otary Piii/ie, tt ■ County,Minn. ,My eemnituien txptrf ’ " MOTC; Tka kbak lian muM "tM N«m~ •>• It na akaa Ika kulraaaal !• aaatan4 ka aa ailaaaar la laac 4 1X. ,! »' iit-iii ii!ii V >If fU? i y w! 1 U • % ^ I "b .5 ;S I J!c i * a $ 1> Si a oi i « to * ^ ^ ‘ *;U^-~ #* .4 ‘J ' '• ir 4 ; aA. tn f , > a > ■V I ■V-; • ■# V % a i i; • V .v.:7 k w. *• - *• .. I jy •Vv 0 MM'S m ^v ^ ■'ipfe‘4'^ ■w •:*■ r- ■■ 12-15 S00^c^.x : {\ r-: ‘'*; -%.• .• ^c'^^eyars ■■'^ :fO OA D • V:; *4 '< S *..» ?: 1 rv. icr\ 2.7 lPVi?^i5<3iA*v PIni 77//^^ Qa Ih^r^iy C€r^‘/y fhf/i/t gccor/^/Ke %vi/J7 /Jf£prcu/^/a/r^ oTC/fsp/^r M/h/f^So/p /:,'/£$ o/*gf J/*gy^ h//owi/f^ (^scr/^gc//rfc^o/'Cou/t/yo/'^g/f^gpJ/79'f(/S'/o^c Or My//:— /g/T)/^c'/'i'gy A/' 9.^//g Mgt^m0%l,y» r - • •• ■ • * • All docK I ctI s cr?c(\^«* '(f'otA L(?'t U Pb«c^seoi LdiWV) fU'V by Heg^av'Ve\/-s_ (poc\<v LoAy cr(<^(A 5„J \) C'ClAvf'^. A^ Jnbenture,— — .. Hnff 9f ____MpJ ^ •'M «i«. Au»4«d oil* J»itr-ija|i.t^^_______ CtnitI Phllllpi tud Hina ]£• Phillip*, h\ub*sd imd wift. 1^. \\ paH^M of (r,c firMi pari and Paul R» Uatt <al ----|w^——*/ t/«* iecofiJ part. lilHMM«. Thai th, mid por«iia_ •/IK, fintpaHb, mnddaraUm^ of Ou <i>m of --CsrpouAVAa),.vT5BjiaaLjiaLyAigi3is,c(aBic^^ -----------•»«?; /« th*a.. ^ ^ ^ n.dpt tehonof U kmby aeknoioUdgod. do-----/UreJy OntU. Bargain, SM and Commj unto M« mid ,nrtf.____of tKo omond P»H. - _W.------hoiroandaodgnoFOBBrSH.all-------------*ra>m^ or pairol*. of lend tying ond holng In IKo County of ------HWMjlA--------------^ Slot, of MlnnoooU^ domrOod ao fottmoo. m Countp or tt*oa*^ tad St*t* of Mian.aotm- » •#■"* Couat^ gf aion^p^Q tad Sttt* of Kian*aott« Alto tubjoct io th* following tddltloa*! liaiUtioat, r**trlctloo* ted ujoj: 1- Trtots 4 d R •htU Vi* a oa* party owon^ahip o**r« ^ Tract* 1 R, hi ihall flrat gira t*a (10) *7* nctlc* to all raaldaata of tha orlglaal Lot 27, Pl*4**at Lawn, H*ae*pln Couaty, lttaa*aota, wi.—mws. ^ pamittad on Tract* q A R, *zc*pt for boat docking, ^ *n*it*r or boat houaa. •*e«a4 ^rt sbaXl b* nsputlblt ftr bib abbr* et t£» uokaap of T^» l*J**«^2**? **•*» easoly X B and 0. It«gl*t«rt4 Lul Surroy Vo. ail, ud L d F A Q, Registered Laed Surrey 415, together with the otter users of the ceaa traote. 3-***• PW ■onopoUxo or ob-truct raoda. iiayaloU.looa of tba abora aasaaaDta aefl raatrletlooa be avfejaet to la,oI actlbo by oaoara of tba nalebborlae traota. 6-Tha for#colc« raatrlotloiia, ecsditlooa aod problbltloaa aball rua with tba i«~< aad ba a aarrltitdt tbaraoo aod aball ba bladla, and obUiatory u;ob aU pureiaaara of acy laed baraUt daaerlbad aad opoa tbatr baira. vmrifS iO# ^ W5? ^U<ir\\'(\r7AV oi ^'S\‘V\^ Oca; '{va ^ai 6 T ^ ^”7 f / ^^imT *• Cjf. 7 mmc: .1 .* • - r. ; • S ■ . > -- cfc’ >;. C?4V. t/ ^ r*l _a • - ’i- !T - • ‘ • P •. • .•a 92;H90 .* . . • I I' V* Vi _L^ M\e^oi 9 tf ai fil Ht T*»(frtrter wiik nil M« f^rtTflUumemU umd •litpiiHfwtmets themnmto /*'W ItJ /^r*i fatH, for tlUir i. • - **rrt,tnr. -ml ..>h,.!^Urut,>n. ,la . ttKcnnat ;.w,.W th.,.r. «r// u ftr of ,h. „n,t „forro.i,,. „„,l t,„TO Wj/,/ /„ ,,,, i/niMr and /arm oforttnliU that IJui aoMa nrt firr fmm aU ene'initminem uo^,r a»arr fc,rtf„,„.d am, ^ran,,^ to„a. and prm..,^, on.lp,o^,M^^ a/,*.m„, /--r . o/,A.«andpar,.._.M,--------t„./„,,^Wa;m,n/or . I. <^a,„. tta ar nn„ ^r, U^f, tU ^Ui partU. _ „ ,Aa fr* poH ^ rHf,,^, ** ^”***""' "***■*• -o/tta/lrt«por«»aT» . Kmuotom* thajj _____ and acol_ Uu dag and jf^ar jtrd atoco irrittoi^ -J}j.d.__L, t K% r ' ---------------------------------- 6tate Connlg of ■ — ..-----------------------------(SBAl) ------------- - ----------- —(HE.1L) — -----------:—:-----------(dCAi) W>£:: * PMo i/54..., ta/ara ma, <1—KcMck £ubUe. ^ ^•/-------»£iy _______L —latMin and far tali Couatg, ptrmaJXg apptartd DulaL W. muip* ui Nina U, PillUpa, huabecd and nlf.. A.awn ,a ic Ma dr.rtto, M n^a„W^d ft,at .tAay . ftwardad Ma tarn, at . . tholr _/V« aetaaidtod. Mg tommhian a^Uu *J«ww £kwi» naO iwntOdt.iaim MatargrtMU Cctuttg, Jilna. cs a r-- MAY 2 2 2000 May 18,2000 wi i r cir onmvo TO: Orono Mayor, Cit>' Council and City Staff FROM: Jim Zimmerman 2745 Shadywood Road Dick and Marlys Ogle 2771 Shad>’wood Road Richard and Sue Gay 2735 Shad>’\vood Road SUBJECT: Background Information-Shaduwood Road Non-Resident Docks M Attached is relevant background information for Monday ’s Cit>’ Council meeting when the issue of non-resident parking on County Road 19 will be discu«!'«d. Since this is the third time in less than 12 months that the Council has addressed this issue we wanted to provide past information on this subject. Also enclosed is other relevant background information on the noa-conform'ng, non-resident lots that may be helpful for Monday ’s meeting. We plan to be at Monday ’s meeting to comment on this issue. m. i i i • Ir. Vrr SHADYWOOD ROAD NON-RESIDENT, NON-CONFORMING DOCK LOTS V . i BACKGROUND INFORMATION MAY 2000 b rTrln-iairh^ • ■ r^»j i r • • r C May 16, 2000 TO: Orono Mayor and City Council FROM: Dick and Marlys Ogle Richard and Sue Gay Jim Zimmerman 2771 Shad>'v\’ood Road 2735 Shadjavood Road 2745 Shadj'wood Road SUB.JECT: Non-Resident Boat Docks and Parking E We wanted to provide input and background on the non-resident, non-conforming dock lots prior to Monday ’s Council meeting. This is the third time that the council has addressed this issue in less than 12 months and we have provided substantial background on the history of issues and problems surrounding the properties which is attached. As additional reference, we’ve also attached an Orono City document from 1984 that references the many years of complaints and problems cited by the neigliborhood residents regarding the non-resident docks. It’s clear from this document and our experience that these docks have been a source of problems for at least 20 years. We are asking that the City Council specifically take the following actions relative to the non resident, non-conforming dock lots and parking. Parking Based on a series of problems and near accidents by neighbors pulling in to and out of driveways and nearly hitting or being hit by bicycli.sts and cars because non-resident dock owners were parked in the turn off lane, the neighbors asked the County and City to post the turn off lanes as no parking. The City and County agreed with neighbors and posted the area no parking in the summer of 1999. Non-resident dock owners asked the City Council to reconsider the no parking decision again in 1999. The City Council, for a second time, agreed that for safety reasons no parking was needed in this area and again reaffirmed the no parking decision. Since nothing has changed since last summer, we ask that the City maintain the current parking ban on County Road 19 consistent with the agreement at the two City Council meetings when this was discu,ssed. Mandate the one car per boat slip parking that was clearly detailed and agreed to in the 1985 conditional use permits for the non-resident docks (one of the non-resident CUP’s is attached). Enact significant penalties for people who violate the one car per slip parking requirement such as misdemeanor prosecution and revocation of conditional u.se permits for violators. Since there has been crime in the non-resident dock area, neighbors would like to be provided with a list of license numbers for the vehicles approved to be in the non-resident parking area. In this way we can help protect the safety of our neighborhood and work with City Police to call attention to vehicles and people that are not supposed to be in our neighborhood. * A.1^.III III tiiinanrii I....... HIM I 11 ^ IIIII 1 iiiTfc ■ ■ 111 iT 111 > ii ____.,J f [ ‘n e f ■ Ensure that non-resident dock owners’ cars do not block access to the fire hydrant. Within the la.st 12 months there have been 2 home fires in the area where access to the fire hydrant along County Road 19 was needed. Thankfully, the hydrant was not blocked, which it frequently is by Ginther and Ault, who have built a hard cover gravel driveway (without ever obtaining a permit and in violation of both hard cover and setback ordinances) immediately next to the fire hydrant. On Monday May 15. 2000. Ginther was parked within a couple feet of the fire hydrant, blocking access to it. Orono City Police cited Ginther, and as a neighborhood we arc very thankful for this action and would ask that the City continue to ensure that our fire hydrant is not blocked. • There was some issue raised by non-resident dock owners regarding easements to the designated parking areas. We understand from meeting with City staff that they are satisfied from their research that there is not an issue with easements. It also must be pointed out that there has never been a single instance of non-resident dock owners being denied access to their designated parking . "ea. Remove Illegal Non-Resident Docks Based on the City ordinances that govern non-conforming lots we believe two of tht docks are illegal and ask that the City have them removed. Specifically they arc: ■ Ginther and Ault - Certified aerial photos from 1971 clearly show that there was only one dock on this property. Since the non-conforming ordinance went into effect in 1968, the second dock was clearly an expansion of use that was not aPowed after 1968. Additionally, Ault has told neighbors that his dock has oeen rented for a number of years, which wc also understand to be not allowable, by ordinance. • Wittman - The previous owner of this dock lot abandoned use of this dock for a number of years in the early 1990’s. Following this abandonment, the dock lot was sold to Wittman who contacted neighborhood residents (Olson and Ca.sey) to move their docks slighf*” since during the years of property abandonment his dock space had been diminished. We understand the City ordinance for non-conforming lots eliminates the right to use non- conforming property if it is abandoned for over 12 months. Additionally, Wittman has rented his dock for at least the la.st year, which we believe is also in violation of ordinance and an abandonment of u.se. His rental would be on City records since his renter testified at last year’s City Council meeting on parking. Prior To A Determination Of Whether Or Not The 1985 Conditional Use Permits Should Not Have Been Granted. At Least Return Non-Resident Dock Area To The Conditions And Use In Place When Conditional Use Permits Were Granted In 1985. Since 1985 there has been substantial and continued expansion of use from the non-resident dock owners. We request that the City return the non-resident dock area to the conditions that existed in 1985 when they we^e granted conditional use permits. Specifically: C Eliminate Electricity - The addition of electricity in 1990 has dramatically altered the use of the non-resident Hock lots. It has changed the docks from being used for nouiial daylight recreation to making the docks habitable. Accordingly, boat size has increa.sed dramatically and non-resident dock owners are frequently using boats for overnight and weekend accommodations. With the addition of high intensity lights, boiLts also now come and go at very late hours, disturbing the neighborhood. The high intensity lights disturb the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. T r i" C‘- C C Eliminate Flagpole- A flagpole was added in 1999, which is a further example of the creeping expansion taking place. We would like it removed. Regulate Non-Resident Dock Lots for Conformance to All City Ordinances We would like the City to ensure that all dock lots strictly adhere to City ordinances for setbacks, hard cover, vegetation, parking adjacent to fire hydrants and other ordinances that apply to Orono property owners. We would also ask that regulations regarding noise, litter, and other quality of life issues be strictly enforced for the non-resident dock lots to try and control the problems that have been associated with these properties for the past 20+ years. As neighbors we have obtained certified aerial photographs from 1971, 1985 and 1989 to document what was present on the.se non-conforming lots following the non-conforming ordinance of 1968 and the conditional u.se permits of 1985. Those are attached. We have also retained Bruce Malkerson, who was the Orono City Attorney when some of the non-conforming ordinances were drafted. As you will note from Mr. Malkerson’s letter to the Orono Planning Commission regarding Ginther and Ault’s request for a conditional use permit, we believe one or more of the docks are illegal and the remainder of the non-conforming, non resident docks may be legal based on further factual investigation. Of particular relevance, we feel is the ordinance that stipulates that non-conforming structures valued at $3,000 or less in 1968 would be allowed only to exist for 36 months before being required to be removed. We strongly believe that the temporary docks used by the non-resident dock owners all had a value far below $3,000 in 1968 and thus their dock should have been eliminated after 36 months. It is clear that this situation is unique and unprecedented in Orono. It’s also clear that these docks have been a source of problems for over 20 years and continue to be a source of problems. We feel that there has been very lax enforcement of ordinances relative to the non-resident dock lots and that illegal docks have been allowed to exist and substantial expansion of use has been permitted. Therefore, we respectfully ask that the City vigorously enforce all ordinances that relate to these properties and return them to only what is legally permissible. Wc plan to appear at Monday’s Council meeting. W i-nr^jAfl ijkv.-AkjMi* i''. c ATTACHMENTS 1) Legal opinion from Bruce Malkerson, former Orono City Attorney 2) Copies of certified aerial photographs 3) Orono City memo from 1984 citing years of problems with non-resident docks 4) Conditional use permit from 1985 detailing the one car per slip parking restrictions 5) Orono County Road 19 parking background document from 1999. 6) February 23,2000 memo to Mike Gaffron regarding non-resident docks 7) March 8.2000 memo summarizing neighbors meeting with City staff 8) April 13 Planning Commission memo regarding Ginther and Ault’s request for conditional use permit 9) May 10 memo to Planning Commission regarding follow up to April Planning Commission meeting regarding Ginther and Ault’s conditional use permit request - -----------------■ iiian.*, mrlfil Ii liuM <1 I iiBri aM <1 I IfTTil I I !■ I II n. 05/12/00 WED 12:01 FAl I r < Malkerson Gilliland Martin up Suite isoo a TolT Towsn 901 Harouctte A vcnuc M I N N C A PO LI 9, M I N N C S OT A 65402*3205 Tcl CPNONC 612 *3 44-1111 Facsimile 612-344-I4I4 Bnicc D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial (612) 344-1699 April 14,2000 Orono Planning Commission City of Orono City Hall P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323-0066 Re; Application for Conditional Use Permit by Ault and (jinther- Agenda Item No. 2571- to be Heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, April 17,2000 Dear Commissioners: I Introduction. I represent Dick and Marlys Ogle who live at 2771 Shadywood Road, Richard and Sue Gay vdio live at 2735 Shadywood Road and Jim Zimmerman who live.s at 2745 Shadywood Road. These individuals are residents of Orono and live in single family homes adjacent or near to the property for which Mr, Ault and Mr. Ginther are seeking a conditiortal use permit to allow the use of a small parcel of property for two large permanent docks. My clients are very concerned about the impact of the past, present and potential future use of those docks and activities on the property on the neighborhood and related thereto, the impact in the past, present and future from the ’ise of the other very small lots in the area for permanent docks, as will be discussed more hereu.after. 1 have met with my clients to review the history of the use of the above properties, the impact of that use on their properties and the neighborhood and to inspect the area involved. Richard Gay and Jim Zimmerman and I met with City Staff recently to discuss the issues and to review the City records relating to the prior and present use of the property and docks that are subject to the present application and the related docks adjacent thereto. 37SI7BIH4 0002 05/17/00 WED 12:04 FAX i April 14,2000 Page 2 I am zdso familiar with some of the history of the problems relating to these docks because I was the City Attorney for the City of Orono from 1973 to 1984. I have been involved in many of the dock and other riparian use issues in the City of Orono while I was City Attorney and at various times thereafter. I was involved in the drafting of most of the municipal code that presently governs land use and other activities in the City of Orono. Instead of setting forth the summary of the facts, I refer to the memo dated April 13,2000 from my clients to the Orono Planning Commission, a copy of which has been sent to you. My objective in this letter is to point out to you what we believe are the relevant legal principles that apply to the review of tWs application for a conditional use permit and to the multiple dock situation in that area. The factual review set forth by my clients and my legal review are preliminary in nature because we have not had an opportunity yet to finish the review of all City records, title records and obtain other information concerning the historical use of these properties. n. Applicable Law. As you know, cities adopt zoning ordinances to regulate the type of uses allowed within the City to protect and give direction to the property owner who desires to use his or her property and to protect adjacent property owners. A property may only be used for a use which is allowed as a permitted use or for a use for which a conditional use permit is required and one has been approved by the City. In rare cases, there may have been a use of property that was in existence before there was any zoning ordinance in effect or there is a use w'hich was legal under the zoning ordinanre when it was first initiated, but thereafter because of a change in the zoning ordinance, such a use would no longer be legally possible. The above type uses are referred to generally as legal non conforming uses. Such uses may continue, but only subject to the provisions of the zoning code governing such non conforming uses and applicable judicial decisions and state statutes. Mike Gaffron has informed me that the earliest City ordinance he can find relevant to the use of docks on a lot without the principal building (a home in this case) was effective as of January 1, 1968, which states as follows: 31.300 Accessory Buildings. JT5I7BDM ®003 AT - —' • , 05/17/00 WED 12:05 FAX i. .'fc I- • ( f0 S3? * April 14,2000 Pages 31.310 Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 34.030 R-1 A: Accessory Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Use District, no accessory structure or use of land shall be permitted except for one or more of the following uses: 34.039. Lake Structures. Lake oriented structures for the use of the occupants of the residence. (Similar provisions may have been in existence in prior City or Township zoning ordinances; further, research needs to be completed. As will be discussed later, a dock is a lake oriented structure.) Similar provisions were found in the 1975 City zoning ordinance when it was updated at that time: 34.340. LR-IA: Accessory Uses. Within any ”LR-1A" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District and ‘private docks' subject to the Municipal Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. 31.300. Accessory Buildings . 31.310 Time of Consriuction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. The City zoning ordinance in effect today contains similar provisions as follows: Section 10.03 Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. 375nBDM @004 • 05/17/00 WED 12:05 FAX @1005 r c c April 14,2000 Page 4 A. Time of Consu .ction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Section 10.23 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-IA" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District and ‘private docks* subject to the CiQr Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Thus it is clear that since at least 1968 anv dock in this residential zoning district could only be built and/or used if it were on a lot on which a single fam'^y residence was first constructed. The only possible exception to this would be for a dock built prior to 1968 if such dock were legal at that time and if thereafter the use of that dock complied with other applicable law. Such a non conforming dock and use thereof (one built prior to 1968, assuming for now it was legally built prior to 1968) would be subject to other very important provisions of the zoning code which would limit its use ana expansion and would in some cases terminate that use after a specified period of time. The current relevant zoning provisions are set forth hereinafter. (I have not had the opportunity to examine the prior zoning ordinances back to 1968, but I believe similar provisions were in effect since at least 1968. My comments arc set forth in parenthesis.) It is the burden of the person seeking to continue to use a non conforming use or to obtain a conditional use permit for such use to show that the person or predv^cessors in title complied with the following: Section 10.03 Subd. 4. Prohibitions. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. (We believe that as of 1968 and at least as of 1971, there was only one dock at the property. If that is true, then a second non-conforming dock could not have been legally constructed. If the use of the property at any t^me after 1968 was only by one owner, then the use by multiple owners as now proposed would have been an illegal expansion.) 05/17/00 WED 12:05 FAX Ir. ^' April 14,2000 Pages Subd. 5. Non-Confonning Uses. Any land or buildings v/hich were actually and legally devoted to a non-conforming use on January 1,1975, may be continued in said non-conforming use pursuant to conditional use permit granted as hereinafter specified. A. The non-conforming use may not be changed to another non- conforming use. (As discussed above, we believe that the non-conforming use was illegally changed from at best, one dock to two docks, one owner to two owners.) C. When any lawful non-conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non-conforming use. (The applicant needs to show that at all times since at least 1967 there were two docks and the property was owned by two different owners.) E. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Toning Chapter. (The applicant needs to show that at all times since at least 1967 there were always two docks and the property was always owned by two different owners with no lapse thereof for 12 months.) F. Any lawful non-conforming use of land not involving a structure, and any lawful non-conforming use involving a structure with an assessor’s fair market value upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter of $3,000.00 or less, may be continued for a period of thirty-six (36) months after the effective date of this Zoning Chapter, whereupon such non-conforming use shall cease, unless brought into conformity with the Zoning Chapter. '^'c believe that as of 1968, there was at best one dock on the property and the cost thereof was substantially below $3,000 and that therefore the dock should have been removed by 1971. There is no exception, that is the law. If ihl' provision had been first effective in 1975 when there was a rewrite of the ordinance, then the dock should have been removed by 1978. The Minnesota courts have upheld similar amortization 37SI7BOM 0006 05/17/00 WED 12:06 FAX c i m I >? !» LJi April 14,2000 Page 6 provisions. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with this section. The State law adopted in 1999 related to amortization only applies if the amortization took place after 1999, which is not the present case.) H, Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alternations which do not extend or intensify the non-conforming use. (We believe that the addition of electricity, night light, flag pole and gravel parking violated this provision. Each has illegally intensified the non-conforming use. Similarly, we believe the second dock was an illegal intensification.) Subdivision 6. Lot of Record. C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, imdeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requ*’cments of the Zoning Chqiter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (We believe the applicant must show that at no time since 1984 has this substandard lot been owned by any one who owned the adjacent lot. Most likely, a similar code provision existed in 1968. If so, the applicant must show that at no time after January 1, 1968 has this lot been owned by any one who owned the adjacent lot.) ni. Tests for Approval of Conditional Use Permit. Even if the applicants can prove that they meet all of the above legal tests, which we doubt for the reasons stated herein and in the separate memo to you, we believe that for the same reasons that the applicants can not prove that they meet the standards for the issuance of a 37JI7BDM a., ® 007 • • 05/'1.7/00 WED 12:06 FAX 0008 r *'S . r. April 14,2000 Page? conditional use permit set forth in the City’s zoning code and attached hereto as Exhibit A. I will not repeat all of the problems related to such a use as outlined in my clients’ memo to you. W^lieye the City can not legally grant the requested conditinnal use permit. If the Elyming Commission decides to recommend approval of the conditional use permit at some PQint». then we_ask_that because of the demonstrated problems to date that the conditional use permit conditions include at least the following- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. No use of electricity. No use of night lights. No use of the dock(s) and boat(s) after 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11 ;00 p.m. on weekends. Limit of one car per dock allowed to be parked on the lot at any time. Remove the gravel parking lot. No parking next to fire hydrant No storage on the lot of trailers, etc. Limitation of one dock. No rental of slips. The boat(s) must be owned by the owners of the lot. Limitation to one boat not to exceed the length of boat used whenever the dock was legally built if one dock is allowed; two boats, not to exceed the length of boat used udienever the second dock was legally built if two docks are allowed. Demonstrated compliance of the dock(s) with the LMCD’s ordinance. Owner’s consent to the terms hereof and filing the permit in the chain of title. Permit is for one year only so that the City can determine if there has been any violation thereof or if additional conditions need to be added or if the permit should not be extended thereafter. IV. Conclusion. The action by the City related to this application will have a dramatic impact upon my clients, others in the neighborhood and the applicants. We ask that the Planning Commission not act on this application until all of the issues and questions raised by you, the staff, the applicants and by my clients and others are fully addressed and all facts relevant to the decision are proven to your satisfaction. The City’s decision will impact this neighborhood for many years. It will set a precedent for similar situations. It is better to enter this boating season with no action on the application than to prematurely act. Under State law, even if the applicants do not agree to an extension, the City has 120 days to act (if the City timely notifies the applicants). The City of Orono has had a long history of protecting its residents from illegal docks. The City has successfully litigated to the Miimesota Supreme Court against a marina in the 375(7BOM OSVl.7/00 WED 12:0$ PAX o ( I21009 April 14,2( Page 8 1970's to ensure such piOtection. The City successfully litigated a case with some similar issues to the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 1994 (a copy of the case is enclosed). I realize that the City approved conditional use permits for others nearby in 1985. That action does not set a binding precedent since the facts relating to each lot and dock are so different Also, quite fiankly, I believe those permits may not be legal for many of the reasons set forth herein. That is an issue my clients have asked me to address to the City in a future analysis once we have completed our factual investigation related thereto. Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me or my clients. My clients’ telephone numbers are as follows: Jim Zimmerman Office: 612-341-1100 Home: 612-471-0130 Richard Gay Office: 612-935-5055 Home: 612-471-1221 Dick Ogle Home: 612-471-8635 (He is in California tmtil May, but he does receive his calls at his home number.) Very truly yours. Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Enclosures Jim Zimmerman Richa* i Gay Dick Ogle J75I7BDM • 05/17/00 WED 12:06 FAX I^OIO EX'H le t-T /} r Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Granting of Permit, S 10.09 Spuea fo7^ modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the following findings! Chapter°and tht accofi «*lfh t^he°objectii!“of °the°loning loc^^Vd^rd^o^„^p^em!e*%u"n\c?^^^ *'*'-*> Sre!iV.ro\“^* ^%p ’«Jl^3ed^S^nd?t'ir:^d\t^!h'iU'!2 „“o*uld^"b! 5rpirv;»VnV/^i„%h?^v?o?nit°y! propert'ies^i! That the proposed conditional use will the applicable provisions of the Zoning 3. comply with each of Chapter. h«a nrAn»-a.v4 14^ conditional use permit may be revokable, may conlitfonc ff f-has granted subject to suchconditions as the Council may prescribe. official controls to change the status of conditional uses. shall hp fiiP/1 conditional use permit the col^tV^'r" ;o‘u‘n\i‘^! !°n“ w^Tich %r*^ity i's^lVcat'ed ^o\“r^l^or"d‘ p!opertTinoluded‘’""‘‘ description of Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-B4 rminoii Conditional Uses: Denial of Permit. The a?? Jkp shall set forth contemporaneously in writing and in detail dp^ipS* ^ conditional use permit which has been mon.Hc: resubmitted for a period of six pvidpnrvcs^^^® ^^®r Said denial, except on grounds of new pTann?« n'^ P^oof of changes of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 270 (4-1-84) • OS^-IT/OO WED 12:07 FAX ITV OF ORONO 9 6122A94616 0011 04/ii/oo n:bO Q»: 13/21 NO:^<»o r i NOTini: Mi;i>lA. COUSSEI. • :i:Jn ED tiinn nrnt; « 0TMf or MXMM0OTA XK COTmT OP APPEALS Ca-93«344S « « O Kennepln CountyDlatric’t Court File No. 91-0308 Richard Stodola, et al., Reapondenta# Crippan, Judge Jeffrey A. Carson Steven C. Hey Carson and CXelXand 305 Brookdale Corporate Center €300 Shingle Creek Parkway Minneapolis* KN SS430 vs. • • City of OroAo* Appellant Leon R. Eratad Sandra L. Jones Erstad ft Riemeri P.A. 1000 Northland Plata 3600 West 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55431 Filcdi June 21. 1994 Office of Appellate Courts « • ^nsidered and decided by Forsberg. Presiding Judge, crlppen. Judge, and Mulally. Judge, 0HPTJ8LX8KED OPINION • • CRIMEN. Judge Rypellant City ot Orono challenges the district court's detereilnatloB that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously In refusing to allow respondenta to build a shared dock. Appellant also eontsnda that the dlatrlct court exceeded its authority in ^- •Retired jadge of the diecriot court, eerying afi-j^ge of the court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI. S 2. ■ * -05/17/00 WED 12:07 FAX ITY OF ORONO @012 04/15/wv 11 ;?w ; i«t/c I nw.cnu |-«aerin9 the cUy to adopt . epeolfic ehared dock propoaal. We rAveraa• FACT0 • •* tn eepteaber reepondenta Richard stodola and Herrlt setaraon bought a lot in the City of Orono from Ewald ouatafaon for the purpoee of building a dock, but not a reeidence, on the property, olen Tillotaon owned an adjoining lot that had a houae on it. At the time of the purohaae, there waa an exiatlng dock that bad been con.trueted in 1960. The exlating dock waa believed to.be on Tillotaon'a property, but it wee later diacovered it waa Oft reepondenta* property. in a letter dated July 30, 1987, Guetafaon'a attorney wrote peterflon: Thia ie to inform you that Mr. Ouatafaon told by ^ ^ of til© ciaty of Ofono it is S^eeSary to own a homo noatby in order to place a dock neceseii^ nrooerty in Orono. We \mderetend that you Svt SiS ySS/o^ invertlgrtlon and are willing to take in convincing the city of orono to grant you a vari^e. eo be on record aa not having made any rmAranteee In regard to the uee of this property. Would Si kiSly elgn • e»py ^hia letter ao that we may have it in our fileo. Petereon signed the letter snd dated it September 24, 1987. Hcspondenta built a now dock in the spring of 1988. Shortly after’they built it, the city ■red-tagged" the dock, indicating that it was an illegal dock. The city wrote to Peterson to inform him that ths dock was illegal. C After meetinga with city offieiala, reepondenta filed a variance eppllcatlon, aeeklhg "eithorlty to conetruet boat dock on . -2- L * • 05/17/00 WED 12:07 FAI :iTT OF ORONO 6122494616 0013 04/13/00 11:50 O :15/21 NO:2A0 r a nonbulldabla lot (no primary atmeture).* The planning commiaalon denied reepondente* propoeal and che eicy council paeeed a reaolutlon citing the £ollowlng reaeona for denial: the bo6te maintained at that dock. (B) An adjacent neighbor [Tillotaonl already has a dock [tJie l'560’ dock] located on Tract P. (O) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate parking. • * * CD) Approval of the uee of an acceaeory atxjicture 6U<:h ae a dock without a principal structure would cstabliah a negative precedent in dealing with a aimilar regueets for l^a of similar size. ( *r Reependenta leter eent a memo to the city council, outlining the coiieeme the city council erpreeaed and suggesting a dif'-rent s proposal that -they thought would satisfy those concerns. Respondents proposed conveying some property to Tillotson to provide him legal access to the lake, ai>d building a single common dock to be shared by Tillotson. Peterson, and Stodola. At a dity douncil meeting, the council denied the ahared dock proposal. At a later meeting, the council adopted a resolution denying the shared dock proposal. The resolution indicated that: Council refused to accept the interpretation of the accessory use/structure ordinance as proposed by applicants based on the following findings! (A) The City has never credited a preliminary structure on an adjacent property to allow accessory uses or structures on lots that did not sustain principal residences. i \ (B) The credit of the principal residence for uccessozry uBc/structurc. serving an adjacent property will establish a negative precedent 3^ I • 05/17/00 WED 12:09 FAX CITY OF ORONO 9 6122W616 @019 04/13/00 11 ;:>0 D*‘^1/21 N0:240 ^ . . f F' y V U.1 I i L • % other peapect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning 6oda. . lA.\ gubd. 3tAHl). Ae the city correctly arguee, respondente were aware when they purchaecd the property that they might not be able to build a dock without obtaining a variance because the property had no primary structure. Respondents' plight is at least partially their own doing. In addition, in denying the variance, the city cited the conearn that it would eet a negative precedent for other pieces of property; respondents' •hardship'' was not a condition unique to their piece of property. Furthermore, the city reasonably considered the chared dock proposal to be contrary to the alms of •the Zoning' Code. As measured by the standards set forth in the Orono City Cede, the city's action in denying respondents' shared deck proposal w.is reasonable. Bacauae We determine that the city's denial of roepondente' second proposal was reaeonable, we do not reach the issue of vhatb«r the dietrlct court exceeded ito authority in ordering the city to' adopt a opectflc shared dock proposal. • •aaveeeed. June XSs 1994 • -9- 'CMMIs* mfj# m^i -. X * fmkhmm w' v,\ > .*>w T- ::>».v f .7/.•TtsT'" J i.;'^ ‘ ’ m ■v./.r*? .V' .«■•■ pB^ai ki\ - ■ rmSitkiiM Mr' mb:: fr " ''A >»<'•■ » . '•lL> '»• •m-^::Mp-: fSmu: *v ’^ ^ikv * . - f 'r, 0§ ■i ».. ‘^IV ..: - <imk ^' .-.^ l'‘ v^""' U \ ^ V- V - >•4^ ‘>r. * '4a m^m “ Y- • - • - SI % V,- . $y.L til=l ». •<^ \ V ^ • >,Kit'i ■• •' It'*”*'*'* ♦•''* ^ V *. . r- t ./> ■■ ■ siiteWf^ % « ■ ■■■'5: ■ ■ J . .''> >/ -''A' 'xVt T Ki oOl ^- X fv;-- . > < \ ^ '* i M *1 » W'A'VJ^ '“AiBn »;#i»4,'* >sf^ 'i.^ » ..N, ' Si i^*f ■■ -w' 1^^' %r.*, **-.7^* ,r>w • ■ *<{3SWI • • »• *# * A- '• *^ - r ' cv V • ..-• .• W- r- .r.m A• t* r%m/ •■•• W/i ^'^v-. . V W ? / •;• ' cCS < • ' \'V • ’ '•' i *V‘ ,wjt|S '•.•:•:••<•> dBBP ••.■••:‘.'^<;>j:'^'*..;...^•^• JbH^V *>4 .«.. ■-1 t • V H-I a.• .•* • >. ^ •* /Ji > v"^ •/•' • • -• t':v;^ . • \ •♦» • 1 • * i--IS .•^.K tv V.‘"%4. 1^1 Ife » (Z' > * A<g-lV'. ^ ^ :i^:.'' ■,* V!^ '*• •-'i. '*"> ^ r -5 '5 'Zj* ’'*T -..li < h To: From: Date: Thomas Frahm, Marina Committee Chairman Charles Xelley William Sime Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator June 17, 1985 Subject: Riparian Outlets North of Narrows Bridge List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - • Exhibit J - Agreement of 5/31/85 Combination Papers Tracts S 4 T Building Permit for Temporary Dock 6/7/8-; Soule's Letter Dated 6/25/84 Zoning Administrator's Letter Dated 6/2S/34 Casey's (Resident Ov-;,,er) Letter Dated 7/10/84 Inspection Notice Building Permit for Nev; Dock Tract S S 7 Survey/Site Plan for New Dock Registered Land Survey 415 6 411 Review of Application In the Spring of 1984, after the many years of receiving complaints concerning the intense use and reported operation of a commercial marina within Narrows Lagoon area. Council directed staff to inspect the subject area. Staff advised Council that there was indeed a potential threat to the public, health, safety and welfare in the unregulated use of these ’0 feet wide riparian tracts given the limited area of the lagoon. The original Registered Land Survey division created the . tracts to provide protected dock use areas for the homestead lots within that same Registered Land Survey. The covenants, dealing, with the use of these tracts have long expired and the tracts have been sold off to non-resident owners. Complaints range as follows: garbage and litter of land portion of tracts, theft, obuses of parking, encroachment of dock use areas by adjacent dock owners, excessive number of guest boats stored at docks, all day picnics conducted on private property by guests, rental of residential slips. The City's real concern is for the potential for the congested lagoon and the alledged commercial within the LR-lD Resdential Zoning District. Status of Review accidents within •nta 1 of slips At your June 6, 1984 meeting, the Orono Marina Committee was reassured by all resident and non-resident owners t.*.at they had accepted the directive of the City Council and agreed to execute conevants for the limited use of their riparian tracts. Based on this verbal commitment by all owners, the chairman advised staff that they could issue a building permit for a temporary dock to the current owner of Tracts S 6 T. Review Exhibit C, the building permit speci fied the agreed upon standards (non-resident owner) for the docks construction. The tracts were sold upon construction of the dock to John Thimmesh who refused to accept covenants that he claimed dis criminated against non-resident owners (see Exhibit D). The agreement of May 31, 1984, as amended at the June 6th meeting, was never exe cuted. . . ^ Ji r. ,» i?::' ■" -••••.‘•j r ■ s ; . Marina Committee June 17, 1985 Page 2 of 3 Review Exhibit A. The following amendments were agreed to by all parties with interest: A. Performance Standards for use of riparian tracts of resident owners (Tracts N s R, RLS 415) Thomas Casey and Joseph Fleischhac)cer 1. Doc)c structu:*e/doc>: use area: a) Dock length - not to exceed 55' in lenr*-h (length measured from shoreline at 929.4 elevation) b) Limit of 3 boats - boats not to encroach 20 feet wide dock use area. c) 20 feet wide riparian tracts do not qualify for the use of bucys in lagoon. B. Performance standards for use of riparian tracts by non resident owners (Tracts C,R,S, RLS 415 & Tract E, RLS 411) James Johnson (now John Thimmesh), Paul Nutt, Dean Thomas, David C. Cook. 1. Dock structure/dcck use area: a) Dock length - not tc exceed 40' in length (length measured from shoreline at 929.4 elevation) b) Limit of 1 boat over 16 feet in length - boat may not encroach defined 20 feet wide dock use area. c) 20 feet wide riparian tracts do not qualify for use of buoys in laccon. C. Performance standards for use of land tracts owned both resident and non-resident owners (Tracts L, M, P, Q, T, RLS 415 s Tracts D & B, RLS 411) 1. Executed exclusive/mutual access easements over land tracts specified above in favor of individual riparian tract owners . 2. Each land tract is to be used solely for vehicular access and/or tha parking (except for Tract B, RLS 411) of 1 motor vehicle - picnicing, etc. is not allowed (owners may wish to establish other limitations on use). D. Additional requirements of all owners: 1. Owners agree to install a keyed access gate to be placed on east lot line of Tract D, RLS 411. 2. Owners agree to legally combine their indiv'idunl land ^*’**^^® /®spective riparian tracts .••pecif ica 11 v Tracts O& R, RLS 415 and Tracts P 4 O, RLS 415 still remain to be combined. V . .. ■> . *T. . ^ *'^. -. ' •• T • •■■-•. ■. ‘ ■ ■ . '■'■'• ■"• ' ■ •r , I •-»'• •. :;:v '/• . -i.- J^'-. • -:' £' '-■' . ilV'-'•'V V' Ia-'- V_l. • %- >• • Mi Marina Committee June 17, 1985 Page 3 of 3 3. Owners hereby agree to the terms of this agreement and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors ».nd as signs, hereby agree to the recording of this agreement in the chain of title of their subject properties. In 19B5 absent the executed agreement The City must once again ask the residents to share in the solu tion of this dilema. without the necessary covenants and as the City has done before, a building permit was issued to John Thimmesh for a 48 foot length dock for apparently 2 slips. The dock has been placed as with the others with a zero side yard setback with each slip width at 9 feet. The dock does not appear to encroach the dork use area- of the adjacent users. Unfortunately without the necessary contrr.. rn use, Thimmesh (Tract S) has gone ahead and installed an electrical cable from Cook's dock (Tract E) and juried the cable underground within Tract R,0,N and K without proper authorization. I have not checked with Thimmesh but I would imagine he never received a permit from the State Inspector authorizing the installation. In fact, Thimmesh installed the dock without a building permit. There are other violations or irregulaticns within the subject 1. Gasoline tank within Tract E must be removed from lake immediatly - Cook. 2. Canvas top has been stored on Tracts Q & P for the past two years - it must be removed cr installed over dock as in past but not left on shore - Nutt. 3. Garbage continues to bo a problem on non-resident tracts. 4. Grass is not maintained on non-rosident tracts - potential violation of municipal ordinance. The Marina Committee must sec that the following is included in any agreement by the residents: X. For safe navigation of limited lagoon - controls for dock size and limit of boats stored at docks. 2. Updated registration each season with the City advising of current ownership, license numbers of boats stored at dock and insurance certificate for each boat. area: • - J -I i ? - AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 31st day of May, 1934 among James F. Johnson, Paul Nutt, Joseph F. Fleischhacker, Thomas Casey, David Cook and Richard Ogle, all of Hennepin County, -Minnesota. WHEREAS, James F. Johnson is the owner of Lo-:s S and T, and Paul Nutt is the owner of Lots 0, P, Q and R, and Joseph F. Fleischhacker is the owner of Lots N and M, and Thomos Casey is the owner of Lots K and L; All of the above said lots are part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, David Cook is the owner of Lot E, and Ric'-ard Ogle is the owner of Lots B and D in Registered Land Survey No. 411 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEPJEAS, th«» above listed Lots S, R, O, N, X and E are used for boat docks and th : owners of said lots have easement rights over the above listed Lots T, 0, P, M, L, D and B for the purposes of ingress and egress to the said lots used for boat docks. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows; 1. That each of the above parties who are owners of the six lots used for boat docks will contribute to the cost of a gate which can be kept locked; said gate to be placed at the entrance to Lot B of Registered Land Survey No. 411 and which will control the use of the easement that the parties hereto'have for ingress and egress to the beat dock lots. ..... • • • «r- AGREEMENT il*' THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 31st day of May, 1934 among James F. Johnson, Paul Nutt, Joseph F. Fleischhacker, Thomas Casey, David Cook and Richard Ogle, all of Hennepin County, -Minnesota. WHEREAS, Jamas F. Johnson is the owner of Lots S and T, and Paul Nutt is the owner of Lots 0, P, Q and R, and Joseph F. Fleischhacker is the owner of Lots K ani M, and Thomos Casey is the owner of Lots K and L; All of the above said lots are part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, David Cook is the owner of Lot E, and Ric*.-ard Ogle is the owner of Lots B and D in Registered Land Survey No. 411 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEPJIAS. th« above lisued Lots S, R, O, N, K and E are used for boat docks and th ; owners of said lots have easement rights over the above listed Lots T, Q, P, M, L, D and B for the purposes of ingress and egress to the said lots used for boat docks. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows; 1. That each of the above parties who are owners of the six lots used for boat docks will contribute to the cost of a gate which can be locked; said gate to be placed at the entrance to Lot B of Registered Land Survey No. 411 and which will control the use of the easement that the parties hereto'have for ingress and egress to the boat dock lots. . . . . . .• • • f -A.- -*' ji, F5 •* I I - R'.; 'A. •'} k’ r^-, ■^' . 1^. ' f 11 i.' tr' f! ^>;-T...: Said expense will be distributed among Messrs. Johnson, Fleischhacker, Casey and Cook so that each will bear 17 percent of the total cost and Mr. Nutt, the owner of two lots, will bear 22 percent of the total cost. 2. Each of said ouT.ers as listed in paragraph 1 above and Richard Ogle shall have a key so that each may open the gate %*hich the owners agree to keep locked. 3. Each of the owners listed in “ iT.agraph 1 above agree that he •will keep not more than three boats on each of the boat cocks he owns and said boats shall be of such size that they will not interfere with the use of the other boat lots listed above. 4. Each of the owners agree that boats docked on their respective boat lots shall be owned by said owners or members of their families and the ownership of such boats will be so registered. 5. Each of the owners agree that in using the above described Lots T, Q, P, M, L, D and B for the purposes of ingress a.nd egress they will not permit vehicles or property owned by them to interfere with others who have such easement rights. 6. Attached hereto for illustrative purposes are replicas of the Plats of Registered Land Survey No. 415 and No. 411. 7. Each party to this agreement has signed one copy of this agree ment and each signed copy can be considered an original. IN WITNESS U-HEREOF. each of the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above stated. I • t I, • Soules. McKendrick, Gurewitz, Clew Magnuson, Ltd. Attorneys at Law 808 First Bank Place West 120 South 6th Street Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 339 3100 June 25, 1984 i©iIQWfg A. Soutft JoHn c. McrC<odncH JUUrvin L. Gurtwit/ William S. Gifw Xtm N. Mtgnufon O’ Co««i*t Wm. f. Roinc«*etei. Jr. RfO’v to Minnetonka office* Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Adr.inistrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota S5323 Re: Tracts S i T, RLS 415 John Thiiranesh Dear Ms. Mabusth: I am attorney for John Thimmesh, who has purchased Tracts S 6 T, RLS 415 from James Johnson. This letter is in response to your memorandum dated June 11, 1984 regarding the property and the adjoining tracts. Mr. Thimmesh has been furnished a copy of the proposed agreement dated May 31, 1984 to be signed by the five affected property owners. He is willing to become a signatory to this agreement. On the other hand Mr. Thimmesh does not agree with the additional conditions set forth in your memorandum. In particular he objects to the discrimination that would exist between resident owners and non-resident owners, and to the restrictions that would be imposed on the length of docks and the number and size of boats. Mr. Thimmesh is willing to abide by reasonable regulations that are uniformly applied. He therefore supports the conditions contained in the May 31 agree ment, and he opposes the conditions contained in the June 11 memorandum. We await your reply. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly. WILLIAM SOULES WS/san cc: John Thimmesh « \ Mmnttonki O^fict; 207 Ridgcdilc Ct*te B*rk Buildin;. 1730 South Plymouth Rotd, Minnetonki, MN S3343 Telephone 612/S46 245S Seine Olfiee: 2101 105th Street. BU>ne. VN 55434. Telephone: 612/760 5342. VOUH VROTf CTION IB CUR PROFC88ION CAt’EYAND CASEY, INC. 7700 LOGAN AVE SO • MINNEAPOLIS MiNr4 5S423 • PHONE C66 :?9 ’ . ' I July 10, 1984 !.;m /•;. I 31934 \\o 1 CITYOFORONO Jeanne A. Mabusth City of Qrono Box 66 Crystal Bay, 55323 Re: Ttacts . T of PLS451 Ms. Mabusth, Mr. Jin Johnson was in ocnplete agrccncnt with all limitations rcgardinc the captioned lots. I believe they sliould be binding with Mr. T -jtrnesh, and his disagreements worked out with t^. Johnson. All owners did agree on all arrcndnents. i4ay we please close this as agreed. Thank you for your time and ooncem. CASUAITY • llFf • FIRI • HcALfH * MUTUAL FUND 4 • !! '1 1 > i i : •; 1 • • • • M * • - • JV-.g{Cvfev ■ ;oi": •/■ ■ .:.._.^y i u. 1 City of O iis J'*,• «SQ |J,tH M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1846 - A A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 FILl 1, sumi .<*9^ WHEREAS, Paul R. Nutt (hereinafter "the applicant") is an owner of one of the properties located at 2739 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally des cribed as Tracts Q & R, Registered Land Survey No. 415 (herein after "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 A through J to permit the continued use of the property as a legal non-conforming use and, specifically, per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) see)cs a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 4 (A) to allow an accessory structure (doclc) on a property that is unable to sustain a principal structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #941. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lalceshore Residential Zoning District. 3. On August 19, 1985 the Orono Planning Commission re viewed this application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: A) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J): "Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance..." The substandard tracts were created prior to formal municipal zoning and controls in February of 1955. B) The Orono Council minutes of 1958 and a newspaper article published in the Minnetonka Harold in that same year confirm that the City was aware of the existence and use of accessory docks by non-adjacent owners. Page 1 of 4 I i city of OR&^g -ilBl m% BEcH V . CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1846 - A tORONO ,ii C) The property# as subdivided in the mid 50's without the benefit of local controls# is a unique situation requiring special consideration. D) The limited use of these tracts as proposed by the City will not create hazards to the public safety. E) The property# because of physical constraints# cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited .dock use. 4. "a City Council has considered this application inc.l ng the findings and recommendations of the Planning Comm.-_ion# reports by staff and comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health# safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that grantin*; a conditional use permit to allow continued use of the pr^rperty as a riparian lot with an accessory dock not to be detrimental to the health# safety or general welfare of the public# would not adversely affect light# air nor pose a fire liazard or other danger to neighboring properties# nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS# ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings# the^ Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use perit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit the continued use of an accessory dock on a property that cannot sustain a principal structure thereby establishing a legal non-conforming use of the property# subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant/owner is limited to the mooring of one boat at zero lot line dock. 2. Tract Q shall be used for the parking of one car by app1icant/owner. 3. The existing dock at Tract R measures 42 feet in length and 3 feet in width. The applicant mist file a conditional use permit with the City if an increase in the length of the dock is considered at some future date. n r* r% O *= A i • • • •• • • r ( 'T '.s : ^i?P!Cr > i % j V ^ */I ‘.« ^ • ?•, {.’ rtRESOLUTION #1846 - ^*- ftf .« « i/-t .;• }i'>• *• a« ^ ^ 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 applicant has read, understood and here by agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1985. ATT! ST: allin, City Clerk Mary'C. Sutler, Mayor Tom Frahm, Acting Mayor (1) Property Owner Page 3 of 4 f ( •< V j. PiiSffeS“ I City of M r ■ ms RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1846 - A STAT^OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1985 before me a Notary Public within and for said countyr personally -PjH.tL. A} tArrrappeared 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. ” WNEPiN cou:;tv. ?, • My CommtMion Expire* •Mil. .. .T , ‘ ■. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOTARY PUBLIC J U. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1985f 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 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 kaiT'.ik.An' —i ' I aw III I I I Tl t F iMI rti r {- ( Orono/ County Road 19 No Parking Restrictions in the Narrows Bridge Vicinity We the residents in the Narrows Bridge vicinity of County Road 19 strongly urge the Orono City Council to maintain the No-Parking signage and restrictions currently in place. It is a vital issue of safety. When parking was allowed, we witnessed and experi enced a number of near miss accidents between cars as well as cars and bicyclists. The major points that support the No-Parking restrictions are as follows: 1. The widened shoulders on both sides of the Narrows Bridge were intended as deceler ation and turn lanes so residents could safely pull over and slow down to turn into drive ways and service roads. A former resident (General Rawlings) worked with the county to have the turn lanes added to the road plan. See attached pictures of turn lanes on the Tonka Bay side of Narrows Bridge. The width and space allocated on both sides of the bridge is equal. The new construction on Highway 15 in Orono also clearly provides turn lanes and No-Parking restrictions in a situation very similar to ours. 2. Turn lanes are critical because there is a very short distance on both sides of the Narrows Bridge from driveways and service roads to the bridge. Cars coming in both directions can’t see over the bridge. Also the speed limit increases from 35 on the Tonka Bay side to 40 on the Orono side, therefore, cars coming over the bridge into Orono are accelerating as they come up and over the bridge. 3. County Road 19 is also designated as a Bike Trail, meaning that adequate space needs to be provided for bikes to safely travel on the shoulder. The bike trail is heavily used with frequent large groups of cyclists and bike racers (who often travel at a relatively good rate of speed). 4. Cars parked on the shoulder of County Road 19 create a substantial risk for car acci dents and car/bicycle accidents. When cars are parked in the turn lanes t^see attached photos), residents turning into driveways must brake hard from 40 miles per hour to turn into driveways. This creates substantial potential to get rear ended from cars traveling behind. Cars also frequently pull out into the other lane of traffic to get around cars turning into driveways. There is only roughly 30 yards of visibility to the top of the bridge creating a substantial risk of head on collision from cars coming the other way, particularly since they’re accelerating because of the 40 mile per hour speed limit on the Orono side of the bridge. 5. With cars parked on the shoulder there is not adequate space for bikes to travel with out riding in the traffic lanes. Also, with cars parked on the shoulder it is difficult, if not t ' .r- — fVW^Alir' r i.impossible, to see bicycles coming when you are pulling out of the driveways. Particularly with the frequent bicycle racers that travel in groups of 5-20 or more there is a serious problem. Cars parked on the shoulder block the view of cars turning onto County Road 19 form the driveway where cyclists have to stay close to the parked cars allowing them to be seen only at the last minute requiring split second decisions. There have been numerous close calls where bicyclists have had to swerve well out into traffic lanes at the last second to avoid being hit by cars pulling out of the driveway that could n’t see them. Had there been a car in the traffic lane, it’s likely one or the other of the cars would have hit the cyclist. 6. It’s our understanding that virtually all county roads in the area are No-Parking. County Road 19 is No-Parking from Hwy 7 to the Narrows Bridge and County Road 15 is No-Parking from County Road 19 to Hwy 394. For consistency sake we believe our section of County Road should be treated exactly the same as others in the area. They’re No-Parking for safety’s sake and we have at least equal the safety needs on our stretch of County Road 19. 7. Lastly, there is no need for parking on County Road 19. There is a service road that runs in front of the boat slips along County Road 19. There is room to park one car in front of each boat slip. When the issue came up when non-residents purchased some of the boat slips, the issue was addressed at an Orono City Council Meeting. It was decid ed that non-resident slip owners would have the right to park one car on the service road. If they had guests that came in other cars they were to park in areas such as Excelsior Spring Park where public parking was available. It was decided that no cars were to be allowed to park on County Road 19. Jean Maybcth worked on this resolution for the city. We feel that the facts, common sense and the need for safety clearly support the need to maintain the current No-Parking, and we respectfully ask that the city keep the parking ban in place. I i i n • t- X m':m M ■.t • ■ * •■' •> • V •■». 7.'..; ‘>... ••» <• t i .^p©!:'‘' .A- . t ,- , » *• I- • V- ’ - ♦ ♦ . . .,. % . 'I*- *'■•>' • * • ■ "^* •* ’ ■< vv *-• '■ •: ^ A :• ■ •''t • ';^/' . ,v. -• ,• - 'V- ■" ^ ^ *» ■ ■ •- X, . V* - * **r jH'- •%■>« .:*,''< 1J.-: >• ■ ■' ; ' :-v !*42t.V «^ -fc ■ -- .x\ r*>V;^ > ■*_ ■• •' ^‘: • >a''‘ i'■■■ ■^V•4^ • ■' ' ^ :• ■. / ■ • • ‘•'O > \4'* •.♦--• . •. .• ; v\,*'5/ :• :.•lV^ ■ ■ ■’<• : . •.• V.' ■•. .;• '? r r. /' ‘vs.'*”- B ■* '•• \ •--------=^"'____ ff‘\^ ^ ^ .v«v /•• •.■->*T -.'.••ra / » V A' —~ I ■• .. ■ •1 *r.*- ;■■' • .^V;- •• --' -^.■'■^''•*u^C:-■'•' WiJcned Areas ot Road on both sides of Nanows Hrid»ee imended as deeeleraiion anil lurn lanes. Photos are ol Tonka Bay side of Narrows Bridee aT-v -j^f. 4 VV’SwiiuSAl^’>-»f i^:r ,: •> . ^.. v ; \ • k» 'M 44T :> •: ^T * w'» «-L«r ^ ' O Lmmtatl ^ • *v* P.irkiriL ’ on C'ouniy RiuJ 1^^ nuikcs i( very daneerous to safely exit aiul enter road. Pictures below were taken on 1/}\W and are typical of summer weekend parking leveU Cars are also frequently parked for 2 days or lonj^er. ■ ■v.'-'-tJi-' • -V. •; .'•i -. V ' ' ’“3? ' *v^>. VS^ r -\5 - t# #. H i. > .i-" 4 P ■t.-'TV. V • •ti-' , r /'< •S / *•.» S.’*' ’ < i •' '•, A*. ' • : • . ■A- ■" 'i* ♦>■; sti' ■ ' f'. > ** Hk /-J 'W ■•. fcr ^ -: <" 11 *>, i\V/:a * ' t-* A w »,s-;. y^mmg-y - *tr';' ■> • ,J - sK^-'x iii'A i*. V v*‘^ ^ C4ft .. V>* «. 3: : > r ■' > •• ?• : - > , f • f-■■■!■> ^ V mm m '■'., * *. r-.»'>: ^ i- S • V :•• ' * t- '5SLi •HI • .‘ v*t*-. - t^v ■ ■ • ' “1]rail • rrr Ss^ ^V - ‘ r-ms,MM I hc speed limit increases trom 35 m li^nkj ha> u> 40 in Orono Knimini: this, dri\ ers accelerate aN tlie\ come up and over the Narrows Bridee creaimL ’ a much greater risk accidents r» ¥ O In looking at the situation, we thought it made sense to look at it in five different ways: • The physical characteristics of the area in question and what is appropriate • Original intent for the dock area • The history of what's happened relative to these docks in the last 15 years since the Conditional Use Permits were granted ■ How the current use of the docks no longer conforms to the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit • Resident docks without Conditional Use permits Specifics of each are as follows: Physical Characteristics of the Dock Area ■ The area where the docks are located is very shallow, ranging in depth from 2-4 feet. • Because the area is so shallow, docks need to be 40 feet plus in length to be usable in periods when the lake is low. • There is a very narrow channel leading back to the non-resident dock area. At the narrowest it is approximately 60-70 feet from the end of the dock at 2765 ^v^dywood to the other shore. ■ Because of the shallow depth of the channel, the navigable ? ‘d at tiarrowest part of the channel leading to the docks is only approximately 20 feet wide. • In testifying before the planning commission in January, one of uw non-resident dock owners, Miegel, testified regarding the narrowness of the channel and that there wasn’t room for large boats. He stated that a 33-34 foot boat was the maximum that would be appropriate for the area. This is smaller than a number of the boats currently docked at the non-resident docks. • Due to the very shallow ’ depth and narrowness of the channel, extremely large boats are not appropriate for the non-resident dock area. In 1985, the boats docked at the non-resident docks were much smaller than those docked there today. Original Intent of Dock Area • In taking a historical look at the dock situation, it’s important to go back to the original intent and plan for the neighborhood and docks. ■ The docks w’ere established when the neighborhood w'as originally plotted. • The docks were created solely for neighborhood residents. • The covenants of the neighborhood development clearly specified that the docks were for neighborhood residents and the path behind the boats was to be used to take things to and from your boat, and not as a car park area. There was certainly no overnight parking envisioned or allowed. c o o What ’s Happened Since 1985 As the neighborhood covenants expired, a few of the neighbors who had lakefront footage and also a dock in the channel sold the channel docks to friends. • There are a total of 5 docks now o\%'ned bv non-residents. • Since 1985, there has been a gradual but steady increase in the size of boats moored at the docks, the amount of boat usage, and the number of cars and amount of traffic due to the non-resident boats. The parking and safety issues became so severe this past summer that the cit>* posted tlie County Road 19 in front of the non-resident boat docks as a no parking zone because excess car parking resulting from the non-resident docks created a major safety issue. • There has also been a substantial increase in the infrastructure of the non-resident boat docks with the addition, since 1985, of electricity', running water, a flagpole, burglar alarms, high intensity anti-crime lights, gravel car parks and other amenities. Along with the substantial increase in boat size has come a significant change in boat usage. In 1985, the non-resident dock owners were using their boats in the same manner as the neighbors, which w’as for recreational boating. In the past several years, however, as new o\vners have come in and established ow’ners have purchased larger boats, the boats have come to be used for weekend or overnight accommodation. Generally, a number of non resident boat owners stay on their boats from Friday to Sunday. This results in cars being parked for the whole w’eekend. While generally boat owners do not spend the night tied up to the dock, it is not uncommon for owners to sleep in their boats while they are tied up at the docks. There have also been a number of instances of party'ing on boats and loud music on boats late at night tha^ disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. ■ There have been a number of break-ins on the non-resident boats. One non-resident boat owner put a motion sensor burglar alarm on his boat when he went to the 1996 Summer Olympics. For the three weeks they were gone, the alarm went off many times each day at all hours. Since the dock ow'ner was not from the neighborhood we had no way to reach them and instead were awakened evety night w'hen the alarm went off. Over the past few years some of the non-resident dock owners have used their slips as rental property. In 1999, at least t\vo of the slips were rented. Current Use Compared to 1985 Resolution The Conditional Use Permits were granted for the four docks in 1985 based on the assumption that granting a Conditional Use Permit for docks would “not to be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the properU’ w-ill be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.” Given the significant changes since 1985, we feel the onditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit no longer are valid in a number of important areas as follows: “Docks would not adversely affect light" - In the past few years, a high intensity anti-crime light has been installed by one of the non-resident dock owners. In addition to the ver>’ negative message an anti-crime light communicates for a neighborhood, this bright light that burns all night is a substantial and adverse increase in light in the area. iiiai—II rail ii ra mm ■■ n ■ > ■ ■ “Nor pose a fire hazard" - In the past few years a gravel car park has been built (without permit) by one of the non-resident dock owners. This car park is immediately next to the only fire hydrant in the vicinity of the boat docks. Frequently, cars are parked for 24 hours or more directly in front of the fire hydrant. There are also frequently 4 cars in the car park preventing any easy access to the fire hydrant. This poses a significant increase in fire risk to the neighborhood. We also believe that the large boats with correspondingly large gas tanks that are left unattended pose an increased risk of fire to the neighborhood. The boats have been broken into. It’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that vandals could set fire to one of the boats, which could pose a serious fire risk to the whole neighborhood. ■ “Nor pose other danger to the neighboring properties" - The non-resident boats have been broken into a number of times. A recent article also indicated that boat crime on the lake is on the increase. The large, extremely valuable, untended non-resident boats are an obvious target for thieves and vandals. Their presence is an invitation to burglars and vandals to enter our neighborhood, where they are not likely to stop at the non-resident boats. The presence of the non-resident dock owners makes it very difficult to practice Neighborhood Watch since neighbors never know which cars belong in the neighborhood or who is supposed to be in the non-resident dock area. ■ “Proposed level of use** - The level of use has changed substantially since 1985. In 1985, the docks were used for normal recreational boating and the boats were much smaller than they are today. None of the slips were used for rental propcrt>’ as two of the slips were used in 1999. There was no electricity, water, lights, flagpoles, car parks or other amenities in 1985. The level of use is quite different than in 1985. • “Use of the property' will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the citv** - We’ve all been told that no other situation like this exists in Orono and that no docks are allowed without a structure. We’ve also been told that these properties are all non-conforming. We don ’t understand how in 1985 these docks would have met the criteria stated above but they certainly would not seem to meet these criteria today. ■ “Nor will it depreciate surrounding property values’* - We believe strongly that the current situation does depreciate our property values. There is no other place in Orono where a condominium boat marina is allowed to exist and that’s because it goes against the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The city mandates that only lots with structures are entitled to docks because this is the proper use of land to maximize property' values and proper lakefront usage. While in 1985 an argument could have been made for these non-resident docks not harming propeity’ values because the boats were much smaller and used for normal recreation, this is no longer the case. Having a condominium boat marina with large boats, break-ins, substantial car parking, rental slips, noise, lights, etc., in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood most certainly adversely affects propei ty value. Given the city’s rationale in the 1985 resolution, we believe that if the city applied those guidelines to today’s situation, the conditional use permits would not be granted for the si'ze boats, infrastructure, and current use of the non-resident slips. Resident Docks without Conditional Use Permits The two docks owned by residents without conditional use permits are Olson and Casey. Neither Olson and Casey were owners in 1985 when the conditional use permits were granted and neighbors agreed to provide access for the one car that was allowed to park for the three non-resident owners entitled to park one car. IC^ ■ ■'LLr • Access for the non-residents to park cars has always been granted by previous owners of these properties and Olson and Casey. • While no permanent easements have been put in place, we think the access issue is probably governed by the fact that it’s been done for 15 years without protest from anyone. Also, the land behind the docks is clearly a right a way to access the docks and was always set up that way. ■ Specifically as relates to Olson and Casey’s docks, they are separate tracts on the plot map but were purchased by both Casey and Olson in a single purchase agreement and transaction when they purchased their homes. The docks and homes have always been tied together, and as neighbors we would like to ensure that they continue to stay together. If these two docks are allowed to be sold off to non-residents, it will only increase the problems and potential problems we already face. Conclusions • We feel strongly that since 1985 there has been a substantial expansion of use of non- conforming properties (specifically the non-resident boat docks). • The non-resident boat owners have gone substantially beyond what was appro • ed and intended inl985. ■ We would ask that the city carefully review this situation to determine if there is any way to bring it within the current zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Since the non-resident docl^ are the only non-conforming dock properties in all Orono, at some point in the future we feel these non-resident docks will need to be eliminated. Given the continued expanded use, the current problems and the significant potential for much greater problems in the near future, w*e feel it is important to address the issue now. ■ At a minimum, we would ask that the city eliminate all of the expanded use since the Conditional Use Permit was granted and bring these properties back to where they were when the permits were granted. Specifically that would involve the following: - Only 1 car of parking per boat slip for the three boat slips whose Conditional Use Permits allow 1 car of parking. - No overnight parking. - Removal of anti-crime light. - Removal of flag pole. - Removal of gravel car park. - Elimination of parking that blocks the fire hydrant. - No partving on boats tied up to the doc.es. - No overnight accommodations on the boats tied up to the docks. - Removal of electricity to docks and running water. • Given the narrowness of the channel and the shallow depth of the area in question, we’d also like to see boat size for the non-resident slips restricted to the boat sizes that were in use in 1985, or the 33-34 foot limit stated in the January Planning Commission meeting by one of the nc~ *^sident dock owners. r' wm.r- ( o Mr. Gaffron, we would like to work with you on this issue to develop solutions that protect rights and maximize the quality of life for our neighborhood. It’s unfortunate that this situation exists and there probably is not an easy answer, but the issues need to be addressed and the sooner the better. We’ll plan to call to set up a time to meet and discuss. •i c ■R,. i March 8,2000 TO: Mike Gaffron Greg Gappa FROM: Jim Zimmerman, the Ogle ’s, the Gay ’s SUBJECT: Non-Resident Dock Issue E Following is a summary^ of our position based on the meeting at City Hall between Greg Gappa, Mike Gaffron, Richard Gay and Jim Zimmerman. Also included are comments from Dick Ogle based on a briefing of last Friday ’s meeting and his historical perspective of the issue. Dick was present for and part of the 1985 discussions and Council meeting that dealt with the 1985 conditional use permits. The conditional use permits are very clear about parking. There are 3 dock owners that are allowed only one car and it is veiy specific where the cars are to park. Dick Ogle indicates that in 1985 there was significant discussion about parking and it was agreed that parking was to be limited to one car per slip with no parking on the road. The shoulders on both sides are turn lanes for the driveways as w’ell as bike trails and have never been intended for parking for non resident boat docks or neighborhood residents. For many years the non-resident dock owners lived up to their agreements from the conditional use permits and there was no problem. They parked the one car they were entitled to in front of their dock as required and things worked out fine. It’s important to reiterate that there have never been written easements for this area and there has never been a problem. The paperwork in place today is exactly what it has been for 15 years and none of the non-resident dock owmers has ever raised an issue. I am also certain that no dock owner can ever cite a single example of being prevented access to their dock. The only reason that parking ever became an issue is that the non-resident dock owners in recent years have consistently and substantially abused the parking restrictions they agreed to. The neighborhood would have never had to come to the city with our safety' concerns about the parking along County' Road 19 if the non-resident dock owners had lived up to their agreements. Over the past few years there have been increasingly more cars parked along County Road 19, creating an enormous safety' hazard for bikers as well as neighbors that need to use those lanes to safely exit and enter from the road from driveways. This information was all documented to the city, including pictures that showed the level of car parking and the safety ha/.ard. It’s important to note that these cars w-ere there strictly as overflow for the non-resident dock owners. The cars that were parked on County’ Road 19 were in addition to at least three cars parked on the right of way where they should be parked. m nr i r n ( It’s very clear that the reason the non-resident dock owners continue to approach the city about the parking issue is that they want to find a way to park multiple cars per slip. As stated earlier, there has never been an issue with having access to the parking spaces designated in the conditional use permits. The issue has only arisen from the non-resident dock owners e.xpanding parking beyond what is authorizeo and approved. When the Cit>' Council met last Fall and discus.?ed this issue, the agreements were as follows: The safety issue of parking on Count)’ Road 19 was a significant issue and the area should continue to remain no parking. There seemed to be unanimous agreement on this point, and certainly nothing has changed since last Fall that would now make it safe to park on County Road 19. The Council asked that the neighbors and non-resident dock owners meet to discu.ss the parking issue. We did that last Fall and both groups were in agreement about how’ the 3 cars that w'ere allowed to be parked could bK’ parked. We talked about adding gravel to the roadway and asked the non-resident dock ow’ners to trim the bushes back so there would be easy access to the three parking spaces. From the neighborhood perspective it was v ’er>’ clear from that meeting that there was no problem whatsoever in accommodating the three parking spaces that were allowed by permit. We fe!t comfortable that we had done what the city had asked us to do and that the issue was put to bed. One thing that’s been clear from the discussions at the City Council as well as our discussions with the non-resident dock owners is that Meigel in particular does not want to abide by the one car restriction that was agreed to for these docks. He has indicated that he and the woman he boats with come from different directions and they need to park two cars at their dock. Because of that, they continue to push every angle and option to get around the one car restriction that’s tied by permit to their dock. This latest attempt at asking for parking permits along County Road 19 is just one more attempt to accomplish his objective of being able to park multiple cars for his boat. We’re quite confident that if permits were issued, he’d request 2 to 4 citing the fact that he has multiple cars and needs multiple permits. W’e’re also quite confident that if those permits were issued, on any given weekend, Meigel would have 1-2 cars parked along County Road 19 plus a car in front of his dock. This isn’t about making sure that he has the right to park the one car he’s entitled to, it’s about his trying to find a way to expand the parking rights he was granted in the conditional use permit that governs his dock. Summary To summarize, the key points of this issue are as follow’s: The paperwork in place today in terms of permits and easements is exactly the same as it has been for the past 15 years. • During that time there has never ocen an issue of non-resident dock ow’ners getting to and having access to the one parking spot they’re entitled to. The non-resident dock ow*. 't-i have consistently and increasingly violated the agreement on one car parking which creaJ ■ a.nificant safety and nuisance issue prompting the neighlxirhood to petition ii*e ci»y ,'or help. The city agreed with the safety issue and designated the area along County Road 19 as a no parking area. The non-resident dock owners asked the city to readdress the no parking issue, which was done at a city council meeting. The city once again agreed that there was a significant safety issue and left the no-parking restriction in place. n in M .l.'V.’ji-.. I r r , o The Council asked the neighbors and dock owners to address the parking situation, which w'e did last Fall. At that time we all agreed how the one car per slip (or total of 3 authorized) could be easily accomplished. As a neighborhood, we did what the city asked us to do and resolved the issue to everyone ’s satisfaction. At last Fall’s Council meeting, one of the Council members summed up the situation ver>- well. In addressing one of the non-resident ovNTiers, he told him that these properties were veiy unusual in Orono and were all non-conforming lots. Because they were non-conforming, they had special restrictions that had to be adhered to. He suggested that the one car condition man^ted for the boat slip was appropriate for this area and that the dock owners needed to conform to the requirements of the conditional use permits. It was suggested to the dock owner that there w'ere hundreds of properties in Orono that would allow the parking of multiple cars and if that were critical to this dock owner they should look at purchasing a home in Orono or other community that would provide for multiple car parking, but that that wouldn ’t be possible with this property. As neighbors, we agree wholeheartedly with that point of view. There are marinas and homes on the lake that would accommodate their parking needs, but we feel that the permits governing these docks were well thought out as relates to parking, and we would not support any change or amendment in parking for non-resident dock owners. Frankly, from our perspective, it’s ver>' frustrating that the City Council will be addressing this issue for yet a third time. We can’t honestly understand why there is such a strong feeling that the city needs to accommodate the non-resident dock owners. Their parking rights are clearly spelled out in their conditional use permits and they have never once been denied their right to park the one car they are allotted. As a neighborhood, we are vigorously opposed to increasing or expanding the parking for the non-resident dock owners and we would ask that the city vigorously enforce the parking restrictions set forth in the conditional use permits. Further, w'e see no need to once again address the parking issue that has already been addressed twice by the City Council. As far as we’re concerned, the issue has been resolved per the direction of the City Council. If, however, the City Council wants to address tliis issue for a third time, we’d ask that it be postponed until at least May when the Ogle’s return home. Without them, any discussion about the dock properties cannot be very productive since their propert>' is the one that controls all the others. r-na—- -mm m-----1 —n fcii ^ i in-i- fi i r i tr April 13, 2000 TO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Dick and Marlys Ogle Richard and Sue Gay Jim Zimmerman 2771 Shadywood Road 2735 Shadywood Road 2745 Shad>'Wood Road SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application for Ault and Ginther Agenda Item # 2571 E We have a number of specific concerns, issues and questions about the specific property in question. We also have a number of issues and concerns about all of the non-conforming non resident dock lots that exist in our small residential neighborhood. To understand the issues and concerns of the neighborhood residents it’s important to review the history of the non-conforming dock lots in the neighborhood. That background and history is as follow's: Origin of the Non-Conforming Dock Lots The 20-foot non-conforming boat dock lots were created specifically and exclusively for neighborhood residents. Each non-conforming dock lot was tied to a specific neighborhood lot. The purpose of the non-conforming dock lots was to proride docks to neighborhood homeowners not on the lake, as well as to provide permanent docks to some of the homeowners on Carman’s Bay so that they would not need to put temporary docks on Carman’s Bay. Non-Resident OvNTiership When the covenants of the neighborhood expired, a few* of the residents sold off the non- conforming dock lots to non-residents. ■ Over the years, a number of the non-conforming docks have been resold to other non residents. Earlier city documents detail that there w’as an agreement that when docks were sold there was a requirement that a 10-day written notice be prorided to residents of the immediate area. This agreement was so residents in the neighborhood would have the opportunity to purchase the non-conforming dock lots from the non-residents and return them to the neighborhood use for which they were intended. There is no record of any non-resident owner that sold their dock providing the agreed to 10 day written notice when they sold their docks to other non-residents. 'iMiiai iir m r r "N. o Dock Location and Numbers We are working with the city and the LMCD using aerial photographs to determine exactly what docks and structure was associated with each non-conforming lot at specific points in time. We expect to have that research completed in the next 2 to 3 weeks. What was involved with each property* is critical to understanding the issue of prior use for each property. A Long History of Problems with Non-Resident Dock Owners In doing background history on the non-conforming dock properties we discovered that there is a long history of recorded problems v\ith these properties. The attached Orono city memo from 1984 states that there have been many years of complaints about the non resident docks. The city cites the many years of complaints focused on theft, garbage and litter, abuses of parking, excessive number of guest boats, all day picnics and ^at slip rental. City staff also stated that the area had been complained about as being a commercial marina. Because of all the stated problems and complaints, in 1984 the city asked residents and non residents to agree on covenants to address this issue. The City Council stated that they would approve a building permit for a non-resident owner (Thimesh) if covenants were developed and agreed to. Based on the verbal commitment of ajj the owners, approval was given to Thimesh to install his dock. Once his dock was in, he had his lawyer send a letter to the city refusing to sign the covenants Thimesh had agreed to in order to get his dock. Because of this, the covenants were never signed and the problems stated in 1984 have continued and accelerated. Despite acknowledging the serious complaints and problems and the city’s conclusion that “There was indeed a potential threat to the public health, safety and welfare" posed by the 20 foot non-conforming lots, conditional use permits were granted to 4 of the non-resident dock owners in 1985. As a neighborhood, we have documented numerous issues, concerns and complaints about the non-resident dock owners as detailed in the attached past correspondence. Intensifying and Significantly Expanded Use of Non-Conforming Dock Lx)ts ■ Since 1985 there has been a consistent and extensive increase in use that we feel the city needs to address. • In 1985 the non-resident dock slips were used in the same manner as residents, which was for daytime recreational use. Boats were in the size range of 18-30 feet consistent with other boats in the neighborhood and appropriate for the veiy* shallow and narrow lagoon where the docks are located. In the late 1980’s or 1990, electricity was added by the non-resident dock owners which fundamentally changed the nature and usage of the boat docks. This addition more than any other has led to a significant intensification of use. The addition of electricity has changed the docks from appropriate only for daytime recreation use to making them habitable docks. Large boats that can be used essentially to live on require shore power, which was not available at the non-resident docks in 1985 when the conditional use permits were granted. " With the addition of electricity, boat size has increased substantially, and usage has changed. Usage of the non-resident boat docks has gone from daytime weekend use to boats being used by many non-resident dock owners as weekend homes. A number of owners frequently spend 2 or 3 nights per week on their boats, sometimes tied up at their dock. . 1 1 m [ 3 The addition of electricity has also allowed the addition of a high intensity- anti-crime light that bums all night. This light disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and also because ^ere is bright light, it facilitates and encourages late night boating. When there was no electricity and lights, non-resident dock oumers generally brought their boats in at the end of the day when there was still daylight to unload their boat. With the light in place they now frequently bring their boats in at midnight and later. The engine noise from the large boats and the talking and music is disturbing to the neighborhood given the veiy narrow- channel the boats must go through to get to their docks. As detailed in 1984, abuse of parking privileges has been a serious and perpetual problem. The agreements and the conditional use permits call for each dock owner to have the right to park one car per slip in front of their dock on their property. Since Cook (one of the non resident dock owners) has essentially no lake shore, his conditional use permit does not grant him the right to park a car and states that he must arrange for parking in some other location. In return for agreeing to give Dick Ogle the right to purchase his dock lot when he is done using it, Dick Ogle agreed to let Cook park on his property-. Non-resident owners consistently and routinely have violated their parking agreements, frequently parking two or more cars per boat slip. Overflow parking has wound up on County Road 19. This created serious safety problems both for bicyclists and walkers that use County Road 19 as a designated county bike path and for residents that need to use the areas that were designed to provide safe deceleration lanes to exit County- Road 19. There w-ere a number of near miss accidents with bicyclists and residents turning off County Road 19 using the deceleration lane that were due to non-resident dock ow-ners parking cars along County Road 19. As a result of this dangerous situation, neighborhood residents, in 1999, petitioned the city to place no parking signs on County Road 19. The city- and county agreed with the safety risks and put up the no parking signs. Because the non-resident dock owners could no longer park the multiple cars p>ei- dock in violation of their parking restrictions, they petitioned the city, in late 1999, to park along County Road 19. The City- Council addressed the issue for a second time and once again concluded there was a serious safety issue that necessitated the no parking restrictions. Once again, in March 2000, the non-resident dock ow-ners have petitioned the city to grant excess parking along County Road 19 and for the third time in less than a year the City- Council will address the parking issue at the May 2000 City Council meeting. As neighbors we are very- frustrated that the non-resident dock owners will not live up to the one car restriction they agreed to and that the city seems unwilling to tell the non-resident dock ow-ners that they must comply with the one car per dock agreement they made. Rental of Boat Slips It’s clear from the 1984 Orono City memo that dock rental by non-resident owners has been a problem for many years. The memo states neighbors referred to the non-resident dock area as a marina because of the dock rentals. For the last few- years there has always been at least one dock and frequently two of the non resident docks that have been rented to non-residents of the area. We have made the city aw-are of tlic rental situation. Renters create substantial problems since the neighbors have no idea who should be in the area. Renters also don’t know the rules, regulations and restrictions that affect the non- conforming dock area and therefore frequently violate the rules and restrictions creating noise, parking and other problems. 1 'e ■ We have been told by the city and the LMCD that rental of these boat docks is absolutely not allowed. • Despite knowing about the rental problem in 1984 and our reiterating the rental situation in 1999 and again this year, to our knowledge the city has never taken any action to restrict dock rental by non-resident dock owners. • We want the city to vigorously enforce the no rental restrictions beginning with the 2000 boating season. Docks Have Moved From Intended 198.S Daviime Recreational Use to Becoming Habitable Docks and EssentialtV Weekend Homes ‘il- Hi o • With the addition of electricity, the non-resident docks have v'eiy ’ large boats that are essentially used as weekend homes by many of the non-resident dock owners. • Shore power Enow's them to have the t>"pe of boats that can be used essentially as weekend homes and that ’s increasingly how the boats are used. ■ The larger more valuable boats allowed by shore pow’cr are also attractive targets for crime and tiiere have been numerous break-ins on the non-resident boats. Theft and crime were also referenced in the 1984 city memo. ■ Because of the crime attracted to our neighborhood by the large, expensive non-resident boats, they have installed a high intensity anti-crime light. • One of the boats, R Tonka Toy (owned by Ginther), in the past installed a motion activated burglar alarm. The alarm malfunctioned, causing it to go off at all hours of the day and night, completely disrupting the neighborhood. Since Ginther did not live in the neighborhood and we had no w'ay to contact him, the neighborhood was disrupted for weeks until he returned from vacation and turned off his alarm system. • There have been a number of instances of trees being diseased and d>'ing or trees coming dow’n by storm in the non-resident dock lots. Since their entire dock is in the 0-75 foot range, it is our understanding that legally these trees need to be replaced. None of the trees that were taken down or came down have ever been replaced. ■ In 1999, a flagp>ole was added to one of the non-conforming dock prop>erties. We’d like the flagpole removed since this clearly was not there in 1985 and is an expansion. One flagpole mav lead to others.• ■ Essentially, the addition of electricity has resulted in the non-resident dock owners being able to use their 35 plus foot boats as weekend homes on Lake Minnetonka while paying $200-$300 per year in property taxes for the privilege of having a “second home” on the lake. SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATING TO GINTHER AND AULT We feel the above information relating to the non-conforming dock lots and the long history of problems and issues is essential in looking at the specific issues related to Ginther and Ault. Our specific issues relative to this lot and the conditional use permit they’re seeking are as follows: ■ Two Boat Docks on One Non-Conforming Lot - It is our understanding that only one dock is allowed per non-conforming lot. If this is the ordinance in Orono, we would ask that a condition of the permit be that one of the two docks on this property be removed. ■ Boat Slip Rental - For many years, we understand Ault has rented his boat slip. We want the city to enforce a strict no rental policy’ on this dock property and actively and aggressively enforce this policy. r €) Prior Use - We understand that 1968 is the date that governs prior use. We have reviewed 1971 Heard aerial photographs that show there is one boat shed or boathouse on this non conforming lot. That further supports that there should be no more than one dock on this property. Hard Cover Driveway - There is a hard cover grave', driveway within the 0-75 foot setback. We understand that city codes do i ot allow this and that no permits were ever requested or granted for the driveway. In 1999, the driveway was expanded from accommodating 2 to be able to accommodate 4 cars. We would ask that as part of any conditional use permit that the gravel driveway be removed. Blocking of Fire Hydrant - The non-permitted driveway that Ginther and Ault have put in is immediately adjacent to the only fire hydrant in thx, immediate area. Frequently, four cars are parked on the gravel driveway making easy and quick access to the fire hvdrant virtually impossible. Within the last 24 months, there have been 2 home fires in our immediate neighborhood where the fire trucks used this fire hydrant. Thankfully, it was at a time when cars were not parked immediately next to the fire hydrant, which allowed the fire department to get to the fire hydrant. We would ask that, as part of any conditional use permit, parking not block the fire hydrant. Burglar Alarms - As referenced earlier, Ginther’s burglar alarm created major disruption to the neighborhood in the past. We would ask that burglar alarms not be allowed at this property. Parking for Only One Car per Dock - Consistent v\ith the other conditional use permits for the other non-conforming docks, we would ask that only one car be allowed to park for each dock. Since we believe there should be only one dock at this property', we would request that only one car be allowc ) to park at any given time on this property’ and that that parking be in a spot that didn’t limit access to the fire hydrant and didn’t violate hard cover restrictions. Removal of Electricity - Per the previous discussion on the non-conforming dock lots, we’d request that electricity be removed from this property. Noise Guidelines - Since this property' is at the end of a vciy narrow lagoon area, we’d request strict noise guidelines be incorporated into any conditional use permit granted for this property. We’d also ask that boats not come or go from these docks after 10:00 p.m. on weeknights and 11:00 p.m. on weekends so as not to wake up the neighbors and disturb the neighborhood. We would respectfully ask that until all of the above issues can be satisfactorily discussed and resolved that no action be taken on applicant’s request for a conditional use permit. Both Richard Gay and Jim Zimmerman plan to appear at the Planning Commission meeting. Dick Ogle vv-ill be out of town and thus unable to testify in person. We hope the above information provides some helpful background on what we see as a very serious and expanding problem. We respectfully ask for the city ’s help in resolving the many issues surrounding the non-conforming dock lots. J m May 10,2000 TO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Jim Zimmerman 2745 Shad>’\vood Road Dick and Marlys Ogle 2771 Shadywood Road Richard and Sue Gay 2735 Shadywood Road SUBJECT: Ginther and Ault Conditional Use Permit cc: Bruce Malkerson E r i We had provided background information on this agenda item for the April Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting both Richard Gay and Jim Zimmerman testified briefly. We also provided the legal opinion of our attorney, Bruce Malkerson, who was the city attorney in Orono when the ordinances were written for non-conforming lots, which the Ginther/Ault property is. At the April meeting, the request by Ginther and Ault for a Conditional Use Permit was tabled since neither of the applicants showed up at the meeting. In the intervening period w'e have continued to research the issue and have gathered additional data relevant to this non- conforming property. Outstanding issues at the time of our April memo on histoiy^ of the lot w ere as follows: • What was present on the property w'hen the 1968 ordinances on non-conforming lots went into effect’ • What was the ownership history of the lot and was there one or two ovMiers of the lot in 1968? ■ When was electricity introduced to the non-conforming non-resident dock area? To address the above, we have researched the land title issue through Henm .^in County and have obtained certified aerial photographs of the dock area. The certified aerial photograph from 1971 clearly shows there was only one dock on thi.*; property at least prior to 1971. Therefore, the two docks currently on this property' is a substantial expansion of use since the 1968 ordinance took effect. Up until 1982 the lot was owned by one individual who we believe was the developer of the Pheasant Lawn subdivision. In 1982, the property was sold to two neighborhood residents (Hoffman at 2675 Pheasant Road and Messer at 2673 Pheasant Road). In 1990, Ginther purchased the half share owned by the Messer’s and in 1991 Ault purchased the Hoffman share. Since there was only one owner in 1968, splitting the property into two owners was an expansion of use of a non-conforming property. Certified aerial photos from 1989 clearly show there was no electricity at the non-resident dock area. Electricity was added after the purchase by Ginther, which was a significant increase in use. This increase in use dramatically changed how the non-resident docks were used, going from daylight recreational use to making the docks habitable. With electricity, the si^e of boats F r ( has increased substantially and the non-resident boats are now used for overnight and weekend habitation. Based on the current information that we have gathered and the Orono ordinances governing non-conforming property, we would ask that the Planning Commission take the following actions with respect to the Ginther/Ault propcrcy: Return the property to w'hat existed at the time of the 1968 ordinance governing non- conforming property. Specifically that \vould mean: - Eliminate one dock and go back to the one dock and one boat that existed at the property* in 1968. - Return the property to single ovMiership as e,xisted in 1968. - Eliminate the electricity that was not there prior to 1990. Per our last memo for the April meeting, we’d also like to request the following for these properties: No Boat Slip Rental - Ault has rented his slip for a number of years and we understand that this is not legal. Blocking of Fire Hydrant - There is currently a 4-car gravel car park that is immediately adjacent to and blocking access to the only fire hydrant in the immediate area. No permit was ever obtained to put in this driveway and we believe it is not legal to block a fire hydrant. Burglar Alarms - Ginther has had a burglar alarm that in the jiast has malfunctioned, going off at all hours of the day and night, disturbing the peace and sleep in the neighborhood. We would ask that burglar alarms be eliminated. Parking for Only One Car Per Dock - The other non-resident non-conforming lots are allowed one car per slip for parking. We would ask that those agreements tie in to this non- conforniing non-resident property as well. N( ’se and Hour Restrictions - Since prior to 1968 these docks were used for daylight boating and because this is a very private and narrow channel area, we’d request that boats not come and go from these doclb after 10:00 p.m. on weeknights and 11:00 p.m. on weekends. We believe the above requests are consistent with the ordinances identified and summarized by Bruce Malkerson in his legal opinion included in our April submission. We plan to be at the meeting on Monday, May 15 to discuss this issue. We appreciate th*' opportunity to present this new additional information and respectfully ask for the Plam.mg Commission’s help in resoKing the issues identified above. |t r j »MCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 2 2 2000 DATE: 5y,*^00OWo ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment #1, 2000 Lift Stations Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment , 2000 Lift Stations Project to Ford Construction Inc. > in the amount of $26,489.90 I 4 - - —— - ‘ "' Agr I -1 - - .■ 05/15/00 14:20 0 :02/04 Nb:204 c)i4IT3aM :»• ii: <- f •f! l/jlsonestroo fi^Roscne HAndertik& |\j| Atsoclates Cngincffi 4 Arcftftfcti Owner City of Orono, 2750 Kelly Parkway, Orono, MN 55232 Date: May 15. 2000 For Period:Start to May 12.2000 Request No;1 Contractor:Ford Construction Co. Inc., PO Box 667, Excelsior, MN 55331-0667 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FERNDALE LIFT STATIONS AND HWY BRA FILE NO. 139-99-107 ir !!, ii‘ ■^il: SUMMARY 1 2 5; r ' 3 4 5 S 7 B 9 10 11 m1 lii Original Contract Amount Change Order - Addition Change Order - Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Ratainage 5% Subtotal Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. $ $ $ 305.886.00 s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ *.i 305.886.00 :■ I.: 27.864.10 ; ■III 0.00 27.884.10 i I,: 1.394.21 26,489.90 :i 0.00';‘: •I-' :ii Recommended for Approval by; BONE8TROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK ft ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 i!' Ih I'i Approved by Contractor: FORD CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. Approved by Owner; CITY OF ORONO i‘. •^1 •'I r- t." Specified Contract Completion Date: October 3i , 2000 Oete:.**' •r nouiiti i;'••e I; k k < i s 05/15/00 14:20 0 :03/04 N0:204 No. Item Part 1 • Hwy 12 Ratalf Lift Station 1 Highway 12 relief lift staion 2 Valve manhole, including meter 3 Plow control manhole, including weir plate 4 8* DIP sanitary sewer 5 8" PVC sanitary sewer 8 4* DIP torcemain 7 4” DIP bends 8 12" X 4" wet tap w/valve 9 Cut In 12" X 4" tee w/valve 10 Seed w/topsoll 11 Seed w/topsoil rtqvitfi \ Total Part 1 • Highway 12 Relief Lift Station:$8,620.00 Part 2 • West Ferndale Lift Stations 13 Lift Station No. 2 rehabilitation Incl. gravity manhole LS 1 $121,641.00 10%$12,164.10 14 Lilt Station No. 3 rehabilitation LS 1 $23,000.00 10%$2,300.00 15 LIP Station No. 4 rehabilitation LS 1 $23,000.00 10%$2,300.00 16 Lift Station No. 5 rehabilitation LS 1 $25,000.00 10%$2,500.00 17 Gravity sowar MH LS 1 $1,000.00 $0.00 18 Connect to existing 2" PE FM EA 7 $500.00 $0.00 19 2"HDPEFM LF 100 $10.00 $0.00 20 Core drill and install 2* FM into existing MH 432 LS 1 $850.00 $0.00 21 4* or 6" PVC service pipe LF 60 $30.00 $0.00 22 Granular borrow TN 100 $9.00 $0.00 23 Class 5 aggregate base TN 75 $14.00 $0.00 24 Class 5 aggregate base. 100% crushed llmerock TN 15 $14.00 $0.00 2S Bituminous base TN 30 $90.00 $0.00 20 Bituminous wear TN 30 $95.00 $0.00 27 Seed w/topsoil SY 200 $2.50 $0.00 28 SodwAopsoll SY 300 $2.50 $0.00 29 Furnish and Install Evergreen Tree (blue spruce and arborvitae) 6' high Total Part 2 • West Ferndale Lift Stations: Total Part 1 • Highway 12 Relief Lift Station: Total Part 2 • West Ferndale Lift Stations: Total Work Completed To Data EA 12 $200.00 $0.00 $19,264.10 $8,620.00 $19,264.10 $27,884.10 ir. Contract UnH Quantity Amount !» I* Unit Quantity Price to Data to Data LS 1 $7-. 000.00 10%$7,400.00 •« »• LS 1 $6,200.00 10%$820.00 1- LS 1 $4,000.00 10%$400.00 LS 1 $600.00 $0 00 a . i. LF 10 $45.00 $0.00 •t f ‘F 55 $23.00 $0.00 • •. t.‘»*! EA 4 $80.00 $0.00 • 1 t t' LS 1 $1,500.00 $0.00 •i V LS 1 $2,200.00 $0.00 . V . *.• SY 100 $2.50 $0.00 X I’* SY 200 $2.50 $0.00 l«. TN 30 $15.00 $0.00 I'! I’l Ii« • I* »• t* *11 • f •? ?; ••e •‘Iiii I •ft* I': ii 1*9 lit •t* ?» MI I ii. I ► . 05/15/00 14:20 0 :04/04 ND:204 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF ORONO BRA FILE NO. 139-99-107 CONTRACTOR FORD CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. CHANGE ORDERS Total Chtnga Ordart PAYMENT SUMMARY From Payment Ratalnaoa Complatad 1 Start OS/1 2/00 26.489.90 1.394.21 27.884.10 Matarial on Hand Total Payment to Data $20,489.90 Original Contract $305,886.00 Ratalnaoa Pay No. 1 1.394.21 Change Orders Total Amount Earned $27,884.11 Raviaad Contract $305,886.00 rGQuGft i t •j • I.: ». ». »• t.;•* I ■ ■'■l!l! ;i! hi ••ii! !■; « •i.!• r.: •I I' r; I: I.. !‘* a ■■’i- •j •;* f «: I:: !:: S.1 I.. li* !•! i;* :S1!it itfflrini tfimi r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION thtni MEETING MAY 2 2 2000 CITY OF O huno DATE: May 22, 2i ITEM NO.: ilili Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Navarre Parking Lot Lighting Improvements Exiting Conditions Last fall at a Council work session, the Council directed staff to investigate the installation ot new lights and repaving of the Navarre Municipal Parking Lot. The existing lights in the parking lot date from the 1960's. They are 400 watt cobra head style Mercury Vapor lights on 30 foot poles. There have been concerns expressed that the existing cobra head fixtures are not aesthetically pleasing. New Mercury Vapor lights have not been installed for many years because they are inefficient for lighting purposes, and the mercury is an environmental problem. As Mercury Vapor fixtures age, the amount of light produced deteriorates. It does that not appear that the existing fixtures are producing adequate light as the parking lot is not very well lit. Also, the northwest comer of the lot is dark because there are no light fixtures in this area. Two additional light fixtures should be added, in this area, to better light the northwest corner of the parking lot. Several of the existing concrete bases are also in poor shape from freeze /thaw damage and being hit by vehicles. Another problem is that the wiring for these lights is direct buried cable, so any wire repair requires digging up the parking lot. It would not be pmdent to repave the parking lot with the old direct buried wiring left in place, as any future wire repairs would necessitate digging up the new pavement. If parking lot lighting improvements are envisioned, this work should definitely be completed before the parking lot is repaved. The exis i.ig parking lot lights are owned by the City and are maintained by NSP under a flat monthly fee per light. This monthly charge includes both the electricity and maintenance of the lights. The niajority of Orono’s street lights are owned and maintained by NSP under a flat monthly fee. There aie a few lights, generally in the Navarre area, that are owed by the City but maintained by NSP. All of our street lights are maintained by NSP, the only lights we maintain are the traffic signal bulbs at the TH12/ Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive intersections. Proposed Improvements We have contacted NSP Outdoor Lighting and two electrical contractors for quotations for the installation of new lights in the parking lot. There are seven existing 400 watt mercury vapor lights on 30 foot poles. Nine new lights are being proposed. The seven lights will be replaced in the same location, with two new lights added in the northwest corner of the parking lot. The w • addition of two more lights should greatly improve the lighting in this comer of the parking lot. ^ ‘ Currently this area of the lot is poorly lit. The replacement pole, behind the building adjacent to the hardware store, will have an additional fixture directed to light the parking lot behind the building. This area is not very well lit now. The new lights will be 250 watt High Pressure Sodium lights in rectilinear fixtures, with 4 foot mast arms, on 30 feet high aluminum poles, with concrete bases. Bonestroo Engineers has completed a lighting study for this project. The Institute for Electric Standards (lES) Handbook recommends a lighting level between 0.5 and 1.0-foot-candles for parking lot lighting. The proposed lighting design will provide for an average illumination of 0.8- foot-candles which is within the recommended standards for parking lot lighting. Rectilinear fixtures were selected because they are more aesthetically pleasing than the existing cobra head fixtures and produce enough light to cover the parking lot. The use of the more decorative lantern style fixtures, on shorter poles, was investigated. These fixtures are not as efficient and will not provide adequate light in the middle of the parking lot because of the lot width. The new wiring will be within 1.5" diameter conduits to met NEC standards. This will allow for future repair of the wiring without disturbing the parking lot. Below is a listing of the quotations received. NSP Outdoor Lighting, Minneapolis MN Metro Electric Construction Co., Minneapolis MN Herb Kohn Electric Co., Minneapolis MN $32,460 $34,506 $37,810 We are recommending accepting the quotation from NSP Outdoor Lighting. The Minnesota State Statues were changed this legislative session to raise the threshold for advertising for sealed bids with plans and specifications from $25,000 to $50,000. These new lights will be owned by the City and be maintained by NSP under a flat monthly fee per light. This monthly charge includes both the electricity and maintenance of the lights and is the same as the existing conditions. If the Council decides to complete this pksoject, we are reconunending funding these parking lot lighting improvements from the "Undesignated Component" of the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund. The estimated year 2000 balance in the Undesignated Component of the PIR fund is $217,015. This balance has been increasing each year as the 1998 year end balance was $136,785. COliNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Discus/ Approve motion to accept quotation for Navarre Municipal Parking Lot Lighting Improvements from NSP Outdoor Lighting in the amount of $32,460. Discuss/ Approve motion to complete the appropriate budget adjustments to fund the Navarre Parking Lot Lighting Improvements from the Undesignated Component of the PIR Fund. WS\ LlgfAT , X 96t .2 [ Ui t -i 1 - - i RV;<KlG Lor NSP Outdoor Lighting is Luminaires - Classic f ‘..V/:.. I i Shmbox *’4 , Shoebox Deep .... V *» • % • Shoebox - Step to Precision - The Shoebox moves you in the right direction using predsion illumination giving a pleasing look and feel for any outdoor setting.Vs ^ . . Hatbox Hatbox - Unique Impression The Hatbox compliments any environment with a unique touch and clarity that provides performance lighting and gives your community the right impression. Rectilinear Rectilinear - Straight to the Light ______^ The Rectilinear has a straight forward approach to providin^optimum light lev^*^nd a clear crisp bok to your communify. I Cobrahead Cobrahead - Customary Concept The Cobrahead is appredated for function and form that contributes to the safety and security of well-lit streets that is customary for your residents and business patrons. __£. Cobrahead Cutoff Cobrahead Cutoff - Quality Statement The Cobrahead Cutoff provides illumination that will send a quality statement to any environment by redudng glare and improving lighting levels. I J \ ' i Custom Option;^ Improve the safety ^nd security of your community with a custom design using dc<‘orative or classic products that proviue the proper lighting levels and deliver a comfortable illumination. Whether you want nostalgic, traditional, classic or standard we can help create that certain look and feel for all your residential and comrr.ordal areas. . • • 4U Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 • www.nspco.com • 1-800-960-623S O OlM9 Suits Power Company i:. IP t ■■ COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 2 ?000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl IV Ur OhOIVO DATE: May 22, 2000 ITEM NO.: // Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Purchase of Golf Course Green’s Mowers The 2000 Golf Course Capital Outlay Budget included $8,000 for the purchase of a new green’s mower. We iiave located two slightly used Toro green’s mowers available for $3850 each plus sales tax. These mowers have only 50 operating hours on them. A large area golf course purchased eight of these mowers last year and decided they only needed six mowers, so two of the mowers were remmed. We have tested these mowers, and they work well. Two older greens’ mowers are available for trade in. The $3,850 price does not include a trade in allowance. The value of the two trade in mowers is not known at this time, so the actual cost of the used mowers will be less. We are recommending purchase of these used greens mowers. With tax the total maximum cost is $8,200 which is over the $8,00 budget, so a budget adjustment needs to be completed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Purchase of two Toro GRIOO Greens mowers from MTI Distributing, Plymouth Minnesota for a maximum cost of $8,200 with the appropriate budget adjustment for the 2000 Golf Course Capital Outlay Budget ^.................. ■•3 [f- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '^°OWcii, MEETING MAY 2 2 2001) DATE: May ITEM NO: / 3- Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Scheduling of a Joint Meeting/Public Information Meeting with the Long Lake City Council The Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Committee has completed its work and would like to present its report and recommendations at a joint meeting of the Long Lake and Orono City Councils. The Committee has suggested this meeting be held as a public information meeting; and that the public be encouraged to attend the meeting to hear the Committee ’s report and recommendations, and to provide comments regarding the report and recommendations. The Committee has suggested the meeting be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5 at the Orono High School Cafeteria. The June 5 meeting date would enable both city councils to take action in early to mid-June regarding moving ahead with the next steps in the consolidation approval process. The next steps are as follows: 1. 2. The two city councils decide whether to approve the plan for consolidation. The plan for consolidation is submitted to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, a state agency, for its review and approval. (If the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation approves the plan for consolidation prior to July 1, 2000, the Cities would be eligible fur up to S577,000 in grant assistance beginning in the year 2001.) 3. 4. A referendum is held at the September 12,2000 state primary election. A consolidation becomes effective only if a majority in each city votes in favor. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to schedule a joint meeting/public information meeting with the Long Lake City Council at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5,2000 at the Orono High School Cafeteria. iiHHirriiii%'iii III I ai fT" !|-r tr ] \ \ pVn A 0^ f V» /T XL To: Parks, Open Space and^rail Commission Mejnbers From: Greg Gappa id Trail Co Subject: Reschedule Park Tour for July S* Meeting The Park Tour needs to be rescheduled for the Wednesday, July S'*" Park Commission meeting. This meeting is scheduled for Wednesday because of the July 4* holiday long weekend. Also, the June 5* Park Commission meeting is being canceled because of the joint Orono/ Long Lake Council public meeting to discuss consolidation. This meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, June 5*^ at the Orono High School Cafeteria. The Park Conunission members are encouraged to attend this meeting. The Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Study Committee has completed its work and would like to present its report and recommendations at a joint meeting of the Long Lake and Orono City Councils. The Committee has suggested this meeting be held as a public information meeting; and that the public be encouraged to attend the meeting to hear the Committee ’s report and recommendations, and to provide comments regarding the report and recommendations. The Committee has suggested Ae meeting be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5 at the Orono High School Cafeteria. The June 5 meeting date would enable both city councils to take action in early to mid-June regarding moving ahead with the next steps hi the consolidation approval process. The next steps are as follows: 1. 2. The two city councils decide whether to approve the plan for consolidation. The plan for consolidation is submitted to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, a state agency, for its review and approval. (If the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation approves the plan for consolidation prior to July 1,2000, the Cities would be eligible for up to S577,000 in grant assistance beginning in the year 2001.) 3. 4. A referendum is held at the September 12,2000 state primary election. A consolidation becomes effective only if a majority in each city votes in favor. J ■ r, r-:‘ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 2 2000 DATE:MayJf,2J)00^^^^ ITEM NO:/3 Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department Invoice The Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department Year 2000 Capital Improvement Plan includes the refurbishment and repainting of Engine No. 11 at a cost of $ 18,000. This work has been completed at a total cost of $18,676. The City ’s share of this cost is $13,301.14 as reflected in the attached invoice. This invoice will be paid from the Long Lake Fire Equipment account of the City ’s Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize payment of the invoice for the refurbishment and repainting of Engine No. 11 of the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of $13,301.14, and to amend the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund budget to reflect this expenditure. V..' i X CITYOF LONG LAKE ■I L..l\‘ 1964 PARK AVENUE P.O. BOX 606 LONG LAKE. MN 55356 DATE: May 8,2000 Invoice: 50800 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 I .... J tx V.- J L Make all checks payable to: CITY OF LONG LAKE r If you have questions concerning this invoice, call Joan @ 473-o85l j.*! v; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 22, 20*BY 2 2 2000 ITEM NO.: /y»TY Of OHONO Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Adoiinistrator's Report Item Description: Seasonal Employees for Golf Course The Council previously approved a list of Golf Course seasonal employees for the 2000 season. There were several open positions on this list. Two of these positions have been filled and previously approved by Council. Another position has been filled and Council approval is required to hire the proposed candidate. The Golf Course seasonal employees are hired under two different provisions of the PERA rules. The main employees, who work the most hours, are hired under the 6-month '’tie which allows unlimited earnings for a 6-month maximum time period. The remainder of the employees work fewer hours are hired under the PERA maximum earnings provision which limits earnings to $425 per month without any restrictions on the number of months worked. REVISED LIST OF PROPOSED SEASONAL GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEES Emplovee 2000 Hourlv Waee F Bill McIntyre (6 month employee)$7.45 Jack Peterson (6 month employee)$7.45 Open Position (6 month employee)$6.80 DanOas $7.65 John Ross $7.45 Jan Blair $7.45 Vicki Raiche $6.87 Fred Abrahamson $6.87 Adam Noble $6.80 Gary Peickerct Open Position Lowell Swenson Returning Employee $6.80 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the revised employee list, including the new employee, Lowell Swanson, at the proposed wage rate and under the applicable provisions of the PERA rules. r • t! ‘ m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 2 2000 DATE; May ^QflOurtONO // ITEM NO: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse A// Jf City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Scheduling of Council Work Session If the Council schedules a joint meeting with the Long Lake City Council to review the Consolidation Committee’s report and recommendations, it would be helpful for the Council to meet in a work session prior to the joint meeting to be brought up-to-speed on the Committee’s work. It would be best to meet after the Council has received the Committee’s final report, which will be on May 26. A potential date and time for a work session would be Thursday, June 1 at 7:30 a.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select a date and time for a Council work session regarding the Consolidation Committee’s final report. • ___ •‘r ■Jt ; • ’>V r \ J. • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION roiiMrii meeting MAY 2 2 2000 CITY Ut OHONO DATE: May 18,2000 ITEM NO: /^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Cleric Administratoi9 Reviewed: __A Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for CounciJ Approval Garbage & Refuse Collector's License 1.Craig Baldy Baidy Sanitation 5906 Henry Street Maple Plain, MT4 55359 2. - Frank Blackowiak Blackovviak & Son Sanitation & Rolloff Service 1195 Sunny field Road North Mound, MN 55364 3.Douglas Hawkinson Cleanway Sanitation, Inc. P.O. Box 220 Long Lake, MN 55356 4.Donald Rachel Veit Container Corp dba Veit Disposal Systems 14000 Veit Place Rogers, MN 55374 SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1.Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Matt Stewart 4'*’ of July Celebration 1535 Bohns Point Road July 4,2000 Noon - 10:00 p.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 , License Year Date Received <//j/,/r.o r.Fee Paid Initials ^11 k wriwuOGARBAGE & REPOSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Firm H ^T/i A'. / /C’g_ - - - - - - - Address (Street) (City) Business Phone Number — cZ3S^ (State) (Zip Code) Applicant's Name (1^/C- _________ ________________________ Address _______ ^ S7~ p--5~Ptr9 (Street) ^Tcity) (State) (Zip Code) Phone Number _ _ _ _OO'3/3_ _ _ Check One:Individual Partnership / Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono __ Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded Year Mfqr. Gross Wt, Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards *yh License Number /r/3L3 General area of City served Schedule of Collection charges/ dates 7 ~~~ Approximate number of customers in Orono /Q Location of dumping area —____ IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MOST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in the amount of $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. Annual fee is a $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable^ I aun the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes required by law. The above information is correct. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ Applicant ' Date. __ _ _ _ _ FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: Approval _________ Denial _________.Other (specify)’ Si^|^^reflS^ City Official '3’//e. /c c Date CITY OP’ ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 473-7357 License Year r-^coo *. •Date Received VA xJo Fee Paid ^ /;^«^-<rv Initials A; n -r. • " / • ' garbage & i&DiE"'fibiiiECTOR*S LICENSE APPLICATION Che undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono ana herewith makes application for a license to do so. (Street) Business Phone Number 952-A72-3398 Applicant• s Name Frank Blackowiak_ _ _ _ Address 1155 Sunnyfield Rd. N. Mound (Street) Phone Nximber 952-472-2977__________ Mn.55364 (City)(State) (Zip Code) Check One:Individual Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono Partnership 7 Corporation Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): year ^r. Grost^'wt. Rea^Axle Wt. Size/Yards License Number (SEE ATTACHED) General area of City served All of Orono except Ferndalt. Schedule of Collection charges/ dates (SEE ATTACHED) 2500j^ppjfoximate number of customers in Orono _ Location of dumping area Hennepin Energy Resource Recovery Co> » IN"oraER POR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MOST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00_transfer_fee I*am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes required by law. The ab^ve information is correct. //(ojo^ city official Date 473-7357 GARBAGE & REPOSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Pina CLEANWAY SANITATION INC------------------------^------------------------------------- P.O. BOX 220 LONG LAKE ^ - - -- -15356- -_- - - Address--------^streit)----------------------------(City) (Stitil (Zip Code) Business Phone Humber 763-479-2003---------------------- Applicanc's Name DOOGLAS mWKINSON- - - - - - - - - - - - - -^^- - - - - - - Address - - - - - - -(g^ate) ^^Zip Code—~ Phone Humber 763-479-2003_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Check one: _ _ _ _ Individual _ _ _ _ Partnership _J00t_ Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono - - -1__- - - - -^^ Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded ^ *, Htar. Gross wt. Rear Axle «t. Sire/Yards License Number 1994 FORD 48,000 38,000 20__________YM 91220----------------- General area of City served EP£T ------------------ --------------------------------------- Schedule of Collection charges/ dates PICKUP DAY THURSDAY--------------—----------------- 38 GAL 12.50 per moF65 GAL 15.00 per mo, 95 HAL 17.00 per mo----------------------------"■ ^ppj^oximate number of customers in Orono __55-------— ---------— Location of dumping area henn tran sfer station ___________■ —__________________~ IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING. surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance SlOO 000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. /VV''^^J;,?®®ble) $3S?6o flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and_a I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and^t^es reguii;^by law. The above information is correct. /(/ ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------— j/g/pfel^gr^ ____-___________-_______________ ;or«w"HSB‘ogiT"A£te^ =. _______________ ^h(^/oo_________________ Signatfure dor City Official Date • • .x*l’ OP ORONO p.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 License Year o Date Received V/^7/0 0 Fee Paid ■^'73 tc_ Initials ^ QvT^ .w GARBAGE & REPOSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Fim Address Veit Container Corp dba Veit Disposal Systems Rogers _ _ _ _14000 Veit Place MN 55374-9583 (Street) Business Phone Number 763-428-2242 (City)(State) (Zip Code) Applic2Uit's Name Address 10492. Bice Ave Donald Rachel, President (Street) Phone Number 763-963-3098 (City)(State) (Zip Code) Check One:Individual Partnership XX Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono _3 Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded Year Hfgr. Gross Wt. P.ear Axle Wt. Size/Yards License Number SEE ATTACHED LIST General area of City served As Requested b v Customers Schedule of Collection charges/ dates As Requested Approximate number of customers in Orono . Varle£ Location of dumping area Vonco Landfill, 19000 County Road C, Big Lake To^^jh^ 5530 Orara POR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: surety bond in the^ ""A„nual*ferls°fS100.000-$300,000-650,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. S30.00 flat raU fee, plus 515/truck, and a 530.00 transfer fee (if i"ain the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes reguir id by law. The above information is correct. Applicant .71 ^uonaid Rachel, President Date April 20, 2000 FOR CITY USB ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: FOK _ _ _ _ _ _ Denial _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) 5^^^a4^re O^City Official Date \r>-t kL Date: To: From: May 18.20'JO Lin Vee City Clerk Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject: Special Event Permit 1 have reviewed the application for a Special Event Permit - 4'*’ of July Party at 1535 Bohns Point Road, from Noon to 10:00 p.m. I note that arrangements have been made for using a shuttle bus from the Orono High School parking lot to the Bom property, and that other parking will be available on the Bom property itself. However, for this event, the resident must maintain clear traffic flow in the area of Bohns Point Road to North Shore Drive. i «-1 * ♦ PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA i . • . t. Permit #: Fee: $50.00 , / Date Received: Phone Number: Name: yV^A-TT Address: 1^*53 fo'^NiT Q,o City, State, Zip: \V>a\ Location of Parade or Event: Rp<.*r>g«VT'_______ Date of Event: o\m H Hours of Event: V<3 l'oq - \Q‘OoP iP^ Type of Event: Q-e\<V>rv\‘.o Insurance Company: ^Amount: {Copy of insurance certificate, on which the City, its agents and employees are named as additional insured, must be submitted with this application.) I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the granting of this permit. Signature I understand some events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee may be required for these serves. Date Approved: □ Denied: □ By:. Remarks:. r,.4/£. ^ 0*.V\ io*, ^ftrt-v--M> 0"< ovs f*r^f ar^l . ^ ^ F>^'..' I! K. yjV^ f-\ ■■ .■ "'■''' ‘ " ■ ■>■ Miu,ta^J>^ Juu. /Ui^ Xi <y-ix^ 6-A^y^ X^ //-4^ ,Ju^ ’*.1 .% ^iXCCX J,Lc, j.;tx yiePf /(^£^rVn^ d^'CCASE^, / aaJ^ /^cctt ^ i\ .,.!» /yi ‘ i\ ■ t; .rf.w Ifk Pay Pariod CITY OF ORONO Check Register Chack • Employaa Nama Chack Data Chack Amount 05/18/00 10:50 AM Cn/iMcn, MEETING *** ^ MAY 2 2 2000 Ui I f Oh OhO/MO f'W- 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 047570 VOID 047571 JOHNSON, MARY ANN 047572 BERRY, HEIDI N. 047573 HASEMAN, CAROLE A. 047574 MOORSE, RONALD J. 04757SVEE, LINDA S. 047576 KUEHN, THOMAS M. C47577 OLSON, RONALD J. 047578 PETTIT, SANDRA K. 047579 ANDERSON, BRUCE L 047580 B06ZIEN, SUE A. 047581 BORIS, SCOTT W. 047582 BUDIG, STACIE M. 047583 CARLSON. MICHAEL B. 047584 CHESWiOK, GARY B. 047585 CORNICK, JAMES L 047586 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C. 347587 ERICKSON. KURT R 047588 FARNIOK, CORREY L 047589 FISCHENICH, DANT. 047590 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. 047591 JOHNSON BRADLEY P. 047592 JOHNSON. JEFFREY 047593 MADSON, ADRIENNE M. 047594 MCNALLY. STEVEN A. 047595 MCNiCHOLS. DAVID L 047596 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES 047597 PERSELL, WILLL'M R. 047598 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B. 047599 TOMCZYK, MARK W. 047600 WITTKE, ANTHONY A. 047601 HENDRICKS. RONALD J. 047602 JENSEN. CHRISTOPHER E. 047603 BOTTENBERG. WENDY C. 047604 DAVIS. MARK L 047605 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P. 047606 GAPPA, GREGORY A. 047607 MEYER. WILLIAM C. 047608 OMAN. LYLE E. 047609 PENCE. CHRISTOPHER M. 047610 WEINBERGER. PAUL E. 047611 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F. 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5'17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17/00 5/17AK) 5/17/00 SO.OO $579.70 $706.38 $751.21 $1,657.48 $1,159.02 $1,376.57 $4.70 $359.80 $1,044.78 $660.02 $855.32 $671.30 $712.83 $1,549.73 $1,131.33 $1,416.32 $1,277.27 $1,738.00 $1,301.95 $1,340.76 $1,376.86 $778.40 $460.49 $1,232.82 $612.77 $1,584.58 $681.76 $1,303.80 $1,285.23 $1,028.87 $578.29 $280.67 $1,001.44 $1,083.33 $1,173.38 $1,638.88 $457 61 $2897 $873.37 $1,183.11 $1,065.66 r ^^4 y ■■ w. .1*'■' CITY OF ORONO ; 1* ■ ' r.'e* - f ■ - -V./ . -1 i ^ Pay Clwck Period # Employee Name Check Register Check Check Date Amount 10 047612 OEBAERE, DONALD L 5/17/00 $827.12 :■ 1 10 047613 GREGORY, JAMES D.6/17/00 $984.13 L 10 047614 HANSEN, STEVEN 5/17/00 $1,127.11 047615 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G.5/17/00 $873.75 Ik ^ ^ 047616 OBRIEN. RANDY L 5/17/00 $256.46 [ 10 047617. PALMER. GREGORY A.5/17/00 $771.75 i 047618 RATHBUN, BARRY J.5/17/00 $953.37 f 10 047619 SKREEN. DALE S.5/17/00 $826.12 ' 10 047620 ABRAHAMSON, FREQ W.5/17/00 $284.97 . ■; 10 047621 MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E.5/17/00 $227.24 * * 10 047622 NOBLE. ADAM 5/17/00 $143.67 10 047623 PEICKERT, GARY J.5/17/00 $267.42 047624 PETERSON, JACK W.5/17/00 $333.15 In 047625 RAICHE, VICTORIA H.5/17/00 $112.60 :Hlf 10 047626 ROSS, JOHN A.5/17/00 $106.49 10 10 047627 STEFFENHAOEN. RONALD E 047628 SWENSON. LOWELL C. 5/17/00 5/17/00 Rnwrt Total $1,180.05 $61.91 $49,340.05 05/18/00 10:50 AM Page 2 \ r 19 May 2000 Frl 10:54 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name r: Check Number 61384 61394 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 17-May-OO CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION ’ Totals Check Number 61384 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 61385 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 61385 61385 61385 17-May-OO 17-May-OO 17-May-OO FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK JF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 61385 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 61386 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST • 457 61386 17-May-OO ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST Totals Chech Number 61386 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 457 Check Number 61387 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 61387 17-May-OO LAM ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 61387 LAM ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Nun8>er 61388 61388 MIimBSOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT 17-May-OO MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT Totals Check Number 61388 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT Check Number 61389 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 61389 17-May-OO MN DEPT OP REVENUE Totals Check Number 61389 MN DEPT OP REVENUE Check Number 61390 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTBE/CUST 61390 17-May-OO ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/OJST Totals Check Number 61390 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST Check Number 61391 PEBSCO/OBKA 61391 17-May-OO PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 61391 PEBSCO/OBRA ' A hi:- If Transaction Amount 6,679.00 6,679.00 4.024.78 4,u24.78 9.307.79 17,357.35 300.00 300.00 528.00 528.00 190.12 190.12 3,601.96 3,601.96 2,037.68 2,037.68 141.79 141.79 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H & TRANSFERRED FICA & MEDICARE W/H FICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL MITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES MH SKREEN 80010755723 STATE TAX W/H DEF COMP OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H ii w \ i • 19 May 2000 Fri 10:54 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Cate Name Check Number 61392 61392 PCBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 17-May-OO PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 61392 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS I Check Number 61393 PERA 61393 61393 l7.Mey-00 l7.May-00 PERA PBRA Totals Check Number 61393 PERA Check Number 61394 UNITED HAY 61394 17-M*y-00 tWITBD HAY1= Totals Check Number 61394 UNITED WAY Check lAimber 61395 WISCONSIN SCTF 61395 17-May-OO WISCONSIN SCTF Totals Check Number 61395 WISCONSIN SCTF 1 . ^ *<hraiid Total i I ; K ■ •-* Transaction Ainount 2,505.00 2,505.00 4«429.62 5,737.01 10,166.63 28.00 28.00 184.62 184.62 43,720.15 Page 2 Comments USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H J.Johnson mrr ■- 9 - r • _. . . . . . .- ■■ II I ■ ■ nm ■■ir~ > i i 19 May 2000 Prl 10t43 AM Check Register City o£ Orono Page I Check Hunber E)ate Heine Check Number 61397 61397 ANCHOR PAPER 17-May-00 A:;:^-iOR PAPER Totals Check Number 61397 ANCHOR PAPER Check Number 61398 AT 6 T - 61398 61398 X9-May-00 19-May-OO AT a T - AT a T - Totals Qieck Nun^r 61398 AT 6 T - Check Number 61399 AUOIBS MOBILE CHEF 61399 61399 17- May-OO 18- May-OO AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AtIGXES MOBILE OSF P. Totals Check Number 61399 AUGIES MOBILE CKSF Check Number 61400 BATTERIES PLUS 61400 17-May-OO BATTERIES PLUS Totals Check Number 61400 BATTERIES PLUS Check Number 61401 BCA/TRAINING k DEVELOPMENT 61401 18-May-OO BCA/TRAINING k DEVELOPMENT Totals Check Number 61401 bca/training a development 61402 BLACKONIAK a SONCheck Number Oieck Number 61403 BOYER FORD a TRUCK 61403 18-May-OO BOYER FORD a TRUCK Totals Check Number 61403 BOYER FORD a TRUCK Check Number 61404 BUDGET PRINTING 61404 18-May-OO BUDGET PRINTING Transaction Amount Comments 564.30 564.30 COPY PAPER - 100,000 19.78 19.78 LONG DIST SERVICE LONG DIST SERVICE 39.56 44.24 S2.18 HOT DOGS, aSESEBGRS HOT DOGS, CHEFSBRGRS 96.42 24.27 24.27 BATTERY 120.00 120.00 MEDIA RELATIONS-DEMBOUSKI 61402 17-May-OO BLACKONIAK a SON 78.90 WASTE SERVICE - BED^WOOD 61402 17-May-OO BLACKONIAK a SON 157.80 WASTE SERVICE - LAKE AREA 61402 17-May-OO BLACKONIAK a SON 191.72 WASTE SERVICE - CH Totals Check Nundoer 61402 BLACKONIAK a S(HI 428.42 289.77 289.77 OIL P\N - 8425 76.49 DARE CERTIFICATES p 19 Kay 2003 Prl 10:43 AM Check Register City of Orono Cheek Runber Date Name Check Number 61404 BUDGET PRINTIIRS Totals Check Nufldt>er 61404 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 61405 CARGILL SALT 61405 17-May-OO CARGILL SALT Totals Check Number 61405 CARGILL SALT Check Number 61406 CEAM 61406 18-May-OO CEAM ^ Totals Check Number 61406 CEAM Check Number i 61407 Totals Check Number 61407 CITY OP MAPLE GROVE 18-May-00 CITY OP MAPLE GROVE 61407 CITY OP MAPLE GROVE Check Number 61409 CITY OP NAYZATA 61409 61409 18-May-OO 18-May-OO CITY OP WAYZATA CITY OP WAYZATA Totals Check Number 61409 CITY OP WAYZATA Check Number 61410 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING - 61410 61410 17-May-00 17-May-OO CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING Totals Check Number 61410 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING Trauisaction Amount 76.49 2,046.45 2,046.45 40.00 40.00 902.00 902.00 1,350.22 1,621.64 2,971.86 290.30 60.22 350.52 Page 2 Comments SOFTENER SALT CEAM MEMBERSHIP - GAPPA RANGE RENTAL Check Number 61408 CITY OP ORONO PETTY CASH 6140S 19-May-OO CITY OP ORONO PETTY CASH 2.98 POLICE PETTY CASH \61406 19-May-00 CITY OF ORCBie PETTY CASH 3.00 POLICE PETTY CASH 61408 19-May-OO CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 7.00 POLICE PETTY CASH 61408 19-May-OO CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 4.21 POLICE PETTY CAS:I 61408 19-May-OO CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 3.14 POLICE PETTY CASH >61408 19-May-OO CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 27.19 PAPER SUPPLIES 61408 19-May-OO CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 5.25 POP-JOINT WORK SESSION 61408 19-May-OO CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 11.27 PRINTS 61408 19-May-OO CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 31.10 AS BUILTS MATERIALS 61408 19-May-OO CITY OP ORONO PETTY CASH 14.48 GREETING CARDS Totals Check Number 61408 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 109.62 TAX/LICENSE 8709 TAX/LICENSE 8428 PLUMBLINQ REPAIRS - GC BBDERWOOU FOUNTAIN REPRS ir 19 Nay 2000 Fri 10:43 AH Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Qieck Number €1411 61411 CULLIGAN 17-May-OO CULLIGAN Totals Check Number 61411 CULLIGAN Check Number 61412 DAKOTA CO. TECHNICAL COLLEGE 61412 16-May-OO DAKOTA CO. TECHNICAL COLLEGE Totals Check Number 61412 DAKOTA CO. TECHNICAL COLLEGE Check Number 61413 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 61413 61413 18-May-OO 18-May-OO DAY DISTRIBUTING CO DAY DISTRIBUTING CO Totals Check Number 61413 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO Check Number 61414 DCA €1414 18-May-OO DCA Totals Check Numbar 6i4i4 dca Check Number 61415 DCA - HIRE ONLY 61415 19-May-OO DCA - HIRE ONLY Totals Check Number 61415 DCA - HIRE ONLY Check Number 61416 DELTA DENTAL 61416 61416 18-May-OO 18-May-OO DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL Totals Check Number 61416 DELTA DENTAL Check Number 61417 DEPT OP PUBLIC SAFETY 61417 61417 61417 17-May-OO 17-May-OO 17-May-OO DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT OP PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY rt. Totals Check Number 6i4i7 dept of public safety Check Number 61418 DONALD salverda a associates 61418 18-May-OO DONALD SALVERDA 6 ASSOCIATES Totals Check NUniber 61418 DONALD SALVERDA 6 ASSOCIATES Transaction Amount 16.49 16.49 270.00 270.00 44.40 65.20 109.60 72.00 72.00 417.36 417.36 58.60 1.061.7U 1,120.30 55.38 55.38 Page 3 Comments SOFTENER SERVICE RADAR CERTIFICATION BEER FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS FOR RESALE COBRA ADM - 4/2000 FELX SPENDING 5/14/00 JUNE DENTAL PREMIUMS JUNE DENTAL PREMIUMS 100.00 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FEES 100.00 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PEES 25.00 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FEES 225.00 BOOKS-EFP MGMT - MOORSE I I K 19 Mfty 2000 Fri 10:43 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Dete Name Check Ihifflber 61419 61419 B-Z RECYCLING 17-May-OO B-Z RECYCLING Totals Check Number 61419 E-Z RECYCLING Check Number 61420 EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC. 61420 61420 17-May-OO 17-May-OO EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC. EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC. Tbtals Check Number 61420 EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC. Check NuaO>er 61421 WELKANH k ASSOCIATES INC. 61421 18-May-00 EDEIMANN k ASSOCIATES I!:C. Totals Check Nusiber 61421 EDELMANN k ASSOCIATES INC. 61422 ENQINEERINQ REPRO SYSTEMS t r A , &eck Number 61422 61422 18-May-OO 18-May-OO ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS ENQINEERINQ REPRO SYSTE:4S Totals Check Number 61422 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Check NusdMr 61423 PORD CONSTRUCTION 61423 61423 61423 18-May-OO 18-May-OO 18-May-OO FORD CONSTRUCTION PORD CONSTRUCflON PORD CONSTRUCTION Tbtals Check Number 61423 ford construction Check Number 61424 OAK SERVICES ■K' i-: • Transaction Amount 5,754.84 5,754.84 1,200.79 -428.13 772.66 4,247.51 4,247.51 63.85 151.92 215.77 8,620.00 19,264.10 -1,394.20 26,489.90 Page 4 Comments RECYCLING SERVICE 4/00 SIGNS-DEAD END, STOP RETURN - STOP SIGNS REPAIRS - LS 26 SCAN TO PLOT-4080 DAHL SCAN TO PLOT-719 MTKA HGH RFP 81-KWY 12 RELIEF LS RFP il-FERNDALE AREA LS RETAINAG’:-RFP 1 FORD CONS 61424 17-May-OO 0 a K SBIVICES 15.28 UNIFORM - RATHBUN 61424 17-May-OC OAK SERVICES 72.04 UNIFORMS 61424 17-May-OO OAK SERVICES 9.67 UNIFORM - STEPPENKAGEN 61424 17-May-OO OAK SERVICES 15.28 UNIFORM - RATHBUN 61424 17-May-OO OAK SERVICES 74.93 UNIFORMS 61424 17-May-OO OAK SERVICES 36.03 TOtfEL SERVICE 61424 17-May-OO OAK SERVICES 9.67 UNIFORM - STEFFEimAGEH Totals Check Number 61424 Q k K SERVICES 232.90 Check llum*.;er 6142b QAPPA,QREG 61425 18-May-OO GAPPA, GREG 71.07 MILEAGE REIMBURSE 19 May 2000 yri 10:43 AM Chec)c Check Register City of Orono Page 5 Chack NVuabar 61428 GOLF CAR MIDWEST 61428 17-May-OO GOLF CAR MIDWEST Totals Check Number 61428 GOLF CAR MIDWEST Check Number 61429 61429 61429 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Transaction 17-May-OO 17-May-OO Totals Check Number GOPfffiR STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 61429 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Check Number 61430 61430 61430 GROSSMAN CHEVROLET 17-May-OO 17-May-OO Totals Check Number GROSSMAN CHEVROLET GROSSMAN CHEVROLET 61430 GROSSMAN CHEVROLET Check Number 61431 61431 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 17-May-OO HAWKINS CHEMICAL Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 61425 GAPPA, GREG 61425 18-May-OO GAPPA, GREG 72.15 MILEAGE-MPWA CONFl Totals Check Number 61425 GAPPA, GREG 143.22 Check Number 61427 GENUINE PARTS CO. 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.5.85 TIP CLEANER 61427 18-May 00 GENUINE PARTS CO.11.03 MISC SUPPLIES 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.29.44 INSP TRK SUPPLIES 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.7.69 SCREWS, CLEANER 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.3.81 BULK SCREWS 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.6.29 OTL FILTER 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.134.52 MASTER CYLINDER 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.8.82 MISC SUPPLIES 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.7.43 BRAKE FLUID 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.10.14 WIPER BLADE 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.11.05 MISC SUPPLIES 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.3.58 OIL FILTER 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.12.45 GLOVE 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.37.46 AIR FILTERS 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.-11.58 AIR FILTERS-XCHG 61427 18-May-OO GENUINE PARTS CO -6.38 CREDIT Totals Check Number 61427 GENUINE PARTS CO.271.60 1,500.00 1,500.00 44.00 44.00 88.00 24,502.08 20,326.52 44,828.60 529.75 • k GOLF CART LEASE APRIL LOCATES APRIL LOCATES CHEV 1 TON-CAB k CHASSIS CHEV 3/4 TON PICK UP FLOURINE/CHLORINE r’t ,5!‘'- 19 May 2000 Fri i::43 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name If- Check Number 61431 hahkins chemical Totals Check Number 61431 HANKINS O^ICAL Ei Check Number 61432 HENNEPIN COUNTY TRBAS. 61432 18-May-OO HENNEPIN COUNTY TRBAS. Totals Check Number 61432 ISNNBPIN COUNTY TPXAS. I Check Number 61433 HBNNIPIN CTY TREASURER - PN 61433 18-May-OO HBNNIPIN CTY TREASURER Tctals Check dumber 61433 HBNNIPIN CTY TREASURER Check Nusiber 61434 HOLIDAY INN NBN ULM 61434 18-May-OO HOLIDAY INN NZN ULM Totals Check Number 61434 HOLIDAY INN NEM Ul/4 Check Number 6143S ikon office solotions PW PW 61435 18-May-OO IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS Totals Check HMs^r 61435 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS Check Number 61436 J.R.'S APPLIANCE DISPOSAL INC. 61436 17-May-OO J.R.'S APPLIANCE DISPOSAL INC. Tctals Check Nusdber 6143b J.R.'S APPLIANCE DISPOSAL INC. Qieck Number 61437 BTH N. POTTS, PA 61437 18-May-OO KENNETH N. POTTS, PA Tctals Check Number 61437 KENNETH N. POTTS, PA Check Humber 61438 61438 KUSTOM SIC^UO^ INC 18-Hay-OO KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 1^' r Totals Check Number 61438 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Check Number 61439 LEHNE'S TIRE SERVICE 61439 18-May-OO LEHNE'S TIRE SERVICE Totals Check Number 61439 LEHNE*S TIRE SERVICE Transact io*. Amount 529.75 33.38 33.38 216,450.74 216,450.74 75.56 75.56 7,620.67 7,620.67 104.00 104.00 2,391.66 2,391.66 119.00 119.00 93.00 93.00 Page 6 Comments 99 YEAR END MICROFICHE RGHT OP NAY-PW 53-08-96 HTL RM-USE OF FRCB TNG MAINT CONTRACT-5/10/00-01 APPLIANCE DISPOSAL PROSEOTTIONS 4/2000 MIC,WINDSCREEN TIRE DISPOSAL 19 May 2000 Pri 10:43 AM Check Register City of Orono Check lAinber Date Name Check Number €1440 61440 LOE'S OIL COMPANY 17-May-OO LOB'S OIL COMPANY Totals Check Number 61440 LOB'S OIL COMPANY Cheek Number 61441 LONG LAKE PONBR BQUZPMENT te;.6X441 18-May-OO LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Totals Chack Huaftwr 61441 LONG LAKE PONBR EQUIPMENT Oieck Number 61442 MKUCO, STBVBN 61442 17-May-OO MALCO, STBVBN Totals Check Number 61442 MALCO. STEVEN Check Number 61443 MAMA 61443 18-*^.MAMA Totals Check Number 61443 MAMA Check Number 61444 MASNCD 61444 17-May-OO MASNCD Totals Check Number 61444 MASNCD Check Number 61445 MCLEOD USA PUBLISHING 61445 17-May-OO MCLEOD USA PUBLISHIHO Totals Check Number 61445 HCLSOD USA PUBLISHINQ Check Number 61446 MCLBODUSA INC 61446 17-May-OO MCLBODUSA INC Totals Check Number 61446 MCLBODUSA INC Check Number 61447 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL 5ER 61447 61447 61447 61447 18-May-OO 18-May-OO 18-May-OO 18-May-OO MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER Totals Check Number 61447 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER '1 Transaction Amount 65.00 65.00 254.54 254.54 50.00 50.00 16.00 16.00 45.00 45.00 182.00 182.00 170.00 170.00 1,100.00 -11.00 1,100.00 -11.00 2,178.00 Page 7 Comments OIL FILFTER DISPOSAL CUTTINO WHEEL REFUND-HOME OCCPTN LIC MAMA LUNCHEON MEETING WETLAND Pr CMOS-PENCE DIRECTORY ADVERTISING PHONE SYSTEM KAINT - PD JANUARY 2000 SAC JANUARY 2000 SAC ADM FEB SAC CHARGES 2/00 SAC CHARGES 2/00-ADM FEB i •’I 'i . . V. -- -- - --—„ a-^ . , 19 May 2000 Pri 10:41 AM Qieck Register City of Orono Check Slumber Date Check Slumber 61448 6144B 61448 61446 MIDWEST ASPHALT 17- May-00 MIDWEST ASPHALT 16-May-OO MIDWEST ASPHALT 18- May-OO MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 61448 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 61449 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 61449 61449 61449 6144? 61449 19-May-OO 19-May-OO 19-May-OO 19-May:00 19-May-OO MN DEPT OP REVENUE MN PEPT OP REVENUE MN DEPT OP REVENUE MN DEPT OF REVENUE MN DEPT OP REVENUE Totals Check Number 61449 MN DEPT OP REVENUE Check Number 614S0 MN DEPT OP TRANSPORTATION 61450 17-May-OO MN DEPT OP TRANSPORTATION Totals Check Number 61450 MN DEPT OP TRANSPORTATION Check Number 61451 MN STATE TREASURER 61451 61451 18-May-OO 18-May-OO MN STATE TREASURER VOi STATS TREASURER Totals Check Number 61451 MN STATE TREASURER Check Namber 61453 NAVARRE HARDWARE ?.. Transaction Amount 104.24 154.94 635.42 894.60 52.68 52.98 4.584.28 -183.37 4.400.91 Page 8 Comments HAND PATCH HAND PATCH HAND PATCH 19.00 SALES TAX 4/00 1.00 SALES TAX 4/00 590.00 SALES TAX 4/00 193.00 SALES TAX 4/00 1.899.00 SALES TAX 4/00 2.702 00 STOP LIGHT REPAIR SURaiARGE 1ST QTR 2000 SRCHRO 1ST Q 2000-ADM PEE 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 2.12 RAZOR SCRAPER 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 27.48 DOCK BOLTS 61433 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.49 AIR CHUCK. MALE PIPE 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 7.44 TRASH BAGS 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.18 LIGHT BULBS 61453 18-May-OO N.WARRE HARDWARE 41.68 RAKE. STA^N. BRUSH. 1 61453 16-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 4.26 BULK SCREWS 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.27 HANDLE 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.80 SINGLE CUT KEY 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 12.76 CAULK 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 4.90 GALV PIPE 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 22.65 TRSH BAGS. FLSHLGHT. 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 2.53 SINGLE CUT KEY 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 8.81 CLEANING SUPPLIES 61453 18-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.64 REDWOOD STAIN i' 19 May 2000 Pri 10t43 AM Check Register City of Orono Check NuiiO>er Date Name Check Number 61453 61453 NAVARRE HARDWARE 19-May-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE Totals Check Number 61453 NAVARRE HARDWARE Check Number 61454 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP 61454 17-May-OO NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP Totals Check Number 61454 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP Check Number 61455 NSP i f >1 Check Number 61456 OLD DDTCH POODS INC. 61456 18-May>00 OLD DUTCH POODS INC. Totals Check Number 61456 OLD DUTCH POODS INC. Check Number 61457 PERRY'S SANDBLASTING 61457 ia-May-00 PERRY'S SANDBLASTING Totals Check Number 61457 PERRY'S SANDBLASTING Check Nun^r 61458 pioneer 61458 61458 61458 61458 61458 18-May-OO 18-May-OO 18-May-OO 18-May-OO 18-May-OO PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER Totals Check Number 61458 PIONEER Check Number 61459 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. 61459 18-May-OO POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Transaction Amount 7.42 169.43 57.72 57.72 16.80 16.80 15.00 15.00 24.35 24.35 41.20 84.27 33.71 207.88 788.62 Page 9 Comments SCREWS. WSHRS. NUTS. HOOKS DETBRGEOT - GC 61455 19-May-OO NSP 137.28 HWY 12 & WILLOW-SIGNAL 61455 19-May-OO NSP 1.239.59 STREET LIGHTING-4/2000 61455 19-May-OO NSP 561.43 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 61455 19-May-OO NSP 9.42 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 614SS 19-May-OO NSP 134.54 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 614S5 19-May-OO NSP 23.28 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 61455 19-May-OO NSP 2.412.16 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 61455 19-May-OO NSP 1.092.59 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 61455 19-May-OO NSP 306.13 ELECTRICAL SERVICE Totals Check Number 61455 NSP 5.916.42 CHIPS FOR RESALE REPAIR FLAT TIRE APPLICATION 2585 APPLICATION 2587 PUB ORDINANCE 197 LAND USE APPLICATIONS PUB ORDINANCE 198 APRIL JANITORIAL Hi 19 Kay 2000 Fri 10:43 AM Checlc Register City of Orono Check Htisdder Date Name Check Number €1459 €1459 PONERCLEAN COMPANY INC. 18-May-00 PONERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Totals Check Number €1459 PONERCLEAN COMPANY INC. i . Check Number €14€0 PRAIRIE OFFSET 614€0 18-May-OO PRAIRIE OFFSET Totals Check Number 61460 PRAIRIE OFFSET Check Number €1461 REED VENDING €14€1 17-May-OO REED VENDING r:; ' ^ Totals Oitck Number €1461 REED VENDING Check Number €14€2 REKBBIN excavating INC €14€2 18-May-00 REHBEIN EXCAVATING INC Totals Check Nusber 61462 REHBEIN EXCAVATING INC Check Number €1463 RICKS StJPERVALUE €1463 €1463 €1463 18-May-OO 18-May-OO 18-May-OO RICKS SUPERVALOE RICKS SUPERVALDE RICKS SUPERVALOE Totals Check Number €1463 RICKS SUPERVALOE Check Numlisr €1464 SCHOENKOFP, JOHN 6:464 18-May-OO SCHOENHOFF, JOHN Totals Check Number €1464 SCHOBNHOFF, JOHN V Cheek ’lumber €1465 SIGNS OF THE SEASON €1465 17-May-OO SIGNS OF THE SEASON Totals Check Number €1465 signs of the season Check NUn^r 61466 SNYDER DRUG STORES 61466 61466 18-May-OO 18-May-OO SNYDER DRUG STORES SNYDER DRUG STORES Transaction Amount 963.06 1,752.48 72.61 72.61 52.10 52.10 255.60 255.60 5.54 17.37 33.68 56.59 100.68 100.68 93.73 93.73 8.51 4.85 Page 10 Comments APRIL JANITORIAL CONTACT PADS SNACKS FOR RESALE TOP DRESSING COFFEE MATE PLANTS, CLEANSER CUPS, NAPKINS PIZZA-DARE ROLE MODELS DOCK ACCESS SIGNS VIDEO TAPE PHOTOT PROCESSING 19 May 2000 Pri 10:43 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name b; Qieck Number \k 61466 I 61466 61466 61466 SNYDER DRUG STORES 18-May-00 SNYDER DRUG STORES 18-May-00 SNYDER DRUG STORES 18-May-OO SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number 61466 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 61467 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 61467 17-May-OO STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 61467 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS Check Number 61468 THORPE DIST 00. 61468 18-May-OO THORPE DIST CO Totals Check Number 61468 THORPE DIST CO Check NUadder 61469 TKDA 61469 18-May-OO TKDA I..Totals Check Number 61469 TKDA Cheek Number 61470 TOLL GAS k WELDING SUPPLY 61470 61470 17- May-OO 18- May-OO TOLL GAS k WELDING SUPPLY TOLL GAS k WELDING SUPPLY Totals Check Number 61470 TOLL GAS k WELDING SUPPLY Check Number 61471 TREADWAY GRAPHICS 61471 18-May-OO TREADWAY GRAPHICS Totals Check Number 61471 TREADWAY GRAPHICS Check Number 61472 TWIN CITY STRIPING 61472 18-May-OO TWIN CITY STRIPING Totals Check Number 61472 TWIN CITY STRIPING Check Number 61473 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 61473 18-May-OO UNIFOR-VS UNLIMITED Transaction Amount 3.34 7.71 22.22 46.63 556.57 556.57 62.50 62.50 209.20 209.20 5.85 24.05 29.90 1,128.95 1,128.95 7,100.00 7,100.00 133.05 Page 11 Comments PHOTO PROCESSING PHOTO PROCESSING 35MM FILM REP FUSER - ADM FAX BEER FOR RESALE LEAK LOCATION-HWY194PHEAS CYLINDER - RENTAL INV HOSE, CLAMP, SPLICER DARE SUPPLIES STREET, PRKING LOT STRIPS UNIFORMS - CARLSON I ■ i \ v':! -- * *' 19 May 2000 Fri 10:43 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Ni»d3er «1473 61473 61473 61473 61473 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Ifl-May-00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 18-May-00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 18-May-00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 18-May-00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Tocala Check Number 61473 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Check Number 61474 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 61474 61474 61474 61474 61474 19-May-OO 19-May-OO 19-May-OO 19-May-OO 19-May-OO US tCEST COMMUNICATIONS US NBST COMMUNICATIONS US NEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Mlumber 61474 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 61475 US WEST INTERPRISE 61475 19-May-OO US WEST INTERPRISE Total! Check Number 61475 US WEST INTERPRISB Check Nuad^r 61476 warning lites of mn 61476 61476 17-May-OO 17-May-OO WARNING LITES OF MN WARNING LITES OF MN 1 Totals Check Number 61476 WARNING LITES OF MN Oieck Number 61477 WINTBRNHBIMIER, ALISSA 61477 18-May-OO WINTBRNHBIMBR* ALISSA Totals Check Number 61477 WINTBRNHEIKER, ALISSA Grand Total Transaction 175.00 353.247.60 Page 12 Amount Comments 85.15 STINGER W/AC-HENPRICKS 249.57 UNIFORM, EQUIP-KIRBY 245.35 UNIFORM,BOOTS-FARNIOK 90.10 UNIFORM - J JOHNSON 803.22 54.22 PHONE SERVICE -WP 44.37 ALARM DIALER - LS 6 58.67 PHONE SERVICE - GC 213.40 DIR AD'/ERTISING GC 103.00 COM LIN - NT TO PW 473.66 361.05 T1 LINE 361.05 107.19 BARRICADES 107.19 BARRICADES 214.38 175.00 BRD OF REVIEW,COUNCIL A •i . a •I 1 4 .-.ffarkti /i.. . . in.... . , --r' --1 ^^MMrn meeting MAY 2 2 2000 uii Y ur u«or<u information ITEMS ■i.COUNCIL MEETING ■ (u . ■ * * s' h'fffr * COiiKir.ii m'"ETINQ MAY 2 2 2000 r OF Cill Y Or UHOfiU ...j A ■ rnffM^rr MPPTlNa LU4CC MAY 2 2 2000 CITY Ur UMU/VU LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE • RO. BOX 385 • SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 ■ 952. 471-7125 • FAX 952. 471-9151 DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR :#.GREENVVOOO mOEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACiUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND May 10, 2000 I ‘ ^1 Oi I T wr City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor, City Council and City Administrator: As you are aware, Mediacom is currently working on upgrading the cable system in the 15 LMCC cities. The timeline was given in the Spring LMCC newsletter for completion. Mediacom is notifying the cities and residents when each city will be experiencing outages and when it is completed. During the course of discussions regarding service to new residences in the 15 cities the issue came up as to new developments and how they get cable service. Colleen Krisko asked that I write to the cities and suggest to the cities that if your city dees not have a policy in place, regarding developers needing to contact the cable company, you might want to adopt one. This would enhance the probability that these residents would have access to cable. If you have any questions please call me at 471-7125. Sincerely, Sally Koenecke Administrator fri.r ..i\. . MAY-22-2000 08542 EXEC OFFICE WILDER FDM 651 642 2050 P.01^01 C^U<riCl\ fV'vfcV-\bKV ~ s-ir-00 Minnesota Departmei I Ml 5nt) Lai'. P08t-lt* Fax Note 7671 IW, . CoyOipt ' *Co. P^ont # Fax* Si. Paul. Minng.sou 5.^1.'.'••«)_ r'yi /Uai/arrf ^ Date: May 18,21300 ' k f^r^ojC^ct cmVaci To; Local Cjrant Applicants 7UlV [C^^ (M^C\\ IV^^e^A •FiDiti} -Wayni Sarocs, •Loca l Gran ts Seoti^v-^-^ ‘ X? Sobject: 2000 Grant Application Round The 2000 legislative session has ended and no additional fUnds were appropriated for either the Outdoor Recreation Grant or Natural and Scenic Area Grant programs. Accordingly, we have decided to hold this year's applications for those programs over until next spring, when we hope to receive additional ftmdbg. Thank you for taking the time to submit an application. Based on the results of this year ’s application round, the need for ^ant assistance for local park and open space projects remains great. There are over $10.6 milhon in grant requests for Outdoor Recreation Grants alone. We will certainly conv^ this information to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) as it begins the process of developing recommendations to the Legislature. If you submitted an ^plication this year you will not need tc resubmit next year, unless you wish to make changes. This year's applications will simply be added to whatever new app'^ations are received next year. For information or guidance regarding your application please contact the Local Grant Manager assigned to your county (see the Ust on the baclrof this page). If yj / intend to complete your pro|^ this year, or wish to withdraw your application from consideration, please let us know. In regard to fonding prospecU for next year, the LCMR indicated in its Request for Proposals that it intends to recommend at least $8.5 million for the Local Grants Initiatives programs, including the Outdoor Recreation and Natural and Scenic Area programs. Our Local Initiative Gnunts proposal to the LCMR totals $11.3 miUion, with $4 million requested for the Outdoor Recreation Grant propam and $2 r i Jion for Natural and Scenic Areas. In addition, it appears likely that Congress will authorize additional funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund this fkll. This would provide additional ftmding for Outdoor Recreation Grant projects. DNRInfbnnailon:65I.296.6157 • 1-888*646.6367 • TTY: 631-296-5484 • 1-800-637-3929 MntMoAR«ey^Pap«rConuMngaAji Eqtul Oppoftuflliy Cmployar WfM Vtloei OivMily TOTAL P.Ol