Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-2000 Council PacketPublic A ttendance Meeting D ate o c 15?□□□ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other !•. •;.V ••Please FELL our the information ^ REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS . ;•*• - . .V : NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER W K>5 1 2 / KI 8^vD t<l ___ Ucs y'A-^ ^fy t y r /I _y aJ . 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8. 9.. 10. 11. 12., 13. 14. 15. 0U9M i If, k t MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE LONG LAKE AND ORONO CITY COUNCILS AND LONG LAKE/ORONO CONSOLIDATION COMMITTEE Monday, June 5,2000 7:00 o'clock p.m. JUN 2 6 2000 COUNCIL meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER CU V ui- OHOWU Facilitator Peterson called the Consolidation Committee to order at 7:04 p.m. Mayor Bash called the Long Lake City Council to order at 7:05 p.m Mayor Jabbour called the Orono City Council to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Long Lake City Council:Michael Bash, Georgia Danielson, James Benson, Jim Gulbranson, Mike Johnson Long Lake City Staff:Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator Joan Carlson. City Bookkeeper Orono City Council:Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, Richard Flint, Bob Sansevere, Gabriel Jabbour Orono City Staff:Ron Moorse, City Administrator Tom Barrett. City Attorney Michael Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator Consolidation Committee:Desyl Peterson, Facilitator Rusty Fifield, Ehlers & Associates Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor of Orono Jim Miimhv Orono resident A 9 Cliff Otten, Orono business owner Maybeth Christensen, Orono resident (Absent) Michael Bash, Mayor of Long Lake Shannon Sweeney, Long Lake City Administrator Mike Personius. Long Lake business owner Neil Weber, Long Lake resident Gary Ringus, Long Lake resident Jackie Young, Recorder f' Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 2 lire 3. INTRODUCTION BY FACILITATOR DESYL PETERSON Peterson gave a brief background history regarding the formation of the Consolidation Committee and introduced the members of the Committee. Peterson stated the Consolidation Committee was formed by the Long Lake and Orono City Councils to determine whether a merger would be in the best interests of the two cities, especially in light of the new Highway 12 corridor that is expected to be constructed within the next few years. Peterson stated the Consolidation Committee looked at whether the existing qualities of life would be preserved or enhanced with a merger. Peterson noted the Committee has held two other sets of public hearings; one approximately one year ago shortly after the Committee was formed, and another where an interim report of the Committee's findings was presented to the general public in february of this year. Peterson explained the Committee hired Rusty Fifield as their financial consultant to aid them in their review of the two Cities' financial data, and will be presenting the Committee's findings and recommendations tonight. 4. PRESENTATION BY RUSTY FIFIELD Fifield stated the Consolidation Committee is recommending a merger of the two cities based upon their review of the information. Fifield stated he will be giving a brief overview tonight of what the Committee has discussed and tlieir findings, which is contained in the Plan for Merger and Implementation. Fifield commented the process the Committee went through started with the values the residents of the two cities stated they would like to see preserved, followed by a review of the areas relating to governance, finance, public services, development and land use, facilities, and implementation. The Consolidation Committee determined that a merger would give the two cities an enhanced ability to address development and land use issues in a way that preserves the existing character and variety of residential development, w ill maintain the existing small town and rural qualities, and will support the unique commercial districts of the two cities. A merger will also offer the two cities a unified approach and additional resources to meet redevelopment needs in Long Lake and Navarre, and will eliminate the ability of outside interests to play one city against another. The Consolidation Committee further found that n merger would eliminate the duplication of i. ffr Ip Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 3 public facilities and gives the merged community the potential for enhanced facilities; i.e., city hail, public works, and water and sewer facilities. A merger would also reduce the amount of land necessary for public facilities and allow for enhanced planning of public facilities related to systems that do not necessarily follow city boundaries such as transportation, sanitary sewer, and stormwater. Consolidation of the two cities would also improve the two cities' ability to plan for integrated parks and trails. Fifield stated the Consolidation Committee has found that if the two cities do decide to merge, the combined city w ould strengthen the capabilities of City Staff through a consolidation of the two sets of staff, and would eliminate the substantial time and effort spent by both cities negotiating and administering fire and police contracts with each other. As it relates to the area of finance, the Consolidation Committee found a merger would result in lower spending for government services than for two separate cities both short-term and long-term: a reduction of the Cit>' portion of property ta.xes for Long Lake residents by nearly 50 percent; both short-term and long-term stabilization of property ta.\es for Orono residents; the receipt of up to $577,000 in cooperation grants to enable city facilities and equipment to be upgraded; and better control of ta.\es through the linking of land use decisions with service impacts. Fifield stated without a merger, the two cities in all likelihood would continue to experience increases in their property taxes. Fifield reiterated the residents of Long Lake will experience a significant drop in their city portion of property taxes with a merger, with a slight decrease being experienced by the residents of Orono. A merger would provide better stability of the city property tax rate, Fifield stated Figure 10 on Page 28 of the report gives a summary of the financial projections for the merged city and the financial projections for the two cities w ithout a merger. Fifield stated Figure 6 on Page 24 of the report illustrates the impact on the estimated property taxes payable in the yea. 2001 with a merger and without a merger. Fifield noted the city property tax rate will decrease in both cities with a merger. Fifield stated both cities are in very good financial condition at this time based on historical and current information, which provides a very strong foundation for implementing a merger. Fifield noted both cities at this time have good general fund reserves. The Consolidation Committee is anticipating approximately $132,000 in reduced expenditures over current budgets with a merger. Fifield pointed out the financial projections are not an iron-clad plan for the future but provides a good tool for determining the Hnancial impact on both cities with a merger and without a merger. Fifield noted he used the same assumptions for both a merger and without a merger in his financial projections. i ■■■i W- Long Lakc/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint Citv Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 4 Fifield stated the City of Long Lake will be losing its current City Hall, Fire Department and Public Works Department as a result of the nev/ Highway 12 corridor, with the City of Long Lake receiving compensation for the loss of those structures from Mn/DOT in the near future, which is not reflected in the financial projections. Fifield stated the two cities, should they merge, would also be eligible to receive an estimated $577,00 in state aid to implement the merger and to help offset the costs associated with remodeling the Orono facilities to accommodate Long Lake's equipment and personnel. Fifield stated a merger would enable the two cities to receive additional state aid for construction and maintenance of roads. The Consolidation Committee determined that a merger would give the two cities a strengthened voice with other agencies to protect and promote the interests of the city. A merger, with the proposed ward system, would also enable the many interrelated issues facing the two cities to be addressed by one governing body; while ensuring the Long Lake and Navarre areas are able to be represented on the governing body. Fifield indicated the merged city would operate as a home rule charter city, which basically is like a city having its own constitution. Fifield pointed out the home charter is identical to the current statutory powers held by the two cities with the following exceptions. The merged charter city would allow for the creation of City Council wards and would also maintain the identity of the City of Long Lake and the Navarre area through the creation of historic districts. The charter city also allows other enduring recognition of Long Lake, including naming of the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department. The Consolidation Committee determined that a seven member City Council should be created, with the mayor and two council members being elected by all voters and the remaining four council members being elected from four separate wards. Fifield indicated one ward would contain the Long Lake area, one ward would contain the Navarre area, and the two additional wards would cover the remainder of the city. The Consolidation Committee felt this form of government would provide the most fair and equal representation for all citizens. Fifield stated the approval process of the merger plan is, number one, approval by the Consolidation Committee; two, approval by both City Councils; three, submittal to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment; four, approval by the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation; and five, approval by a majority vote of the residents in each city. Fifield stated the question of merger will be on the September primary ballot, with the question of the charter city being voted on at the same time. If the merger is approved by the voters, consolidation would take effect January 1,2001, and a joint City Council would be responsible for governing the city for a period of one year. If Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 5 followed by an election for a new seven member City Council in November, 2001. The Consolidation Committee decided the legal name of the new city would be Orono, with the City Charter guaranteeing the identities of Long Lake and Navarre by the establishment of historic districts. The Consolidation Committee felt the combination of the name Long Lake/Orono was too cumbersome, with the name Orono being consistent with the name of the School District. 5. PUBUC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Peterson thanked Fifield for his presentation, and invited questions and comments from the residents in attendance at tonight's meeting. Ron Epseth, Long Lake, inquired why the Consolidation Committee decided to vote on the merger during the primary versus the general election when typically the voter turnout at the primary is relatively low. Peterson stated the Consolidation Committee did discuss this issue at length, with the Committee feeling that the people running for City Council this year should know the e.xact term of office they are running for. Also, a vote at the primary would give some additional time to allow the merger to be implemented prior to the start of the new year. Dave Pieison, Long Lake, commended the Consolidation Committee on their efforts. Pierson indicated he was opposed to the merger, noting the two cities have existed for over 94 years. Pierson questioned why the merger has to be voted upon so soon, and suggested the question of merger be voted upon at the time of the general election when voter turnout is considerably higher. George Pillsbury, Orono, commented he was excited about the possibility of merging the t\vo cities and working together as one community. Pillsbury stated in his view the people who care about the merger will come out and vote on this issue. Pillsbury commended the Consolidation Committee and the residents for working together on this issue. Jeff Schmitz, Long Lake, indicated he is opposed to the merger, and questioned how his taxes will be impacted if the two cities merge. Schmitz expressed some concern that the City of Orono has a number of roads in relatively poor shape, while Long Lake's roads are in good shape. Schmitz also expressed conce.n that the residents of Long Lake will be paying for expansion of sewer and water to Orono residents, noting that the entire City of Long Lake is already hooked up to City sewer and water. «■ I ■ I ■!!« M ■I rm i 11 ■!■ TTM I V' Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 6 Peterson stated this issue was covered in the Commi^ee's interim report given in March of this year. Fifield stated the Consolidation Committee has reviewed these issues in detail, with the Committee determining that the residents of Long Lake should not be negatively impacted should Orono decide to improve their streets or extend sewer or water to its residents. Fifield indicated that Orono has a policy that requires a private street to be upgraded to city standards, with the costs being assumed by those affected property owners, prior to the road becoming a public street. Fifield stated the ability to expand the sewer system is not entirely controlled by Orono and is dictated by the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary to a large extent, with the costs of hookup being assessed to those residents being added to the sewer system. Mayor Bash pointed out the residents of Long Lake w ill experience a decrease in the City portion of their taxes, with the residents of Orono being able to pay those costs without increasing Long Lake's taxes. Mayor Jabbour stated the merged city would need to collect an additional 2.1 million dollars in ta,\es before a resident in the City of Long Lake would experience an increase in their city taxes. Jabbour indicated the City of Orono has increased its budget over the laxt few years substantially in order to repair its streets. Phyllis O'Mally, Orono, inquired whether the formation of certain precincts that are outsidcof the school district boundaries would require those students to transfer to a different school district. Peterson indicated the precincts are established within the wards and do not apply to school boundaries. O'Mally commented typically only 15 to 20 percent of the voters fully understand tjhe issues involved in an election, and inquired whether the Consolidation Committee has taken that into consideration. Peterson indicated the Consolidation Committee is planning to hold outreach meetings throughout the summer months in an effort to inform the voters on this issue as well as meeting with the local civic and church groups in this area. Peterson stated it is a goal of the Committee to provide the information to the residents so they will be able to make an informed decision regarding the merger. A Long Lake resident inquired whether 100 percent of the costs for sewer or water hookup would be assessed to that individual or developer. Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5, 2000 Page 7 Mayor Jabbour stated it is the official policy of the City of Ororio to assess the costs of City hookup that can be reasonably justified to the residents. Jabbour stated typically in a new development the residents are assessed 100 percent for the hookup. Jabbour stated any costs incurred by the City are generally paid for out of the user fees that are paid by the residents. f*'-t; t. . Dick Thompson, Long Lake, expressed concerns that the establishment of wards will in essence only allow one representative from Long Lake to be elected to the new city council, with the remaining members being elected from Orono. Thompson also commented that in his view the name should be Long Lake since most people know where Long Lake is. Ken Hammerschmidt, Long Lake, stated he has a number of questions regarding the merger, noting he has not had sufficient time to review all the information provided at tonight's meeting. Hammerschmidt inquired whether the City of Long Lake existed as a city prior to the City of Orono. Hammerschmidt indicated he has questions regarding Long Lake's tax decrease, and inquired where the 50 percent savings comes from. Hammerschmidt commented in his view the establishment of wards are weighted in favor of Crono, and inquired what affect it would have on the merger if the name of Long Lake was chosen versus Orono. George Pillsbury, Orono, stated originally the Townships of Excelsior and Medina were laid out six miles from either side of the lake. Due to the lake being in the middle, an additional township was established called Orono by a man called Brackett. Pillsbury stated the name of Orono goes back to the days of the Indians. Pillsbury stated in his opinion the name of Orono predates the name of Long Lake. Fifield indicated the 50 percent cost savings is reflected on page 26 of the report and applies to the city portion of the ta.xes the residents of Long Lake pay. Fifield stated with a merger, the residents of Long Lake will experience a decrease in their city taxes, and without a merger, their taxes will continue to increase. Hammerschmidt inquired what the median price of a home is in Long Lake and Orono. Mayor Jabbour commented that they would not be able to arrive at a fair median price of a home in Orono given the fact that one-tliird of the homes are valued under $135,000 and that a number of homes within Orono are valued in the millions. Jabbour stated if those higher valued homes were included in a median price, it would throw the median price way off and make it invalid. Peterson pointed out the City of Long Lake will also be receiving reimbursement money from Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 8 Mn/DOT for replacement of its city facilities. Peterson stated the $577,000 figure is money that the merged city would be eligible to receive from the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation to help pay for the e.xpenses associated with implementing the merger and improving Orono's facilities to accommodate Long Lake. Peterson stated the reimbursement money from Mn/DOT can be used to pay down Long Lake's ta.\es even further or used in some other fashion. Peterson pointed out the reimbursement monies from Mn/DOT are not reflected In the Committee's financial projections. Peterson noted the Consolidation Committee has not addressed the Issue of assessments, which would be an item the new City Council would need to address. Peterson commented the decision to use the name of Orono for the merged city was one of the final decisions made by the Committee, and would not have, in her view, negatively impacted the Committee's decision to recommend a merger. Jerry VoIIbrecht, Long Lake, stated the residents need to recognize that change is a part of life and that they need to look at what will benefit both communities by merging. VoIIbrecht pointed out the City of Long Lake is surrounded by the City of Orono with little room to grow. VoIIbrecht commented the City of Orono also has to realize that the residents of Long Lake feel threatened by Orono. VoIIbrecht inquired what the population of Orono is. Mayor Jabbour stated at full growth, including the area of Navarre, they are expecting a population of 9,500. with current population being approximately 7,800. VoIIbrecht noted the Committee does not identify a specific source for the additional monies in their financial projections. Fifield stated there are a lot of variables that go into funding local governments, with the Committee attempting to come up with some financial projections that are fair and equitable should the two cities merge. Fifield stated the numbers used are conservative and that it was apparent the residents of Long Lake would experience a large tax decrease with a merger. Fifield stated the City of Orono would need to add additional staff, et cetera, without a merger, which are decisions that are typically made by the City Council. Fifield stated some additional funding is necessary to hold taxes flat for the first year and to help keep taxes stabilized in the following years. Fifield stated in his opinion there are ample resources available to generate the additional funds. Robert Bonnett, Hopkins, stated he currently owns some property in Long Lake and has been reading the Committee's minutes on the internet. Bonnett noted the Committee is recommending the current zoning districts remain in place on an interim basis, and suggested Ir- ii.U >.1 L .1 ur- Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5, 2000 Page 9 the City of Long Lake renegotiate that issue. Bonnett also suggested the two cities wait on the merger until a firm number from Mn/DOT Is determined for the reimbursement. Bonnett noted a number of residents will be displaced due to the new Highway 12 corridor, and inquired whether the outlets that would be created by Mn/DOT would be available to the city. Bonnett stated the issues surrounding the new fire station have not been answered, and suggested that by w aiting another year or hvo, these unresolved issues would be addressed. Peterson stated it is the view of the Consolidation Committee that the current zoning districts of both cities are compatible in most instances. Peterson indicated there will need to be a combining of the zoning ordinances of both cities, which will take some time, and will help preserve the industrial/commercial area of Long Lake. Peterson stated the City would have the right to purchase the outlots from Mn/DOT, noting the Committee did not include those outlots as assets and did not consider what value should be given to them. Peterson stated the location of the new fire station will be dictated based on fire needs and response time and not political boundaries. Cliff Otten. Consolidation Committee, stated he was asked by the City of Orono to serve on the Consolidation Committee. Otten stated in his view he was basically serving both communities, since he feels he is part of both Long Lake and Orono. Otten stated in his view the creation of a charter city helps to preserve the identity of Long Lake, with a combination of the two names being too cumbersome. Jerry Schmitz, Long Lake, stated in his view the City of Long Lake is perfectly capable of governing themselves and do not need Orono to help guide them. Schmitz stated the City of Long Lake has managed to develop its own infrastructure and run its own volunteer fire department for a long time and can continue to manage itself without Orono. Schmitz questioned whether the residents of Lcng Lake want to give up the right to govern themselves. Gary Ringus. Consolidation Committee, commented he is appreciative of the open forum and the opportunity of working together on the merger issue and coming together as one community. Ringus stated the Consolidation Committee used the qualities of life that the residents indicated they would like to see preserved as their guide and looked to those values when discussing these issues. Ringus stated the Consolidation Committee wants to see the quality of life maintained and enhanced as much as possible. Ringus stated in his view the City' of Orono acts as a partner with Long Lake, and that both cities need to work together and support one another. Ringus stated in his opinion should the !■> ' fi -r ■ " Long Lakc/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 10 two cities merge, the residents of Orono will continue to support Long Lake and would not want Long Lake to be degraded. Ringus stated it is a matter of whether the merged city will be stronger with a unified set of values, which are included in the Charter of the City and act as guiding values for the merged city. Ken Hammerschmidt, Long Lake, invited the residents to ask themselves what values will be enhanced by the merger. Hammerschmidt stated in his view the residents of Long Lake will not have equitable representation by the creation of the wards. Jim Murphy, Consolidation Committee, stated the equitable representation by all citizens of the merged community was an important part of this merger review process. Murphy stated the residents of Long Lake will have the opportunity to vote one representative from their ward to the new city council and will have the opportunity to vote for four out of seven people on the city council. Murphy commented the reduction in taxes is an important factor to consider but is not the fundamental reason why the two cities decided to consider merger. Murphy stated the residents need to look at how they can preserve and enhance their quality of life, and that without a merger, the residents are depending on the goodwill of the other city. Murphy stated in light )f the problems that have occurred in the past, he is thankful the two cities are now able to work together. Murphy raised the question of what Long Lake will need to do should they have to expand their tax base, and questioned whether the residents of Long Lake would like to see their community become a big commercial shopping district or whether they would like to see the small-town atmosphere preserved. Murphy stated in his opinion the residents of both cities will have more fair and equitable representation with the merger than without; and without the goodwill that presently exists, the residents will experience problems. Neil Weber, Consolidation Committee, stated he was impressed by the attitude of the Committee members to try to work together on this issue. Weber stated the Consolidation Committee has discussed the majority of the questions raised by the residents tonight, with the answers to those questions being addressed in the merger report. Weber stated the questions raised by the residents are perfectly understandable, with the Committee attempting to address each and every one of them. Weber stated he is in agreement with Otten that the two cities basically operate as one large community with the exception of governance. W'eber stated the City of Long Lake will change forever as a result of the new Highw ay 12 corridor, and that if the residents take the Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 11 time to study the report and the issues involved, they will reach the same conclusions as the Consolidation Committee. There being no further public comment, Peterson closed the public hearing section of this meeting at 9:06 p.m. 6. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Mike Johnson, Long Lake City Council, thanked the Committee for their efforts and for the impressive report that was generated as a result of their review process. Johnson stated he has reviewed the report, noting all his questions have been answered. Mayor Jabbour, Orono City Council, indicated he has lived in Orono almost 30 years, and is interested in protecting the future of our children and in providing a community where the residents can all work together for the good of the city. Jabbour stated what happened in the past is not the current situation, and that he is interested in building a better place to live for the residents of the two cities. Peterson indicated the meeting will now be turned over to the Long Lake City Council. 7. ACTION BY LONG LAKE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Bash indicated the Long Lake City Council has been given periodic updates on the progress made by the Consolidation Committee, with this item being discussed on a regular basis at their City Council mee.ings. Bash stated it is the intent of the Long Lake City Council to vote on this issue tonight. Motion by Benson, second by Johnson, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2000-6-7, accepting the Findings and Recommendations of the Consolidation Study Committee as contained in the Plan for Merger and Implementation. Johnson staled his questions have been answered in the report. Gulbranson stated his questions as well have been answered in the report. Gulbranson thanked the Consolidation Committee for a difficult job well done, noting they have been kept informed of the progress on a regular basis and he feels comfortable about making a decision on the merger tonight. Gulbranson stated it is his view the ultimate goal of the Consolidation Committee has been to gather the information and present it to the vo*‘:rs to ! - ^ ■ »> nt Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 12 enable them to make an informed decision on this matter. Benson thanked the Consolidation Committee for their exceptional work on this matter. Benson stated his questions have also been answered, and that in his opinion the merger will benefit both communities and result in a stronger city which can better deal with the issues. Danielson thanked the Consolidation Committee for their work on this matter. Danielson commented In her opinion the merger will help Long Lake overall. Mayor Bash stated in his view the Consolidation Committee has taken into consideration the concerns relating to fair and equitable representation by the citizens of Long Lake, noting that the City of Orono is not a large community but is comprised of a number of different communities with residents of differing opinions. Bash noted the residents of both communities presently attend the same churches and frequent the same businesses. Bash stated it is up to the citizens to elect qualified people to the city council, with the establishment of the ward system designed to allow the residents to elect the best possible people to serve on the city council. Bash stated in his view a merged city will allow the residents to preserve their values better as well as result in a tax decrease for the citizens of Long Lake. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Gulbranson moved, Danielson seconded, to adjourn at 9:19 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the Long Lake City Council adjourned at 9:19 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk for Long Lake Michael Bash, Mayor of Long Lake 8. ACTION BY ORONO CITY COUNCIL Kelley stated he has been a resident of Orono since 1978, with the reason for moving to this area being the excellent quality of life. Kelley stated the City Council and residents need to look at the future of this area and where our communities will be. Kelley commented he has tended to view the downtown area of Long Lake as his as well, and in many instances the Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 13 :■ two cities are already one community. Kelley indicated he is in support of the merger. Peterson stated she has lived in Orono since 1976, being a resident of the Crystal Bay neighborhood, which in her view is similar to the Long Lake area. Peterson stated she is aware of the past problems between the two cities, and is appreciative of the spirit of cooperation that exists currently between the two cities. Flint stated he has resided in Orono for 15 years, and is pleased to see that the relations between the two cities have improved to the point where they are now considering merging. Flint stated at first he had a number of concerns regarding the merger, but those concerns have since been alleviated. Flint stated in his view the two cities can work together and become one city. Flint encouraged the residents to review the report of the Consolidation Committee. Sansevere stated his comments echo that of the Long Lake City Council members. Sansevere noted he has been a resident of Orono for five years, but has considered himself a part of the Long Lake community as well. Sansevere stated in his view a vote in favor of a merger will benefit both Long Lake and Orono and that the people will get out and vote at the primar>' because of the merger question. Mayor Jabbour stated in his view the two cities currently exist as one community, noting he is proud that relations between the two communities have improved to the point where both cities are now working together. Jabbour thanked the members of the Consolidation Committee fur all their hard work on this matter. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4484, accepting the Findings and Recommendations of the Consolidation Study Committee as contained in the Plan for Merger and Implementation. Flint read the Resolution to tlie audience. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. There being no further business, the Orono City Council adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: Linda Vee, City Clerk for Orono Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor of Orono r ^ ■ (• Long Lake/Orono Consolidation Committee Joint City Council Meeting Monday, June 5,2000 Page 14 9. ADJOUPNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the Consolidation Committee adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: Linda Vee, City Clerk for Orono Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor of Orono Michael Bash, Mayor of Long Lake .1 5 r f. ■ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING COI iwrn MEETING MONDAY, JtJNE 12,2000 ^ 6 2000 ROLL yUt Ul- UMUNU The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members Barbara Peterson, Richard Flint, and Bob Sansevere. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gafl&on, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. Council Member Charles Kelley was absent. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items 3,6,10,11,12,13,14, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda. Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS-PAULINE BOUCHARD, REPRESENTATIVE Bouchard stated that the June meeting had been canceled, so there was no new business to discuss. She mentioned that there would be a proposal regarding development near Saga Hill coming to the Commission next week that they will be carefully considering. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS-SANDY SMITH, REPRESENTATIVE None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT I ^*3. #2486 Elaine Erickson, 1270 Spruce Place—Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Resolution No. 4473 Peterson moved, an J Sanscvere seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4473 granting a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21 to allow grading within 5 feet of a lot line, and a Variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to permit construction of a new residence. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 4. #2557 Daniel and Judith McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road—Variance Review Weinberger reported that the applicants were granted variances in January for the addition of a second story to their existing house. The approval was for an addition to the existing house. Staff found on a recent visit that the house had been removed from its foundation and placed the Building Permit on hold. The building contractor found that part of the foundation would have to be replaced and that many of the joists were rotted and should be replaced to ensure compliance with the State Building Code. The applicants intend to use most of the existing foundation and would construct the new house based on the plans approved by the Council per Resolution No. 4416. Weinberger requested direction from the Council to either: 1) permit construction to continue based on the intent of the variance approvals understanding that no exterior alterations are proposed for this plan, which would limit the size of the house and staff were comfortable with the plan; 2) advise the applicant to submit a new Land Use Application which would require variances to be granted for new construction, and either granting a variance for lakeshore setback again, or requiring the building be moved to meet the average lakeshore setback, which could change the exterior of the house. Mr. McAthie stated his intent is to only do what they originally proposed. His contractor stated that they did not expect to have to remove the house, but as they worked they discovered more and more rotted floor joists. He stated that he has to warranty his products for ten years and can’t build on a bad foundation. Mayor Jabbour stated that there are large differences between this application and the house on County Road 15, which had a similar sequence of events, but also included structure within the 0-75 foot zone. Barrett asked that staff draft a resolution listing the reasons why it is appropriate to allow the applicant to proceed with plan 1. Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to allow the applicant to continue based on plans approved by the Council per Resolution 4416 and direct staff to prepare a resolution to present to the Council at their next meeting for adoption listing the k ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 4. U25S7 Daniel and Judith McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road—Variance Review—Continued appropriate reasons for said action. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 5. #2567 Walfred Properties, 2380 Shadywood Road—Commercial Site Plan Review—Resolutions No. 4474 and 4475 Mayor Jabbour requested to dispense with the formal presentation, as the Council was familiar with the application. Flint stated that he did not want this item added to the Consent Agenda because he was concerned with the packet referring to plans that have not yet been received, the trash being located next to the sidewalk, and he wondered if the 9 parking spaces near the pond could be left out. Weinberger stated that staff had concerns with the trash receptacle location. Also, they received grading plans for the property, which indicated grading right up to 3 mature trees. Staff suggested they use a retaining wall instead of grading in order to avoid disturbing the root systems of the trees. He also stated they do not have the legal descriptions required to adopt a rezoning ordinance at the meeting, which would require the property owners to grant an extension. Mr. Wally Klus stated they have done the legal descriptions and could get them in to staff right away. He stated he is eager to correct any issues and start work. Weinberger stated the property now known as Navarre Lane should be rezoned to B-5 to be consistent with the zoning of the remainder of the property. Mayor Jabbour asked if it could stay a residential zone since it is only being used for the retention pond. Barrett stated that would be acceptable, and the Council could take action on the resolutions regarding the application. Mr. Klus’s architect stated they could move the trash receptacle and hide it in a nook in the retaining wall. Mr. Klus stated they intend to put in the 9 parking spaces that Flint had questioned as necessary. Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4474 granting variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.56 Subdivision 16(L), Conditional Use Permits per Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21, and approving the issuance of a Building Permit to Walfred Properties for the property located at 2380 Shadywood Road per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subdivision 2 to permit commercial development of the property’ with the condition that the applicant work with Staff to relocate the trash receptacle away from the pedestrian access trail and save the mature trees identified in the northeast corner of the property’. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 5.#2567 Waif red Properties, 2380 Shadywood Road—Commercial Site Plan Review—Resolutions No. 4474 and 4475—Continued Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4475 vacating an unimproved lane within the plats of "Wiley ’s Navarre Addition" and "Lafayette Ridge." Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *6. #2569 W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron, 1880 and 1700 Fox Street—After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit—Resolution No. 4476 Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4476 granting an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 to permit excavation of greater than 500 cubic yards for construction of a pond. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7.#2581 John and Kristin Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street—Variances—Resolution No. 4477 Wendy Bottenberg stated that the Planning Commission passed the plan unanimously, but staff asked the item not be placed on the Consent Agenda so that the Council could review the memo from Mike Gaffron, which points out the staff s concerns. Mr. Gehring stated that he has worked hard to minimize and reduce hardcover on the property. The new application meets side yard setbacks and they are within the 15% structural hardcover, and have brought the hardcover in the 75-200 foot zone to 26.7%. He wants to build his new house 42 feet from the lakeshore because that is the average lakeshore setback. It would keep him in alignment with the other 5 neighboring properties. He also stated that they sit at the bottom of a hill and have drainage issues. His neighbors have supported his application. If he moves his house back, he will have sight line issues because of his neighbors’ houses and it would also create privacy issues with the neighbors. Gaffron stated that when the Palms rebuilt, they were originally given a variance for an addition at the 39 foot line, but when they found their foundation was unstable, they were forced to move back to the 50 foot line. Staff is proposing that the Gehring house be set back at the 50 foot line. They agree that the 75 foot line creates drainage issues for the applicant. But if the house were to be located closer to the shore than 50 feet, it would result in large houses sitting too close to the lakeshore, which would be inconsistent with the City’s goals. Sansevere asked Mr. Gehring what his issue was with moving the house from the 42 foot line to the 50 foot line. He responded that moving the house back creates lake view ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 'm . 4 4 f¥ 7. f^258I John and Kristin Gehring, J687 Concordia Street—Variances—Resolution No. 4477 —Continued impairments by more than 8 feet because the neighbors have a deck and stairs off their house. Peterson stated that the Planning Commission was more concerned with hardcover and lot coverage issues than with the setback. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission discussed setback at the May 15 “’ meeting and that Bottenberg recommended a 50 foot setback at that time. He pointed out it was discussed in Bottenberg’s staff memo at that time. Mayor Jabbour questioned whether the Council should table the application to the next meeting to enable a revised resolution reflecting the 50 foot setback to be prepared. Gaffron suggested they issue building permits with the resolution brought back to Council in two weeks. Barrett recommended making an oral amendment to the resolution at the meeting. Gaffron offered to prepare a revised resolution for Council action that evening. Mayor Jabbour moved, and Peterson seconded, to table Item 7 to a later point in the meeting to enable a revised resolution to be prepared. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item 7 is continued after the City Administrator's Report. 8.#2585 Thomas and Kathleen McCaffrey, 4265/4355 Chippewa Lane—Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement—Resolution No. 4478 Barrett stated that his issue with the application was resolved and he was satisfied with it as presented by staff Mayor Jabbour moved, and Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4478 approving a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for properties located at 4265 and 4355 Chippewa Lane; and granting of a variance to Municipal Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5(B) permitting Parcel A to be 245 feet in width where a 370 foot width exists and 300 feet is required in the RR& A zoning district. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. 9. #2587 Richard R. Rudd, 4575 Wayzata Boulevard—Preliminary Road Plat—Resolution No. 4479 Weinberger stated that staff had a minor revision to the resolution presented in the packet. Because it is being completed as a road plat only, platting only the 4575 lot, they [y to 1^ (1^. ORONO CITY COrNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 9. #2587 RichardR. Rudd, 4575 Wayzata Boulevard—Preliminary Roac Plat—Resolution No. 4479 —Continued would not take on a mylar copy of actual easements across the property as they normally would, so staff is recommending adding the condition that a separate drainage easement be drafted to permit all the flow from a NURP pond to other wetland areas. Barrett stated he was concerned that in #11 of the resolution, it appeared the City was making conclusions about the easements being private. He stated the resolution should read that the homeowners have asserted the easements are private. Peterson moved, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4479 with the corrections and additions suggested, approving preliminary road plat for property located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard PID 30-118-23 31 0004. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Jabbour stated that he had read an article about MN/DOT that stated they were planning to start the Highway 12 project in 2005, but had bumped it up to 2003. The Council had the impression work would begin in 2002. He stated that officially the start date is still 2002, but they can ’t realistically expect the start until 2003. Mayor Jabbour stated he has received phone calls about the Art Center tear down and construction. He stated it is a $7 million project. He met with people at the Art Center and suggested they hold a meeting with their neighbors about the project. Sansevere commended the Mayor and Ms. McMillan on getting safety lanes in Lake Minnetonka north of Big Island. ENGINEER REPORT *10. Fox Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project A. Declare Cost to be Assessed and Order Preparation of Proposed Assessment—Resolution No. 4480 B. Schedule Assessment Hearing—Resolution No. 4481 Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4480 declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for Fox Ridge Area Sanitary Sewer. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6 -rrrffurnT -rmr » wur ■■im fa- r -1 n iri ■- inniTi miif rr mi-T irirmt irmreT ~ niTBrrm r • rr r ^iTW^nTTm "rr-Tfirr^'if f n -----im r-nir-r rmirr~T'‘ \ ■ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 Il^- *I 0. Fox Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project —Continued Peterson moved, and Sansevcre seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4481 for hearing on proposed assessment Fox Ridge Area Sanitary Sewer. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *11. East Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project A. Declare Cost to be Assessed and Order Preparation of Proposed Assessment—Resolution No. 4482 B. Schedule Assessment Hearing—Resolution No. 4483 Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4482 declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for East Long Lake Area Sanitary Sewer. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4483 for hearing on proposed assessment East Long Lake Area Sanitary Sewer. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *12. Approve Purchase of Compactor for Public Works Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve purchase of Public Works Vibratory Compactor for Sl,888 from United Sales and Rental Company, New Hope. Purchase to be funded from the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund budget with approval of a budget adjustment for this purchase. *13. Approve Purchase of Trucks for Public Works Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve purchase of Public Works replacement 1 Ton Plow Truck from Grossman Chevrolet with accessories at a total cost of $42,674 to be funded from the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund budget. Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve purchase of Public Works replacement % Ton Plow Truck from Grossman Chevrolet with accessories at a total cost of $28,463 to be funded from the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund budget. *14. Approve Renewal of Safe Assure Safety Training Program Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the proposal from Safe Assure Consultants for conducting safety training and preparation of the related w ritten programs and documentation at an annual cost of $3,110. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 15. Discuss/Approve Navarre Municipal Parking Lot Lights Gappa stated that he has reviewed the parking and lighting situation in the lot and he is proposing new fixtures that will improve lighting of the lot. The City zoning code requires 150 parking spaces based on the adjacent business uses. The lot contains 90 parking spaces. The lot is being used by a large number of park and ride commuters —about 30, where 37 spaces have been designated for park and ride. There have not been complaints about the available space, however, that could change in the future so Gappa stated he does not recommend losing parking space to add islands in the lot. There are some bad areas in the parking lot that need to be repaved. Lights need to be installed before the paving can begin. The building owmers and leasers have been contacted and are generally supportive of the project. Mayor Jabbour moved, and Peterson seconded, to have staR accept the quotation for Navarre Municipal Parking Lot Lighting Improvements from NSP Outdoor Lighting in the amount of $32,460, and to complete the appropriate budget adjustments to fund the Navarre Parking Lot Lighting Improvements from the Undesignated Component of the PIR Fund. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *16. Request for Final Payment—Edgewood Hills Sanitary Sewer Project Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Final Payment, Edgewood Hills Sanitary Sewer Project to GL Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $9,407.72. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 17. Selection of Police Chief Search Consultant The Council agreed they were comfortable with PDI after the presentation they received at the Work Session. Sansevere moved, and Peterson seconded, to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign an agreement with PDI regarding the Police Chief search process. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item 18 was removed from by the agenda by Ron Moorse. Moorse requested the June 15'" Work Session be rescheduled for June 29'". 8 1 r . i K K i ^ f. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 7. #2581 John and Kristin Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street—Variances—Resolution No. 4477—Continued Mayor Jabbour moved to reopen Item 7. Gaflfron explained the changes made to the Resolution regarding hardcover and setback issues. Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4477 granting a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(1) with a 50 foot setback from the lakeshore to permit construction of a new residence. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1 (Peterson). CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *19. LICENSES Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the following licenses. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Residential Kennel License i 1.Melissa Wendell 1151 No^h Arm Drive *20. BILLS Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 t: ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT council meEtinq 2001 BUDGET AND LEVY DRAFT Cl I » oi- OhOivo JUN 2 6 2000 . - DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD MINNETONKA MTKA BEACH MINNETRI8TA MOUND ORONO 8H0REW00D SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WAYZATA WOODLAND 1997 Population Estimates Taxable Market Value Net Tax Capacity % of Total Net Sbpre of Tax Capacity Adnyitv Budget ' ♦.f.f,# V r . , Share of Exotics Budget Share of Total Budget In 2001 »;*«#•• • * f • Share of Total Budget in 2000 3,695 449,674,500 6,895,119 4.3% 19,096 24 $6,935 00 16,031.24 14,753.69 2,335 140,506,400 2,461,997 1.5%$3,239 76 $2,470.00 5,709.76 5,278.12 703 97,865,800 1,520,312 1.0%$2,118.30 $1,615.00 3,733.30 3,202.01 52,176 4,392,492,000 84,744.523 53%$24,921.20 $19,000.00 43,921.20 38,135.80 574 102,974,600 1,630,381 1.0%$2,118.30 $1,615.00 3,733.30 3,435.94 4,000,458,062,900 6.704,659 4.2%$8,971.63 $6,840.00 15,811.83 14,232.55 9,742 514,586,400 7,145,622 4.5%$9,594.66 $7,315.00 16,909.66 16,217.15 7,671 1,018,521,300 15,777,690 9.9%$21,056.41 $16,055.00 37,113.41 32,996.54 5,917 676,345,400 10,218,346 6.4%$13,582.05 $10,355.00 23,937.05 21,046.76 1,831 82,949,600 1,582,437 1.0%$2,118.30 $1,615.00 3,733.30 3,319.23 1,486 196,390,100 3,001,106 1.9%$3,987.39 $3,040.00 7,027.39 6,395.35 3,616 293,500,300 4,302,369 2.7%$5,731.88 $4,370.00 10,101.88 9,141.13 4,099 602,922,700 11,563,812 7.3%$15,575.75 $11,875.00 27,450.75 18,662.84 496 116,595,600 1,834,386 1.2%$2,492.12 $1,900.00 4,392.12 3,895 90 98,345 9,143,387.600 159,382,759 99.9%$124,605.99 $95.CX)0.00 $219,605.99 $190,679.00 Maximum L«vy Pw MN aMula 10S6.635 (ToW Twabta MaitcM ValiM * .00242%) S221 .269.98 Ptr MN aMuto 103B.631, no cMy may pay morn than 20% of ttM total lavy. Tha City of Mnnelonka would pay a constant 20% of any amounts to ba iovwd. f^tnaMnscMas (actor for dataimininglavy amounts is computed as: (City Net Tax Capac)ly/( Total Nat Tax Capacity-Minnetonka Not Tax Capacity ))* 60% ToWNatTaxCapadly taaa Mnnolottha Nat Tax Capacity Nat Tax Capadly for ramainlng 13 uLos 159.382.758 (in 744.523) 74.638.236 2001 Budgai rawteion 540 S40f00 2;39PM PagalofS w-lil hi. :V' ■UtuM ■■'■-■ 1Wv:, r t V ^ry*i'--‘.•iw.i 1. AdmMilratkMi 1998 Budget 1998 Actual 1999 Budget 1999 Actual 2000 Budget 2000 YTD(3/31) U.V^vvUv a^ I k; I ~MMi n i~ii ~ t nf I i~nam u AOMMISTftATION 1. Peraofifiel Servicea: 2001 Budget rteWon 5-30 5/3 239 PM 2001 Budget e) LMCO CommunlMee Admn Levy 109.640 109.640 109.208 109.209 128.679 45.795 124.606 b) Reeefve Fund Contribulion 0 0 15.000 15.000 0 0 0 c) CouftFlnee 40.000 40.591 40.000 22.616 40.000 3.763 35.000 d) Uceneet 100.000 105.671 100.000 109.277 .105.000 102.052 105.000 e) Boat and Water Safety Education 2.240 2.100 1.030 2.000 0 1.500 f) Inlereet, Public Funde a.ooo 5.716 10.000 10.466 8.000 5.764 6.000 g) OUterlnoomen 2.000 15.624 2.000 6.465 2.000 91 2.000 SUB-TOTAL AOMB8STRATION 259.640 279.482 278.306 276.063 285.679 157.485 276.106 2. BJCoBce Management ■) LMCO ConrnwnWM Exotics klHiml Uvy 64.500 64.500 42.000 42.001 62.000 22,064 95.000 b) OBier Public Agenclee 24.000 23.654 24.000 23.654 24.000 0 24.000 0) Pftvate Solicitation 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 d) Reeenm Fund Anocabon 5.500 5.500 30.000 30,000 10,000 0 0 e) Inlereat 12,000 10.362 6.000 8.829 8.000 4.505 6.000 SUB-TOTAL EXOTICS MANAGEMENT 107.000 104.216 104.000 104.684 104.000 26.569 127.000 TOTAL RCVCNUeS 366.640 383.698 382.308 380,767 389.679 134.054 403.106 Total Law 174.140 174.140 161.208 161.210 190.679 67,869 219.606 Reeefve Fund Allocatione 5.500 5,500 45.000 45.000 10,000 0 0 a) Salarlee(lnciudee Milfoil relaled Staff 8me)95.480 96.161 102.500 103,631 105.500 27.722 111.000 b) Planning/Special Prt^eclB Intern 0 3.869 0 0 0 0 0 c) Employer Benefit Contributiona 16.618 19.373 18.668 20.892 19,979 5.514 21.466 SUB-TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES 112.098 119.403 121,168 124.723 125,479 33.236 132.466 2. Contractual Servicee: a) OfOce Lease A Storage 17.952 22.451 18.000 15.952 18.960 4138 17.040 b) Prolbeiional Services 10.000 10.823 10.000 13.188 11,000 3.199 12.000 SUB-TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 27.952 33.274 26.000 29.140 29.960 7.337 29.040 8. Office S Adminletration: a) OfKoe. General Supplies 5.000 2.428 4.500 3.749 4.000 1.223 4.000 b) Telephone 4.140 3.381 4.440 4.971 4.440 757 4.440 c) Poet^4.500 3.221 4.350 5,065 4.000 266 4.000 ^ Printing, PubOcabons. Advertising 2.500 857 2.500 2.644 4.000 1.537 4.000 a1 MaMenence Office EoulDmefil 2.000 1.655 2.500 801 2.000 196 1.500 0 Subscripborrs, Memberships 450 1.130 450 1.106 1.000 0 1.000 ^ Inaufanoa, Bonds 6.000 6.706 7.000 8.132 7.000 0 7.500 h) PuMe btfonnalion, Lagal NoOcas 2.000 695 2.000 1.158 2.000 231 2.000 0 Mtaege, Meeting Expertses. Emp. Training 1.500 1,871 1,500 2.324 2.000 251 2.000 D Boat «td Water Safety Education 1.394 2.100 U64 :.xo 0 1.500 Kf wwwWmnm 274 300 509 300 60 460 0 WebPage/imemet Milnienwice/Service 1.143 1.000 0 1.000 0 1.000 SUB-TOTAL OFFICE A ADMINISTRATION 28.090 24.755 32.640 32.825 33.740 4.543 33.420 .1 Pao«2or3 ■i," m ' c 4. Capnal Outlay: a) Fiimihira. Equipmant b) Compolir soltwara & hardwara: SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 1998 Budget 1998 Actual 1999 Budgat 1999 Actual 2000 Budgat 2000 YTD(3ni) 1.000 2.500 3.500 12 1,071 1,083 1.000 2,000 3,000 479 0 479 4,000 3.500 7.500 67 0 67 6. Legal: a) Legal Sarvicat b) Proaacutton Safvicas c) Hann. County Room & Board 20.000 30,000 3.000 25.999 49,497 2.288 20,000 32,000 4.000 21.158 36,952 1.924 20,000 40.000 4.000 11.948 12.145 787 I •*# I<r* -•#% 2001 Budgat 2,000 2,000 4,000 25.000 40.000 3,000 d) RacodlAcatton/Zoning 7,500 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 SUB-TOTAL LEGAL 60,500 77,784 63,500 60,034 64.000 24,060 68,000 S. Contract StrvICM/Studit*: a) M( t Plan ImpiMMnWIon 10.200 10,071 0 1,062 15,000 308 0 b) Boalar Ed. P80I Program 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) Record Arcblvat 10.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0 AooaaaChannal Signafla 20.000 0 0 0 0 SUB-TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES/STUDlES 20.200 10,071 20.000 1,062 15,000 308 0 7. Contingency 6.000 24,576 10.000 421 10.000 449 10.000 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 268.340 290.946 278,308 248,684 286,679 70,820 276.926 KXOTICS MANAGEMENT 1. Weed Harveating Operational a) Salariet 8 Employer Taxea/lnsurance 32.000 25.351 30,000 26,796 28.000 0 42,000 b) Trucking Contract 15,000 14,484 15,000 14,175 16,000 0 16.000 0) AdminNtraliva 1.000 1.873 1.000 1,871 2.000 40 2.000 <0 Operational Supplies 20.000 22.081 15,000 21,610 15.000 88 20.000 e) Cordract Services 19,000 83.705 20.000 23,450 20.000 0 22.000 1) Heavy Oro^ Season Eidansion 8.000 5,353 8.000 611 8.000 0 8.000 SUB-TOTAL WEED HARVESTING OP. EXP.95.000 152,847 69,000 86,515 69.000 128 112,000 2. Weed Harvesting Equip. Depreciation 12.000 12.000 35.000 35.000 10.000 0 10.000 SUB-TOTAL WEED HARVESTING 107.000 164,847 124,000 123,515 99.000 128 122.000 8. Zebra Mussel Operational 12.000 4;t64 15,000 10,146 5.000 1059 5.000 TOTAL EXOTICS MANAOEMENENT 119,000 169.111 139,000 133,661 104.000 1,187 127,000 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 377,340 460.067 417.308 382.346 389.679 72,007 403.926 Tbe Mkming Save fbe Lake ftnaneM dBta /s provk/ad for Informotfonsi purpoMos only. 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 Budget Actual Budgat Actual Budget YTD(3ni) WAViiiiaiiAiar^^v^r^y:^ tav'* the Lafca Protein Incoma: a) PnvBls Donations 30,000 30.000 25.000 24,972 27.000 1,918 b) Otisr Incoma 1.800 1,800 1,000 864 1.000 1.775 c) Intsreit 7.000 7.000 5.000 8,384 7.000 4,351 SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE INCOME 38,800 38.800 31,000 34;t20 35,000 8,044 Save ifie Lake Program Expenste: a) AdminMrativs 3,700 2.353 2,600 2,276 4,250 50 b) Program 35.100 16,796 28,200 23,119 30.750 2,307 SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE EXPENSES 38,800 19,149 31,000 25,395 35,000 2.357 1 im E i t. 1{‘ Am:'- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2001 BUDGET The following assumptions were made in the preparation of the draft 2001IMCD Budget: Salaries (la) Executive Direaor Admin. Tech. Admin. Ass’t. Admin. Clerk (hourly rate) Employer BeneHt Contributions (lb) P.E.R.A. (4.75%) NCPERS Life Ins. Prudential Life Ins. F.I.C.A. & Medicare Medical Ins. OfHce Lease & Storage (2a) Office & storage ($1,630/mo.) Off-site storage Telephone (3b) U.S. West AT&T Insurance, Bonds (3g) Propeny Inland Marine Municipal LiabUity Excess Liability w/ Waiver Bond Contii^ency (7) (includes salary increases) EWM Salaries & Employer Taxes/Insurance (la) Salaries F.I.C.A. & Medicare (7.65%) Insurance (Auto & Workers Comp.) Current Hours 2001 $48,000 $48,000 $29,000 $29,000 $24,000 $24,000 $12.10 825 $10,000 $5,272.50 $432.00 $70.00 $8,491.50 $7,200.00 $21,466.00 $19,560.00 $240.00 $19,800.00 $4,200.00 $240.00 $4,440.00 $150.00 $1,100.00 $4,300.00 $1,700.00 $250.00 $7,500.00 $10,000.00 $35,555.00 $2,945.00 $3,500.00 $42,000.00 $111,000 > V •Administration EWM/Exotics 2000 12/31/99 Balance $111,300 $93,426 Budgeted Reserve Fund Allocation $0 ($10,000) Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund $0 ($10,000) $111,300 $73,426 2001 Projected 12/31/00 Balance $111,300 $73,426 Reserve Fund Allocation $0 $0 ^ Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund $0 $0 Projected 12/31/99 Balance $111,300 $73,426 i '-i APPENDIX A DRAFT 2001 LMCD BUDGET NOTES ADMINISTRATION • $111,000 has been budgeted for Salaries for three full-time employees and one part-time employee at current salaries and hourly rate (line item la). Salary adjustments for these employees have been budgeted as part of Contingency (line item 7). $17,040 has been budgeted for Office Lease & Storage (line item 2a). It is projected that Office Lease & Storage expenses for 2001 will cost the District approximately $25,000. The balance of these expenses will be off-set by funds received from the Freshwater Foundation in the Fall of 1998 move. • $12,000 has been budgeted for Professional Services (line item 2b). This includes funds for the 2000 LMCD Audit and for the District Sookkeeper. • $4,000 has been budgeted for Printing, Publications, & Advertising (line item 3d). This includes for the re-printing of Summer Rules and other District literature. Boat and Water Safety Education (BWSE) expenses (line item 3j) generally offset revenues received (line item 1e) for this twice a year course for boaters who get BWI's on Lake Minnetonka. $3,500 has been budgeted for Computer Software & Hardware expenses (line item 4b). This includes operating systems and word processing software upgrades, and the replacement of one desktop computer. $40,000 has been budgeted for Prosecution Services (line item 5b). This can be attributed to the change in BWI legislation in 1998 and the recent challenges of authority of Special Deputies of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol. No reserve fund contribution has been budgeted for 2001. With a projected Administrative reserve fund balance of $111,300 by 12/31/00, the District should attain the agreed upon six-month reserve for the Administrative Budget by year-end of 2000. EWM/EXOTICS MANAGEMENT • It is anticipated that the MN DNR will fund the District with a grant of approximately $24,000 to assist in the management of Eurasian Watermilfoil. $5,000 has been budgeted for Zebra Mussel expenses (line item 2). These funds will be spent on related operating expenses for the spraydown program. No reserve fund contribution has been budgeted. With a projected EWM reserve fund balance of $73,426 by 12/31/00, the District should attain the agreed upon 12 month reserve for the EWM/Exotics Management program. M REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 22,2000 ITEM NO.; ^ Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator/Pianner Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances-Puhlic Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakesbore Residential District ('A Acre) Lot Area:6.6S acres List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Resolution Application Planning Commission Minutes Planning Report (January 7,2000) Planning Report (April 13,2000) Existing Boundary and Topographic Survey Proposed Site Plan Elevation Views Hennepin County has proposed to construct a 60' X120 ’ X 20' (20' height) indoor storage facility for salt and sand operations at their facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive in Navarre. The facility will consist of three 60' X 40' bays for storage of salt, sand, and the salt/sand mixture respectively. The current building was constructed in 1962 while the property was zoned for commercial uses. The City rezoned the property in the early 1970s for residential use. The County has continued to the facility for v.lr.tcr hish'.vay maintenanca as a non-conforming use since that time. During the City’s review process for the application, the County was asked to consider the option ofi^iucating its facility outside of Navarre. The County did give consideration to this option. The Cotuity detennined there is no other site available that would enable the County to effectively serve the area served by the existing facility, which extends from Mound to Excelsior. Therefore the County is continuing to move forward with its application. County Staff has indicated the proposed building would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. During a significant snow' event, night 4 > f Request for Council Action continued Page 2 June 22,2000 #2555 Hennepin County__________ deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required because they have limited indoor storage. With an enclosed building, they could stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours. Existing use of Property: The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for conmiercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-1C. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels off boats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD has used the property for storage of milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. The LMCD has 4 milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landings are full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. This application requires the following approvals: 1. 2. Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%). where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory stmcture on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory stmcture on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory stmetures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan, the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) Request for Council Action continued Page 3 June 22,2000 #2555 Hennepin County ________ 3.Variance to the provision of the Zoning Code that prohibits expansion of a non-conforming use . A recent Court decision has held that a city can grant a variance to the provision of the Zoning Code that prohibits expansion of a non-conforming use. This would enable the construction of the salt/sand storage building while retaining the non-conforming status of the County public works facility use on the site. 4.Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and will require a MCWD permit and may require approval by the Corps of Engineers. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property owner that the wetland will be subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the required variances and the conditional use permit to enable the construction of the salt/sand storage building and the stormwater management pond. Planning Commbsion Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend denial of the revised application based on the following comments: 1.The Comprehensive Plan has guided the propertv for residential use. The proposed expanded use is much more intense than what the properi'; is currently used for. 2. There was concern continued use of the site impacts u.c water quality of Lake Minnetonka. 3.The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial to residential in the early 1970s. Approving a Code Amendment to permit this type of use in the LR-1 C district would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non- conforming status. 4.Other sites in the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other locations that may be feasible. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the resolution attached as Exhibit A. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19-21 FILE NO. 2555 A ii. WHEREAS, Hennepin County (hereinafter the "applicant") is owner of a property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows (hereinafter the "property"): "Exhibit A" ; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on January 19, 2000 and April 17, 2000 at which times ail persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak diereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a land use application to the City of Orono requesting the following approvals: 1.A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970*s, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (^tion 10.25) 2.Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) Page 1 of 9 .J*, 3.Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) 4.Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management poud. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zomng File #2555. The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended denial of the Zoning Code Amendment to the LR-IC District based on the following: A. The Comprehensive Plan has guided the property for residential use. The proposed expanded use is much more intense than what the property is currently used for. Page 2 of 9 B There was concern continued use of the site impacts the water qualit)' of Lake Minnetonka. 4. 5. 6. 7. C. The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial to residential in the early 1970s. Approving a Code Amendment to permit this type of use in the LR-IC district would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non-conforming status. D. The proposed height of the building was 42' requiring a variance. The building would have been 22' taller than the existing principal building. £. Other sites ui the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other locations that may be feasible. The County has requested an amendment to the application to not require a Zoning Amendment to permit Maintenance Facilities in the LR-IC District as a conditional use. They have requested a variance to the provision of the Zoning Code that prohibits expansion of a non-conforming use. A recent Court decision has held that a city can grant a variance to the provision of the Zoning Code that prohibits expansion of a non-conforming use. T^ would enable the construction of the salt/sand storage building while retaining the non- conforming status of the County public works facility use of the site. The proposed building has been reduced in height from 42' to 20' and the building has been redesigned to not require a fully enclosed building but rather three storage bays for the salt/sand product. Elevation views, provided by Hennepin County, indicate the buildings would only have minimal impact on adjacent properties to the north. The 42' building proposal would have blocked views from a small area in Spring Park across the railroad tracks. Page 3 of 9 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The storage bays would provide protection for the salt and sand product. Much of the salt and sand has been stored outdoors and could become part of the runoff from the site towards Lake Minnetonka. The facility is located within the 1 Shoreland area of the lake. Ill A stormwater management pond has been proposed to treat stormwater before leaving the site. Water drains towards the south side of the property and enters a culvert that carries the water directly to the lake. A management pond will treat much of the water before leaving the site. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminate the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a storm sewer pipe and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Without indoor storage the County is required to make deliveries on a 24 hour schedule during snowfall events. The property is used for additional public services. The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels offbeats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD has used the property for storage of milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is propo.sed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landings are full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Page 4 of 9 MMiiii 13. j*'. n 15. rii# .*• Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for land alteration for pond construction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the conununity. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit construction of an accessory building on property that is devoted to a non-conforming use; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit hardcover alteration in the 500'- 1000' lakeshore setback in excess of 35%; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to permit a 60' X 120' (7,200 s.f.) accessory building to be constructed on the property, where a building 2,4(X) s.f. is allowed; and for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21 to permit land alteration for construction of a stormwater management pond. Approval is subject to the following conditions; Page 5 of 9 *.f •‘ (■•I •'■f' ’‘l ■ \i i-;A C • V.V. cj ^ .ij ^ >■- i: .- s. 1. The building is constructed per the site plans provided by Hennepin County. 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any land alteration activities, and shall not be removed until such time Staff authorizes removal. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The fill removed from ponding areas shall be placed in the locations and to the grades as shown on the site plans on file with the City of Orono. All land alteration shall be subject to final approval by the City Engineer. The use of the building shall be limited to storage of the salt/sand product. The three lots that exist on the property shall be combined into one tax parcel. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (June 26, 2001). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 6 of 9 1 r w Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: t Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of., 20___, 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 7 of 9 I Exhibit A irA*k fff! ‘ •n--r. » ’ u* I ;-• « } *■ j / -i.- LEGAL DESCRIPnONS; Troct 1 - Tofrani Ropady par Cadtflooto ofHNa 369670 The East 50 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 of that part of Government Lot 0. Section 17. Township 117, Range 23. lying East of the East line of ’Streater's Spring Park Addition . Hennepin County. Minnesota, the boundaries of which tract are marked by Judicial Landmarks placed at the Northwest and Northeast corners thereof, and by Judicial Landmarks placed cn the west line of said tract 33.01 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof and on the East line of said tract 33.01 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15147. According to the Government Survey thereof. All of Tract 1 is sub and 1656002 (County H ect to permanent easements for street purposes as pe" Torrens Documents 1377503 ghway Plat) Area of Tract 1 - 11.632 Square Feet (0.267 Acres). Dnocf 2 • Torrani Proptdy par Carttfloota of Tltte 369670 That part of Government Lot 0. Section 17, Township 117. Range 23. and that part of Lot 1. Block 9. Townslte of Langdon Park, all described as beginning at the intersection of a line drawn parallel with and 233 feet North of the South line of said Government Lot 0 and a line drawn parallel with and 100 feet East of the East line of 'Streater's Spring Park Addition . Hennepin County. Minnesota, thence North along the last described parallel line and its extension to tne Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway Company: thence Easterly along said Southerly right of way lineto its intersection with a line drawn North at right angles to the South Una of said Section 17 from a point thereon distant 1315.97 feet West from the South quarter-corner of said Section 17. thence south along said last described line to a point 233 feet North of tne South line of saio Section 17: thence West parallel with the South line of said Section 17 to the point of beginning, the boundaries of which tract are marked by Judicial Landmarks placed at the four corners thereof and the South line of which tract la further marked by Judicial Landmarks placed thereon 50.02 feet and 100.04 feat East of the Southwest corner of said tract, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15147. According to the Government Sjrvey thereof and according to the recorded plat thereof. Subject to a private driveway nr street easement over the westerly 100 feet of Tract 2. Area of Tract 2 - 243. 101 Square Feet (5.501 Acres) Tfoct 3 - Abatrodr F¥opariy per Document No. 3846782 That part of Government Lot 0. Section 17. Township, 117. Range 23 100 feet Easterly of the Easterly line of "Streater s Spring PorkMinnesota, and lying North of the southerly 233 feet of said Government Lot 0, and South of the Great Northern Railway right of way. Subject to an easement for street purposes over Tract 3. North of a line parallel50 feet Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway right or way. a per Documents 3320237 and 3845702. Page 9 of 9 i, AppBeadott^ 2_ GSS DiteRecehtd /z/2.o/«7«y AnoiutPald ----------- B CnY OF ORONQ - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PRbPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3880 Shoreline Drive b'5391 • • TVpe of Applicttion to be Filed____ Property Identificetion Number (PJLD.) 171172330002 Storage Building Construction APPLICANT Ntme____(iuy K. Nowlan Phone (home).n/A _ Phone (work ) 612-745-7652 Addres s 1600 Prairie Drive________City Medina__________Zip 55340 OWNER 0^ different than applicant) Name _____County of Hennepin Phone (borne).N/A _____________ Phone (work ) 612-745-7500 Addret S 1^00 Prairie Drive City Medina_______. Zip 55340 N/ADate Property Acquired__ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMTIS - S 75.00 For each variance requeirt with CUP application _____5175^00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Initltudonal (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____S300.00 Commerciil/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ GracUng and filling • designated wetland or floodplain •____Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore ■ PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____ $150.00 Renewitl Fee (no change firom original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Applicatioh Fee (monthtyear) OTHER APPLICATIONS ____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+- consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation ____ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Reroning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 i^p^s Other - see Fee Schedule ]% ■■ F- It l- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 12550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) KlumHipted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckn'Uft commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whetber the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated thXis not an issue. Smith inquired whether the n^tobers of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots whb a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the sbUots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions st^ the number of lots. by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce Weinberger stated this is another application that wH^eed to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this apphution to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he shqyld comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the de^joper consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the develope^ndicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning CoirlHjission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commissioi^^wuld like to see occur on this application. ^ Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #255^^20 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strona recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within ti subdivision to six in order to comolv with the conditions outlined in the Januat^4.0 , 2000 (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger slated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property is presently used for salt/sand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 BiiiiytillliiyBfihJeHhStK. c f I ‘■V, ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) months as well as storage by the LMCD of their milfoil harvesters. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. In addition, the DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning boats, trailers and other watercraft on this property. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. Currently the LMCD stores four milfoil harvesters at this site. Weinberger stated Hennepin County is proposing to construct a building consisting of 7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons, which amounts to approximately one-third of the annual mixed salt/sand usage during the winter months. The building would provide for interior mixing and ioading of materials. Currently that operation is conducted outdoors. The proposed building is 70 feet by 112 feet in size, with the height of the building being 42 feet in height. A height variance would be needed since the proposed building exceeds the height of the principal building. Weinberger noted the height of the principal building is approximately 18 to 20 feet in height. County Staff has indicated the operations would reduce the noise to the surrounding neighborhoods and would also eliminate the salt and sand runoff into the adjacent wetlands during storms. Hennepin County is estimating the number of round trip truck runs would be reduced to 60 based on the size of the proposed building. Weinberger stated the Burlington Northern Railroad exists to the north of this site, with the property to the southwest being zoned LR-1C-1, and the southeast being zoned B-5, Commercial. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has recently purchased the land immediately adjacent to this site, which is zoned LR-1C-1. The property to the west of this site is zoned residential. Weinberger stated the proposed stormwater management plan includes construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. Weinberger recommended approval of this application be conditioned upon review and approval of the stormwater management plan by the City Engineer. Weinberger stated in order for a zoning code amendment to be approved, the Planning Commission should consider the following; A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following conditions: a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) acres. b. Property shall have direct access to a County road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennpin County facilities. d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditionai use permit, to be determined by the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Weinberger stated a variance to permit hardcover alteration is needed as well as a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height for a structure and exceed the defined height of the principal structure on the property A variance is also « Page 14 . T-— '«r- < ‘ » I, ‘ jr ■ r i. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 f#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) required to permit the storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on this lot. A conditional use permit is required for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. City Staff is recommending approval of Alternative A to amend the code and approve variances for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance Facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Staff is recommending approval based on the following conditions: 1. A finai drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hennepin County and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased 3. Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the City Engineer. 4. Permits and/or approval by the MCWD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on site. 5. The three separate tax parcels are combined into one lot. 6. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. 7. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title to the property alerting property owners of \NCA. protected wetlands. 8. A conservation and flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. 9. The county facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance. 10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from immediate view to residential properties. 11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval. 12. A restrictive covenant Is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized accessory structure. 13. Building and Land Alteration Permits vm’ll not be issued until all requirements of the conditional use permit are satisfied. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission may chose to approve the application as presented UGuiuy, cippiuvc me: vdii^Oce^ lu pciniu uuiiouw. oiw conditional use permit to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, or to recommend denial of the application, which will mean the site will continue to exist as a legal non-conforming use. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock had no comment. Mike O’Connor inquired whether the height of the proposed building would block the neighbors' view of the lake. Page 15 — ..... .................—’ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) Weinberger stated the adjacent land is owned by the City of Orono. which might possibly become park land In the future. Weinberger stated there may be one or two residents to the west that may experience a slight impact on their view of the lake. Hawn inquired whether there were any other comments from the public. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the City had received any phone calls regarding this application. Weinberger stated the City did receive a couple of phone calls. The residents were informed that the deliveries would be lessened with the new facility and hopefully would occur more during the daytime hours. Stoddard commented some consideration should be given to the fact that this facility sea'es the needs of the community rather than an individual business or resident. Stoddard stated he has a concern vrith the proposed height of the building as well as the hardcover due to the closeness to Lake Minnetonka. Stoddard indicated he would not approve a variance to height or hardcover based on the current zoning of the property and tne City's comprehensive plan. Hawn stated she has a number of concerns regarding this application as well, noting that a number of variances arc being requested. Hawn questioned whether this site lend? itself well to th s purpose, noting that the proposed use will not enhance the area. Hawn commented this is an opportunity for the City and Hennepin County to review this property and its use. Hawn stated she would like more reassurance from the County that Lake Minnetonka will be protected from sand and salt runoff from this site. Hawn commented in her view the proposed use is also much more intense than what the property is currently being used for. Kluth inquired why the height at the peak of the building needs to be at 42 feet. Chock stated the building needs to accommodate dump trucks, which necessitates the need for additional headroom and trusses. Kluth inquired whether the service area will be expanded with the new facility. Chock stated the service area will remain the same. Chock noted the facility will have the capacity to store ore-thi.d of the amount of sand and salt used over the winter months. Chock stated the present outdoor storage will be eliminated and will be converted into grassy areas. Kluth inquired what hours of operation the County is anticipating for this building. Chock stated the facility will need to operate at all hours depending on when it snows. Nygard pointed out the proposed use is basically opposite of wha* the City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for in this area, which should be addressed. Stoddard inquired whether any underground storage tanks exist on this site. Chock stated the County does have some underground storage tanks located on the site, which are hooked up to electronic monitoring devices. Page 16 w TIP ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) Smith expressed a concern with the size of the proposed facility as well as the need for a zoning amendment. Hawn inquired whether the County has pursued other sites for this facility. Nowlan stated to his knowledge other sites have not been looked at, noting this is the only parcel In the City which is owned by the County. Hawn indicated she would like to see this application tabled to allow Hennepin County some additional time to explore other possible sites for this storage facility. Nowlan stated the advantages to this building include indoor storage of the salt and sand, which would eliminate the runoff into Lake Minnetonka, increased life to the salt and sand by being stored indoors, lower noise level, and fewer deliveries to this site. Stoddard commented he would like to see the height of the building kept at 20 feet, noting he would not be in favor of a height variance for anything over 20 feet. Stoddard noted he is an agreement that this is not the ideal location for this facility. Kluth inquired whether steel trusses inside the building had been considered by Hennepin County. Nowlan stated to his knowledge that has not been explored, noting that due to the salt being stored inside the facility, corrosion may be a factor into why steel was not chosen. Smith suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant time to explore other sites for the facility. Smith stated she also has concerns *egarding the size of the building as well as the need for a zoning code amendment Chock remarked it would be difficult for the Hennepin to meet the needs of this area with a smaller sized building. Nowlan stated the County would like to have this building constructed in time for next year's winter season. Nowlan stated if the application is tabled, completion of the building by that time would be questionable. Hawn stated the Applicants can either have the Planning Commission vote on this application as it has been presented tonight or to table the application to allow the County additional time to review other sites. Hawn commented in her view it appears the application will be denied. Nowlan requested the Planning Commission act on this application. The Planning Commission noted the use of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2555, Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Variances based upon Issues dealing with the City’s Comprehensive Code and Zoning. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 17 4 D TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 7,2000 SUBJECT:#2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit VarianceS"Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:6.65 acres Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Application Plat Map Section 10.25 LR-IC Code Amendment Section 10.20 - R-1A District Section 10.50 Industrial District Zoning Map Existing Site Map/Survey Proposed Site Plan Survey City of Orono Wetland Inventory Hardcover Worksheet DNR Letter Sample Photo of Proposed Building Hennepin County Project Narrative Property Owners List Application and Project Summary: The Hennepin County Ti. isportation Department has proposed to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The property has been used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the salt/sand operations in the fall and winter months. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has used the site for storage of mdfoil harvesters. The milfoil harvesters have been stored in the location where the proposed salt storage building would be located, thus requiring a U2555 Hennepin County SSSO Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use PermivTariances IH900 Page I I t^i ir • r •. «i r new outdoor storage area to be designated for the LMCD harvesters. (Please refer to Exhibit H for the proposed site plan.) A new circulation plan and parking plan has required the County to develop a stormwater management plan for the site as it is located within 1000 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka. The County has proposed to construct a stormwater pond on the site to treat surface water runoff and for rate control. Proposed stormwater pond would be constructed within an existing wetland area that is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek V/atershed District (MCWD). County staff has indicated 3,947 square feet of a type 3 wetland would be impacted by the project. The wetland loss for the purposes of a stromwater pond will be mitigated on-site and will exceed the 2:1 replacement ratio. This application requires the following approvals: 1. A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970's, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (Section 10.25) 2. Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) 3. Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height for a structure and exceed the defined height of the principal structure on the property. The proposed structure would be 42 feet in height. (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) and (C) (3)) 4. Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 70 feet X 112 feet in size, 7,840 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits tb ? total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) The accessory building is subject to a restrictive covenant that states the following: 1) No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessor>’ structure may ^2535 Hannep,^ County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code AmendmenV'Condtttonal Use Permit Variances 1/19 00 Page! f It Jr- remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. 5.Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and will require a MCWD permit and may require approval by the Corps of Engineers. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property owner that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Use of Property The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-1 C. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to e.'C'St as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Oiono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels off boats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. JiJ Hennepin County 33S(> Shoreline Dnve Zoning Code Amendment CondiUonat Use Permit/Variances I 19 00 Page 3 . T—* rfAT n 1T I-' The LMCD has used the property for storage of milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. The LMCD has 4 milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landing are full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. Use of Salt/Sand Storage Buildine The proposed building would be approximately 7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons made up of 1,000 ton annual salt storage amount and 1,000 ton salt/sand mix amounting to approximately one-third of the annual mixed usage. The building would provide for interior mixing and loading of materials. That operation is currently done on-site, outdoors. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminating the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a stormsewer pipe and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round Uip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Zoning Code Amendment The Hennepin County facility has been in operation since the early 1960s. A 1970s rezoning changed the zoning from commercial to residential, although the use has not changed over that time. The use has remained as a non-conforming use in the LR-IC zoning district. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono to request a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-IC district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district (please refer to conditional uses for R-1 A in Exhibit D). Staff has suggested the following amendment to Section 10.25, Subdivision 4. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. 02555 Hennepm County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances I 19 00 Page A I i III . >■ It SfP conditions: acres. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5") b. Property shall have direct access to a County road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennepin Countv facilities. d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. If the Planning Commission shall recommend approval of a code amendment to permit the use in the LR-IC zoning district, it would be appropriate to add “County Buildings or Facilities” to the definitions section of the Municipal Code. Section 10.02 would be amended to include 18faV “County Buildings or Facilities” - County buildings or facilities shall include only those structures owned and operated bv Hennepin County. The Jrono Code permits non-conforming uses that were actually and legally devoted to a non- conforming use to continue operation. The Code does, however, not permit the non-confomiing use to be changed to another non-conforming use and/or expand the non-conforming use. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of structures or land shall be in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. It appears the non-conforming use, as proposed, would actually be less intense than the use that* exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the* salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. The operation being indoors would also result in less noise. Rezoning the Property If the code would be amended to include the County facility as a permitted or conditional use in the I, Industrial district the property would also be subject to all permitted and conditional uses in the I district. The property is located in a primarily residential area that would not be compatible with many of the uses that are allowed in the Industrial district. Surrounding Properties North, Burlington Northern Rail. South, Property to the southwest is zoned LR-lC-1; the southeast is zoned B-5, Commercial; site access to County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). East, The City of Orono has recently purchased the immediately adjacent parcel zoned LR-lC-1. West, Residential property. City of Spring Park. i*255S Htnntpin Court/}' 3SS0 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use PermitVariances il9Q0 Pages Stormwater Management The proposed stormwater management plan will include construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. The County has provided prelimina*y plans to the City, however final plans will not be available for review by the City Engineer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the permit request a condition of approval should be a submission of final rate control calculations to be approved by the City Engineer. Height and Size Variances The County has a plan to construct the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 70 feet X 112 feet in size, 7,840 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property to be 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). The site plan indicates the building would be located on the northeast comer of the property. 1 he final floor elevation for the structure is proposed to be 944.3' which would be a peak height elevation of 986.3'. The Hennepin County site is located at a much lower elevation than the property that surrounds it. The east peak elevation is 972'. Based on the elevation, the peak of the structure would be approximately 14' higher than the adjacent property. The height and size of the building is required to accommodate the storage of materials and the operation within the structure. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 75-250'499 s.f.386 s.f. (77%) 124.75 s.f. (25%) 386 s.f. (77%) no change to entrance 250-500*40,278 s.f.12,238 s.f. (30.3%) 12,083.4 s.f. (30%) 12,238 s.f. (30.3%) no change 500-1000'242,023 s.f.148,835 s.f. (61%) 84,708.05 s.f. (35%) 138,188 s.f. (57%) salt/siorage facility, new parking area »2555 Hennepin County* 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amend-nent Conditional Use Permw Variances 1/19 00 Page 6 Recommendation The Planning Commission has the following options to consider regarding the use of the property and requests for variances to permit the site alterations and future use of the LR-1 C district. A. To approve the application as presented by Hennepin County and the ordinance revisions as proposed by Staff, OR B. To approve variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a CUP to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, since the building will not ‘intensify’ the use on the site. A Code Amendment would permit County facilities to operate in the LR-IC district under a conditional use permit, subject to conditions as stated in the Code. OR C. To recommend denial of the application. The site will continue to exist as a legal non- conforming use. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends alternative A to amend the code and approve variances for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Approval subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. A final drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hermepin County and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased. Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the City Engineer. Permits and/or approval by the MCWD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on site. 5. The three separate tax parcels are combined into one lot. H2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreiine Drive Zoning Code Amendment. Conditional Use Permit Variances 1/I9m Page 7 I r 6. 7. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. Such CUP amendment shall be subject to the provisions in the Municipal Code. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title of the property alerting property owners of WCA protected wetlands. 8. A Conser\'ation and Flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. 9. The County facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance. 10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from immediate view to residential properties. 11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval. 12. A restrictive covenant is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized accessory structure. 13. Building and Land Alteration Permits will not be issued until all requirements of the conditional use permit are satisfied. i^23SS Henntpm County 3880 Short ling Drive Zoning Code Amendment Condirional Use Fermit/Variancn 1/19/00 Page 8 i t ? i f i, \ ■.. "i:. I ■ i r. ■ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 13,2000 #2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit V arianceS"Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:6.65 acres Exhibits A Photo of Proposed Building B Planning Commission Minutes (January 19,2000) C January Staff Report A Application B Plat Map C Section 10.25 LR-IC Code Amendment D Section 10.20 - R-1A District E Section 10.50 Industrial District F Zoning Map G Existing Site Map/Survey H Proposed Site Plan Survey 1 City of Orono Wetland Inventory J Hardcover Worksheet K DNR Letter L Sample Photo of Proposed Building M Hennepin County Project Narrative N Property Owners List H2555 Hennepin County 3S80 Shoreline Drive Zonir,^ Code Amendment Conditional Use Permiv Vartances 4/nOQ PagpX 1 f . Application and Project Summary: The Planning Commission reviewed a request by Hennepin County to construct a salt and sand storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The property has been used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the salt/sand operations in the fall and winter months. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has used the site for storage of mi'foil harvesters. The milfoil harvesters have been stored in the location where the proposed salt storage building would be located, thus requiring a new outdoor storage area to be designated for the LMCD harvesters. (Please refer to Exhibit H for the proposed site plan.) A new circulation plan and parking plan has required the County to develop a stormwater management plan for the site as it is located within 1000 feet of the Ordinar/ High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka. The County has proposed to construct a stormwater pond on the site to treat surface water runoff and for rate control. Proposed stormwater pond would be constructed within an existing wetland area that is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). County staff has indicated 3,947 square feet of a type 3 wetland would be impacted by the project. The wetland loss for the purposes of a stromwater pond will be mitigated on-site and will exceed the 2:1 replacement ratio. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the application based on the following comments: 1.The Comprehensive Plan has guided the property for residential use. The proposed expanded use is much more intense than what the priiperty is currently used for. 2. There was concern continued use of the site impacts the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. 3.The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial residential in the early 1970s. Approving a Code Amendment to permit this type of use in the LR-1C district would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non- conforming status. 4.The proposed height of the building was 42’ requiring a variance. The building would have been 22' taller than the existing principal building. 5.Other sites in the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other locations that may be feasible. January Planning Commission Minutes have been attached to this report. ^2553 Hennepm County 38S0 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code AmendmenL'Condilional Vyt PermiL'Variances 4 17.00 Page! i ■ J I'-' L Revised Proposal: Hennepin County has reduced the height of the storage building to 20' from the 42' proposed at the last meeting with the Planning Commission. The building would be 60' X 120’ in size, still requiring a variance for an oversized accessory building. The County has explored other options for the site, however to relocate the entire site is not feasible. The salt and sand that would be stored in the shed is already being stored on site, either in the existing building or outdoors. Most of the material must be delivered in the evening or overnight. The building would allow daytime deliveries. This application requires the following approvab: 1.A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970 ’s, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (Section 10.25) 2.Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback fr'^m the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) 3.Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) The accessory building will be subject to a restrictive covenant that states the following: No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory H2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances 4.17 00 Page 3 . f f■k structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. 5.Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and will require a MCWD permit and may require approval by the Corps of Engineers. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property owner that the wetland will be subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Use of Property: The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constmcted. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR- 1C. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a co\ erage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels off boats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD has used the property for storage of milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. The LMCD has 4 ^2555 Hennepm County 3880 Shoreline Drne Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit/yariances 4/17/00 Page A milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landings are full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. Use of Salt/Sand Storage Building The proposed building would be approximately 7,200 square feet, reduced from the storage available for the previous proposal due to the reduction in overall size. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminate the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a stormsewer pipe and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Zoning Code Amendment: The Hennepin County facility has been in operation since the early 1960s. A 1970s rezoning changed the zoning from commercial to residential, although the use has not changed over that time. Tlie use has remained as a non-conforming use in the LR-IC zoning district. Hennepin County has :v. dc an application to the City of Orono to request a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-IC district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district (please refer to conditional uses for R-IA in Exhibit D). Staff has suggested the following amendment to Section 10.25, Subdivision 4. y.. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-1C" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. i conditions: acres. B. County Hiehwav Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) b. Property shall have direct access to a Countv road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennepin Countv facilities. M2555 Htnnepin County 3880 ShorelUve Dri\e Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use PennWVariances 4/1100 Pages r kr d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of a code amendment to permit the use in the LR- 1 C zoning district, it would be appropriate to add “County Buildings or Facilities” to the definitions section of the Municipal Code. Section 10.02 would be amended to include ISfa). “County Buildings or Facilities” - Countv buildings or facilities shall include only those structures or facilities owned and operated bv Hennepin County. The Orono Code permits non-conforming uses that were actually and legally devoted to a non- conforming use to continue operation. The Code does, however, not permit the non-conforming use to be changed to another non-conforming use and/or expand the non-conforming use. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of structures or land shall be in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. It appears the non-conforming use, as proposed, would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of sdt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. The operation being indoors would also result in less noise. Rezoning the Property If the code would be amended to include the County facility as a permitted or conditional use in the I, Industrial district the property would also be subject to all permitted and conditional uses in the I district. The property is located in a primarily residential area that would not be compatible with many of the uses that are allowed in the Industrial district. Surrounding Properties: f North, Burlington Northern Rail. South, Property to the southwest is zoned LR-lC-1; the southeast is zoned B-5, Commercial; site access to County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). East, The City of Orono has recently purchased the immediately adjacent parcel zoned LR-lC-1. West. Residential property. City of Spring Park. Stormwater Management: The proposed stormwater management plan will include construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. The County has provided preliminary plans to the City, however final tt2555 Hennepin Count}' 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code AmendminLVonditional Use Permil/Variances 4/17,00 Page 6 plans will not be available for review by the City Engineer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the permit request a condition of approval should be a submission of final rate control calculations to be approved by the City Engineer. Height and Size Variances: The County has a plan to construct the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7,200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property to be 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessor>* buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). The site plan indicates the building would be located on the northeast comer of the property. The final floor elevation for the stmeture is proposed to be 944.33' which would be a peak height elevation of 964'. The Hennepin County site is located at a much lower elevation than the property that surrounds it. The average east peak elevation is 970'. Based on the elevation, the peak of the stmeture is lower than the adjacent property. The height and size of the building is required to accommodate the storage of materials and the operation within the stmeture. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 1 Total Area in Setback 1 Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 75-250' 499 s.f 386 s.f. (77%) 124.75 s.f. (25%) 386 s.f (77%) no change to entrance 250-500' 40,278 s.f.12,238 s.f. (30.3%) 12,083.4 s.f. (30%) 12,238 s.f (30.3%) no change 500-1000 ’242,023 s.f.148,835 s.f. (61%) 84,708.05 s.f (35%) 138,188 s.f (57%) salt/storage facility, new parking area if25S3 Htnnepm County 3880 ShottUne Drivt Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances 4.17/00 Page! Recommendations: The Planning Commission has the following options to consider regarding the use of the property and requests for variances to permit the site alterations and future use of the LR-IC district. A. To approve the application as presented by Hennepin County and the ordinance revisions as proposed by Staff. (The revised plan does not address the issues the Planning Commission had with rezoning and the guided use of the property by the Comprehensive Plan) OR B. To approve variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a CUP to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, since the building will not ‘intensify’ the use on the site. A Code Amendment would permit County facilities to operate in the LR-IC district under a conditional use permit, subject to conditions as stated in the Code. OR C. To recommend denial of the application. The site will continue to exist as a legal non ­ conforming use. Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission recommends alternative A to amend the code and approve variances for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1.A final drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hennepin County and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased. 3.Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the City Engineer. 4. Permits and/or approval by the MC WD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on #2555 Hennepin County* 38S0 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances 4/17/00 Page 8 " ■ A 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. site. The three separate tax parcels shall be combined into one lot. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. Such CUP amendment shall be subject to the provisions in the Municipal Code. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title of the property alerting property owners of WCA protected wetlands. A Conservation and Flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. The County facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance. 10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from inunediate view to residential properties. 11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval. 12. A restrictive covenant is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized accessory structure. 13. Building and Land Alteration Permits will not be issued until all requirements of the conditional use permit are satisfied. 112555 Hennipin County 3880 Short line Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use PermW Variances 4/urn Page 9 I 1 ;i COUNCIL M 2 ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 20, 2000 ,: 5^ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2557 Daniel and Judith McAthie 1449 Bay Ridge Road Variance Review Zoning:LR-IA, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum lot size Council Action of June 12,2000 The Council voted 4 to 0 to permit the property owners of 1449 B ay Ridge Road to proceed with the reconstruction of their residence and directed Staff to draft a resolution for adoption at the June 26, 2000 meeting. Review The City Council adopted, on consent, Resolution No. 4416 for Daniel and Judith McAthie to grant variances to permit construction of an addition to the g" jage and the addition of a second story to an existing one level home at 1449 Bay Ridge Road. The contractor, Michael Hayes Homes, had applied for and received a building permit to begin construction on May 15th. After beginning the project the contractor determined a small portion of the foundation on the back of the house would need to be replaced because it was cracked. Also, some of the joists were rotten requiring the entire house to be removed, except the foundation. During a recent inspection Staff had noticed the house wa.N removed. Subsequently, Staff has placed the Building Permit on hold. The contractor has stated some alteration of the foundation will be required to stablize and bring the foundation to existing code, and some of the foundation to the back of the house will have to be replaced. The contractor has stated most of the existing foundation can be used for the house. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To adopt or amend the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO VARIANCES PER CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION NO. 4416 FILE NO. 2557 WHEREAS, Daniel J. McAthie and Judith K. McAthie, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1449 Bay Ridge Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Tracts C and P, Registered Land Survey No. 192, Subject to easement for County Road 15, 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 January 19, 2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4416 approving variances to permit a second story addition and garage addition to the e.xisting residence. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2557. This property is located in the LR-IA Zoning District, where 2 acres or 87,120 s.f is the minimum lot area. The property consists of approximately .98 acres or 42,784 s.f. The City Council approved variances to permit a second story addition to the existing house and alteration of the foundation to reconstruct the garage. On May 15,2000 the City of Orono issued a Building Permit to permit construction of the addition based on the variance approvals granted by the Council. The variance approval was based on the fact the existing residence would remain on the property and the addition would be placed above. Page 1 of 3 and wife, d within the 6. 7. During an inspection of the area, Staff had observed the entire residence had been removed, except the foundation had remained. As a result, the City of Orono had placed a hold on the Building Permit to review the variances. The foundation remains and is located over 150' from the lakeshore across County Road 15. The building being located into the average lakeshore setback may not be an issue as most houses in the locality are located across County Road 15 and on i hill. inty dance with lo Planning siring to be 8. variances to of Orono, r 87,120 s.f. es or 42,784 the existing construction H,' S'. 9. 10. 11. 12. After beginning the project, the contractor, Michael Hayes Homes, determined a small portion of the foundation on the back of the house would need to be replaced because it was cracked. Also, some of the joists were rotten requiring the entire house to be removed, except the foundation. The contractor had also noted it was not possible to identify rotted joists or structural problems prior to the removal of some of the house. Those areas were not visible to an inspector hired by the property owners. The house is located outside of the 75' lakeshore setback and across a County road. The City has reviewed the impact of the house on the shoreland area and has determined there would not be a greater impact to the shoreland area than the preexisting house. The house would be built entirely within the foundation. The contractor would use the foundation and will not increase the building beyond the footprint previously approved. Only a portion of the foundation that was located under the east side of the house would be fully replaced, this being done to comply with the State Building Code requirements. Mr. Hayes has stated he guarantees the construction and to guarantee the building he must meet the requirements of the State Building Code. The house would be constructed to the specifications reviewed on January 19,2000 at the Public Hearing with the Planning Commission, and at the time of variance approval. No changes to the exterior of the structure are proposed. The Council finds the contractor should be permitted to continue as the proposed construction is in keeping with the intent of the variance approvals granted per Resolution No. 4166. The construction of the house is located beyond the 75' lakeshore setback, and would not further impact the lake. d remain on Page 2 of 3 Jlit- t’ r * L CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or n;ore of the above findings, the Orono City Cnuncil hereby permits the City of Orono to release the Building Permit issued May 15, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants with Zoning Application #2557. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June, 2000 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notar>' Public Page 3 of 3 w COUNCIL MEEt»NG JUN 2 6 200U CITYOI-Unoiw REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 21,2000 Item No.: (c> Department Approval; Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR>1C One Family Lakeshore Residential {'A acre) List of Exhibits: A - Resolution B - Memo and Selected Exhibits of June 15,2000 Summary of Request: Side setback and 75-250' hardcover variances to allow construction of a room addition plus expand existing second story. Applicant has revised his plans to incorporate changes to the existing deck so that it will no longer be included in the calculation of Lot Coverage. Final Lot Coverage will be 14.87%, meeting the 15% limit. The side setback variance is necessary to allow construction above the existing residence which is located 2.9-3.4' from the north side lot line. The 75-250' hardcover is being reduced from 55.4% to 48.9%. No other variances are required. For more information see the June 15, 2000 staff memo and exhibits. Plauning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission reviewed this newest proposal on June 19 and on a vote of 4-0 recommended approval, noting that the revisions to the deck eliminate a number of variances associated with earlier proposals. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution approving side setback and 75-250’ hardcover variances for William Dampier at 3550 Ivy Place. '4 M' A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARI/.NCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B), AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(2) FILE NO. 2564 WHEREAS, William Dampier (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3550 Ivy Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 173, Taylor ’s Subdivision of Spring Park Lots, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) to permit the construction of a second story ’ addition above the existing 1-1/2 story residence, such addition to be located 2.9' from the north side lot line where a 10' setback is normally required; and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to allow 4,468.7 s.f. (48.9%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback area where only 2,282.5 s.f. (25%) is normally allowed and 5,061.7 s.f. (57.9%) exists for the construction of a 2- story room addition constituting additional hardcover not currently existing on the property; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and Minnesota: 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2564. This property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where .5 acre or 21,780 s.f. is the minimum lot area. The property contains approximately 0.29 acres or 13,030 s.f. Page 1 of 7 3. 5. 6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19, 2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A.The structural coverage on the lot will remain at a level of 14.87%, meeting the 15% lot coverage limitation, based on the applicant’s proposed revisions to the existing deck on the lake side of the residence. B.The 75-250' hardcover on the lot will decrease from the existing level of 55.4% (5,061.7 s.f.) to 48.9% (4,468.7 s.f.) as a result of proposed hardcover removals in the 75-250' zone. The impact of the hardcover variance is offset by the lack of hardcover in the 0-75' zone. C.The construction of an expanded second stor>' above the existing 1-1/2 story residence located as close as 2.9' to the side lot line will have no significant impacts on the adjacent property. D. The lot is undersized for the LR-1C zoning district. 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. 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 7 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) to permit the construction of a second story addition above the existing 1-1/2 story residence, such addition to be located 2.9' from the north side lot line where a 10' setback is normally required; and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to allow 4,468.7 s.f. (48.9%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback area where only 2,282.5 s.f. (25%) is normally allowed and 5,061.7 s.f. (57.9%) exists for the construction of a 2-story room addition constituting additional hardcover not currently existing on the property . Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. 3. Hardcover removal shall be as shown on attached Exhibit A, such hardcover removals to be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed additions. Further, applicant shall reconfigure the existing deck per the proposal shown on attached Exhibit B, such reconfiguration to be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed additions, and such reconfiguration subject to the normal building permit requirements. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed additions, applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the Building Official that the existing foundation can support the proposed second story expansion. Applicant is advised that if this project ultimately results in substantial removal of the existing residence due to unforeseen circumstances, the City Council shall have the right to reconsider this approval to determine whether the conditions of this resolution remain applicable. 4.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 (June 26,2001). Page 3 of 7 la 5. 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. V'Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Propert>- Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June, 2000 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of7 “■t i ' 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) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ■>, ;Notary Public ><l & STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this__________day of____2000, before me a Notary Public within and for said Coimty, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of7 • «« % • % ' • EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. (31^) I hereby certify tha or under my direct s registered Civil Eng laws of the State of COFFIN & GR0NBER6, I Mark 5. Gronberg MN. Engineers, Land Surv Long Lake, Minnesota Seal e Date 0 1 inch = 20 March 23, IS Iron marker Bearings shown are t M. O' ! ——_ _ f:* I* EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. A Camel was a Horse designed by committee Tit 3/ \ ,/0 [c y ■' »■ ‘S' n y I. LouJfe rItytTM f £Z0e Ojf IjfCii 10 s' Q,eoU*JO 3 S~0£M£ LoC<C(/2 OiJ SP^'-'t L ost i-O/ /^oO;t '0/''T'W 7o ^W'?A6£. UMiC S*0£ l>£XI ^ CA~1 oa/ To i't\h\\A.)PT£ 'T F72oAt R6.(>o X . fepoouv T^A^AA;<?/? •Page 7 of 7 To: From: Date: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator June 15,2000 5 (r Subject: #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place - Variance o Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/j Acre) 13,030 s.f. (0.29 acre) List of Exhibits, A - Revised deck plan submitted, with staff sketch for clarification B - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17,2000 C - Memo and Exhibits of April 13, 2000 This item was tabled at your April meeting to allow applicant time to revise his plans. No plan was forthcoming prior to the May meeting, hence the item was continued at applicant ’s request to the June 19 meeting. A revised plan was submitted a few days ago which includes lowering the northerly and easterly portions of the existing deck, so that no portions of the deck or its required railings will be more than 6' above grade. This is possible because the natural grade under all but the north and west portions of the deck, is only 2-3' or less below the existing deck platform. Building Official Lyle Oman and I inspected the site today and confirmed that the existing grade below the northeast comer of the deck drops off drastically just out from the base of the embedded tree, so this area will be lowered and provided with handrails to meet all requirements. As a result, no portions of the proposed deck or railings will be more than 6' above grade, therefore this deck system by definition will not be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Lot coverage including the proposed remodeling and room additions will be at 14.9% (1937.5 s.f.) by excluding the deck. This solution also avoids variances that would have been required with the retaining wall system that is no longer proposed. Variances Required The revised proposal brings this review back to where it was in March, absent the problem of structural coverage. On March 20 (see minutes) Planning Commission recommended denial based on excessive lot coverage, which is no longer an issue. The remaining variances include: 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2) - Lakeshore Hardcover - Within 75-250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4,468.7 s.f. (48.9%), where 5,061.7 s.f. (55.4%) exists and 2,282.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. ■> r -I A U2564 - 3550 Ivy Place June 15, 2000 Page 2 3. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Side Setback: The minimum requirement for side yard setback in the LR-IC zone is 10 feet. Variance Request: To permit a side yard setback of 2.9'-3.4' where 10' is required; replacement of the second story continues the existing substandard side setback of 2.9'-3.4' on the west side of the house. Granting of the hardcover and setback variances will permit a 364.5 s.f. addition to the south side of the residence and remodeling of the existing residence. The scope of the project involves removing the roof, the street side deck and steps, and the second story. The first story walls and foundation will remain. The addition will replace the outside stairway and provide for an entrance thru the house. The roof line will change, however the height will stay the same. The addition will also aid in diverting runoff further downhill rather than into the house. The remodeling and addition will result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 75-250' to 4,468.7 s.f. (48.9%), where 5,061.7 (55.4%) s.f. exists and 2,282.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. The applicant is proposing to remove streetside deck, steps, walk, railroad ties, and landscape fabric under rock. Replacement of the second story continues the existing substandard side setback of 2.9’-3.4' on the west side of the house. The house was built prior to current zoning standards. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included his statement of hardship in Exhibit C of the March 20*'* memo. Additional Discussion i. The roof line is changing, however the height of the residence is not changing, and no height variance is needed. The foundation and first story walls will remain as existing. 2. While the 75-250' hardcover on the property exceeds the City standards, hardcover on the lot is decreasing, and the lot is small compared to the LR-IC zoning district standard. The existing house, addition and deck are all outside the 0-75' zone. 3. The addition is adding mass to the residence, but to the street side rather than the lake side. There is no average lakeshore setback encroachment, and no lot coverage variance is required. I < 'C ( ■ t I U2364 - 3550 Ivy Place June 15, 2000 Page 2 Lot Area/Width: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET I.*L a' LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width A., Side yard setback Required 21,780 s.f (.5 acre)100'10' Actual 13,030 s.f (.29 acre)50’2.9’-3.4' on west side Structural Coverage; ^otai LoiSize 13,030 s.f. Total Structural Coverage . •• ■- Allowed: 1,954.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,188.7 s.f (16.8%) Proposed after deck revisions: 1,937.5 s.f (14.87%) Hardcover Calculations; Distance from ^ shdi^e^l^ ToUlareaiB '•{iblick Allowed hai^c^r Existing hardcover Pro|>08(^ hanlcover . 0-75'3,900 s.f 0 s.f (0%)0 s.f (0%)0 s.f (0%) - No change 75-250'9,130 s.f 2,282.5 s.f (25%) 5,061.7 s.f (55.4%) 4,468.7 s.f (48.9%) Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested hardcover and setback variances, subject to remodeling the deck as proposed so it will no longer be considered in the calculation of lot coverage. Approval should be subject to the condition that if the foundation is found to be in disrepair this will be considered a rebuild and needs to come back to the Planning Commission and Council for review'. Also a new survey showing the proposed additions must be submitted before a building permit will be issued. On April 13 the 60-day deadline was extended an additional 60 days to June 16. On May 11 the applicant advised staff he would not have plans available for the May meeting and would submit plans for the June 19* meeting. This item will be reviewed by Council on June 26th. A Camel was a Horse designed by committee A^l APFU ca ^tt <,^e.'A^\r7Ai^ / * “V •'V * fROf4r OtSuJ -It. I 1 - T“ U. ___J: -•■n •» y r ' s A:'- r. . 5V R. V • 1. Loujfc Kr^rr,. j ZF<-.r Z'^(£ l:jFCil to S'5‘0*?/'-/'-'^ LoQ.'C<tQ ry} r*ir» r < io-y ‘O/ /"loO'r*v'T-r^/' 5''/iyf^'' /\Soi}£ Q^oua JO ! O e f^'L F la«!C S.OC noO’.iTtoATlo/y Tr ^(^9^>'uv T^A^AA;^/? • ! t IM 'i / (il I. % '■ Wp- f. >. . I i . » 1 1 1 i 1( ■ 1 ':... 1 1 J »• 1 ■I. V, » 1 1 1 • • • •j I “•I — * .4-. I E. *1I t - iI I I —f ...J i I« » mm •• % ^ ft r* • • . i 1 . — I !- i.. : i r -t i ! f - ! j • •• -J I I • *• im. ‘ I ---1 f • • ••• • . t • • — ♦I •- -» i I.i •« • » M*« • mmmm 1“ « • : ! I •T • I -1-----1 • » ft gt?p?uj «^/ST7AJ<!:k Pzi^fHb»eM. ; —T?t(S : IS /Ae'A ;T7f/V7"fe9C/'J77'V<2. ■ 'TUfis^ ^ •—,iUuJ»e|M6. |(S(«^^L_ /AJ T7f-/.ir j^Il^ _ ' t^TICiC^ T>cc^<-^5 •j^^9 'Aeoi/e ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 2000 («25^Hennepin County, Continued) maneu\^ng oMhe trailers in and out of the building. In response^ an inquiry by a concerned citizen, Chock stated the proposed building a masonry style^uiiding. Paul Larson. 3SV Shoreline Drive, expressed concerns regarding the proposed dfpansion of the non-conforming (^his property. Larson inquired where the milfoil harvesters wnl be stored once the building is construr^d. Nowlan stated the har^^ers would be located in the northwest comer y^e lot. Larson also raised concerrk regarding noise and the amount of traffic that will be produced as a result of this operation, notin^hat this Is primarily a residential araiS and is not the ideal spot for this facility. Larson requeste^^e Planning Commission consid^placing restrictions on the operation during the nighttime l\urs. Larson commented in Ws opinion the site should also be cleaned up of debris and fallen tr^s. Berg inquired whether the services >^ld be expande^all as a result of the new building Chock stated they would like to store th^materiaj^side the new facility and eliminate the after hours deliveries of salt. Nowlan pointed out there are a few other bi^^sses along County Road 15. which help shield this facility from the neighborhood, as well as amur^er of trees. Stoddard stated in his view some con^eration sh^Id be given by the Planning Commission to the public use of the facility. Stoddard kioicated he is n\ in favor of expanding the non-conforming use nor is he in favor of granting a ha^over variance onVis property. Stoddard thanked the Applicants for reducing the height of the byfding to 20 feet. Hawn stated she is in agreement with Stoddard, noting sh^as additional concerns regarding salt and sand runoff Into the l^e and wetlands in the area. Ha\X noted the City has made a commitment to upgrad^he residential area of Navarre and tl\t she would have a difficult time approving this applic^on. Lindquist stated b® Is not in favor of granting any variances on thisvoperty. Berg statedi^er view this is not the proper location for this building. Lindqu^moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend denial of Applicat^ #2555, Hennepin Counfiy, 3880 Shoreline Drive, for a Zoning Code Amendment, Varian^te, Vacation, and C^pmercial Site Plan due to the residential nature of the surrounding myohborhood and proposed expansion of a non-conforming use on this property, and il^ considered an xpansion of a non-conforming use. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2564 WILLIAM SCOTT DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES, 8:00 p.m. - 8:32 p.m. William Dampier, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated this application appeared before the Planning Commission at their March meeting Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 (;II2564 Wiltiam Dampier, Continued) where they recommended denial of this application based on excessive lot coverage. Staff has had a number of discussions regarding this application in which the Applicant has suggested some alternative methods for revising the nature of the deck to enable it to be defined as non-structural for lot coverage purposes. The Applicant is proposing to add a retaining wall around the north and east sides of the deck at a height and width that would technically allow removal of the deck railing, which currently is about nine feet above grade at its highest point. The majority of the deck is less than six feet above grade, and would be entirely less than six feet above grade once the retaining wall/terrace was built. If the deck is not included In the lot coverage calculation, lot coverage by the house and proposed addition becomes conforming at 14.9 percent. A railing may be removed if the deck is less than 30 inches at the perimeter. The Applicant is proposing to raise the grade to make the deck less than six feet above g'^ade and therefore it would no longer be considered as structural coverage. Gaffron stated construction of a retaining wall would require a variance since a section of the deck is approximately three to four feet from the property line. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should also consider whether the existing deck with railing constitutes visual bulk and rnassing of structure to the extent that it should be included in lot coverage. If the Planning Commission does not feel it should be included in the total lot coverage, one option is to recommend approval of the retaining wall/railing removal concept, which would eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. Another option would be to recommend approval of the variances for the side setback, hardcover and lot coverage for the proposal with the deck left in its present condition with the finding that there is Justification/hardship for a lot coverage variance. Dampier stated he understands the Planning Commission has the authority to recommend removal of his deck, noting when*the deck was replaced he was led to believe that he was in compliance, which has since been found to be erroneous. Dampier stated with removal of the deck, he would be left with an area where the ground cover is very sparce due to the amount of shading as well as the established root systems from a number of trees in the area. Dampier stated his neighbor has addressed this same problem by placing down plastic underlayment with rock. Dampier commented he has attempted to grow grass in this area as well as experimenting with various plants and ground cover that tolerate shade well, which has not met with much success. Removal of the deck would also result In the premature death of two to three trees in the area. Dampier stated by constructing the retaining walls and planter system, he would be able to address •he drainage problems that he is currently experiencing. Dampier stated his proposal to raise the ground level addresses the issue of lot coverage and is a possible solution to his problem. Dampier indicated he is attempting to find a solution to this situation and address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Lindquist inquired whether the proposal by Dampier was to leave the deck as is, remove the railing, and construct a retaining wall system with planters. Dampier stated it is. Hav/n noted the Applicant is proposing to build up the ground elevation which would make the deck less than six feet off ground level. Danpler stated the railing is above six feet, with only the northwest corner of the deck consisting of approximately one square foot being over six feet in elevation. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 A '■* (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) Stoddard commented he likes the efforts the Applicant is taking to comply with the 15 percent stnjctural coverage. Stoddard inquired whether the deck could be shifted over to the left and brought down lower to address some possible safety issues due to elimination of the railing. Dampier stated his only access to the lakeside section of his property Is through a narrow section that exists in that area. Dampier stated he has already lost two trees as a result of the big storm that occurred in this area several years ago and he would like to avoid losing additional trees. Stoddard suggested the Applicant consult with an arborist about the placement of fill In the area of the trees. Dampier stated he has spoken with a landscape architect who has indicated the trees will survive with the amount of fill he is proposing in this area. Hawn commented in her view raising the elevation of the ground level is a contrived solution and defeats the purpose of the ordinance. Hawn stated in her view the amount of mass being suggested with this latest proposal Is actually greater than what currently exists and would also place the mass closer to the adjoining neighbor. Hawn suggested the Applicant consider a two-level deck with a stairway. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to have a map depicting the proposed charges to the deck and ground level. Dampier inquired whether the Planning Commission would have any objection to the deck being removed. Hawn indicated she would not. Dampier reiterated if the deck is removed, he would be left with bare ground level in this area. Hawn stated It is her feeling the Applicant could still have a deck In this location. Lindquist inquired whether a portion of the deck could be removed. Dampier stated he would rather remove the entire deck than a portion of the deck. Dampier stated If the deck is lowered, he will be endangering some of the trees In the area. Dampier staled due to the costs he has already incurred, he Is committed to this project, noting he would be willing to remove the deck if there was no other choice. LirKlquist stated it appears the Planning Commission is looking for the Applicant to eliminate at least a portion of the deck, noting the planter system does add more mass to the property. Berg commented in her view the Planning Commission should lake Into consideration what the Applicant will be left with if the deck is removed. Hawn stated in her view an acceptable plan can be reached. Dampier commented in his opinion he has compromised on this proposal as much as possible. Lindquist remarked the Applicant will need to readdress the issues relating to the deck once more. Berg stated the Planning Commission does not have the ability to design a deck for the Applicant. Berg stated the Applicant will also need to look at the impacts the removal of the deck will have on i.Pace 12 ¥■' -f- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) drainage and landscaping. Dampier stated in his view his neighbor would rather not have the deck removed due to the erosion and water runoff problem that will be created. Stoddard commented he Is In favor of the Applicant having a deck, but he would prefer the north side be brought in somewhat to eliminate safety concerns. Hawn recommended the Applicant redesign his deck. Hawn stated she has a concern regarding the size of the planter system being proposed. Stoddard indicated he is okay with Gaffron’s recommendation on this project. Lindquist stated he also is okay with Gaffron's recommendation. Hawn stated she would like to see the amount of mass being proposed reduced rather than increased. Hawn stated In her view it appears the members of the Planning Commission would like to see the deck brought in from the north somewhat, but that the Applicant needs to submit a revised drawing illustrating exactly what is being proposed. Nygard indicated he is in agreement with Gaffron’s recommendation. Dampier pointed out if the deck is considered structural coverage, he would not be entitled to have a deck. Hawn stated she would like to see the height of the deck as low as possible, with the planter system being as low as possible as well. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like to have his application tabled. Dampier indicated he would like it tabled. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2564, William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2567 WALFRED PROPERTIES, 2380 and 2364 SHADYWOOD ROAD, 3326 NAVARRE LANE AND ADDRESS UNASSIGNED (17-117-23 44 0078), ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, VARIANCES, VACATION AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN. 8:33 p.m. - 9:03 p.m. Tom Relnen, Project Architect, and Bob Weigert, Project Engineer, were present on behalf of Walfred Properties. Weinberger stated this application appeared before the Planning Commission at Its March meeting and before the City Council at its April 10th meeting where direction was provided to the Applicant. The Applicants originally were proposing a two story building, with the first floor being a retail Snyder Drug operation and the second floor being clinic use. with 28 underground parking stalls. The City Council provided some direction to the Applicants and requested this matter be reviewed Page 13 To:Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator April 13,2000 Subject: #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place - Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/a Acre) 13,030 s.f. (0.29 acre)/ lAl .r- ..List of Exhibits A - Notice of Council Action B-Additional Information Submitted to Council by Applicant 4-10-00 \ ' V ■ C - Staff Addendum of 4-5-00 D - Staff Memo & Exhibits for 4-10-00 Council Meeting At the March meeting. Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of this request based on , excessive lot coverage. Applicant had requested that PC act at that time rather than table it for * revision. After a number of subsequent discussions with staff, prior to the Council meeting applicant suggested some alternative methods for revising the nature of the deck to make it no longer definable ' as a structure for lot coverage purposes. Council briefly reviewed the alternatives and referred the application back to Planning Commission for further consideration.*■') Exhibit B is a copy of the survey and the site photo from the lake side. Applicant proposes to add a retaining wall around the north and east sides of the deck at a height and width that would technically (per Building Official Lyle Oman) allow removal of the deck railing, which currently is about 9' above grade at its highest point. Most of the deck platform is less than 6' above grade, and would be entirely less than 6' above grade once the retaining wall/terrace was built. Applicant suggests that the criteria for considering this structure as lot coverage will no longer be met once the grade is raised and the railing is removed. The code states as follows: "The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: 2.Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage)." If the deck is not included in the lot coverage calculation, lot coverage by the house and proposed addition becomes conforming at 14.9%. ;.. j.'i iiims #2564 April 13,2000 Page 2 Please review the staff memo to Council as well as the April 5 addendum, and consider these questions in making a recommendation to Council: 1.Does the existing deck with railing constitute visual bulk and massing of structure to the extent that it should be included in lot coverage? If so, then consider questions 2 and 3. However, if you conclude that this deck should not be considered as lot coverage, then either a variance should be considered and unique findings made about this particular deck, or perhaps the code should be revised, and applicant might be advised to place his project on hold until the code is changed. 2.If the grade along the east and north sides is raised by adding a retaining wall, and the railing is removed, does the deck then meet the intent of the lot coverage ordinance? 3.Should a CUP be granted to allow construction of a l’-4' high retaining wall approximately r from the side lot line to accomplish this? Options for Action 1.Recommend approval for the retaining wall / railing removal concept, with the result that a lot coverage variance is not needed, and recommend approval of variances for side setback and hardcover as well as a CUP for the retaining wall. 2. Recommend approval of variances for the side setback, hardcover and lot coverage for the proposal with deck left as-is, stating justification/hardship for lot coverage variance, and perhaps suggesting a code revision. 3. Table for more information. 4. Recommend denial of lot coverage variance, finding none of the proposed alternatives acceptable. 5. Some other action. ‘ ‘ Vh exjH. A r CITY OF ORONO APPLICATION NO. #2564 P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF COinMCIL ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date of Notice: April 13.2000 249-4600 i 1 TO: William Dampier COPIES: I. 3550 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 i ■ TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances for Addition to Residence i DATE OF MEETING: April 10,2000 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST U:te.COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Referred back to Planning Commission for recommendation regarding deck lot coverage status and review of options proposed for revising it. Thb item will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of Monday, April 17,2000 at the Orono Council Chambers. Meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Due to the referral back to Planning Commission, final Council action on this item cannot be completed within the initial 60-day review period which expires April 17,2000. Per requirements of Minnesota Statutes the City hereby extends the application review period an additional 60 days to June 16,2000. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 249-4600 if you have any questions. *'y> ^ '\r • •• m M • ••» vw«•;*<-. ■■'A T" :?i.^r n »a*.V '• ') ' , \^*\ *< rv vjrl k.-xi fefa: ,^ .» *M, ':tj„ ! ". . . , ,v: • >•;.: :..’ . ;; . '■ . ..\f ifi mi .v«av-" ’•• *••'•• -., ■',.: ■••: 4. ,• • • ,■>,; -;- .. »4 ,\ .' V > V 5 ’ ’■V : ■. V, > ■ . i'Srt4V.',r,-.:.) .-•J •■< Vi’r' iaru£^i^'|,|l n*? KBarg^* 'vy'fjr' llttv Ws'ii r f' jri! '*55-vTr V-A ’ V'4uv. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING mNUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 *4. ^^^543 Ted Edin, 3025 Casco Point Road —Variance —Rfistffution No. 4436 — Continued iution No. 4436 granting variancesFlint moved, and Petersj)n seconded, to adopt to municipal zoning code sectio^l0.03, subdivision 14 (C); section 10.22, subdivisions 1 (B) and 2; and section 10.56, subd|vi^ns 16 (C) (6) and 16 (L) (2). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *5. #2551 ThomasR^ndgaard, 2765 Shadywdod^Road—Conditional Use Permit- Resolution No. 4437 iti^Flint mdved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolutions^. 4437 granting a copditional use permit per municipal zoning code section 10.55, sifb^vision 9 (B). <^te: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 6. #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place—^Variance The applicant was present. Gaffron stated that the applicant wanted to add a two-story entryway addition and a second floor expansion to the existing residence. The first-story walls and foundation would remain. The issues facing the application include the side setback. The minimum requirement for side yard setback is 10 feet. There is currently a 2.9-3.4 foot setback on the west side of the house. The addition would continue the existing substandard side setback. Lakeshore hardcover within 75-250 feet of the shoreline should be no greater than 25%. Currently the hardcover is at 55.4%. The proposed changes to the house would reduce hardcover in that zone to 48.9%. Also, the lot coverage allowed is 15%. The current house is at 16.8%, and the proposed changes would increase lot coverage to 18.7%. The deck on the lake side of the house has a railing that extends over 6 feet above the grade, hence the entire deck is counted as lot coverage. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and recommends denial of the application primarily because of the lot coverage issue. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has presentc:i st-.^ral options for changing the deck so that it would not be considered structure c->.'erage. One potential solution requires a conditional use permit to build a reiauiing wall within a foot or so of the side lot line to create a terrace that would reduce the drop from the deck to 30 inches or less. Kelley stated he would prefer to table the application so it can go back to the Planning Commission or move on it as it stands. Dampier stated he was willing to return to the Planning Commission. — - ------------------------------------------------- ■ . - _ M, ^ 4 .■‘i! '1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ^^NUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 6. U2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place^Variance —Continued Mayor Jabbour asked if they would have to change the code in order to ignore the deck. Gaffron stated that they should not change the code for one application. They may find a hardship to grant a variance for the deck, but he knows the Council is loathe to grant a variance on hardcover issues. There was some discussion of whether or not a deck is massing. Gaffron explained that by code, if any part of the railing is 6 feet or more above grade, then the entire deck is considered massing. Kelley stated that he agrees with that definition of massing. Sansevere asked if it would be considered differently if the railing were removed. Kelley responded that the application really should go back to the Planning Commission. Sansevere stated he agreed. Dampier stated that moving the deck would change the mass of the house. He added that he has a mature tree in the area where the deck would be relocated if it were to be moved, that would be lost to accommodate the deck. He also stated that he has a wheelchair bound member of his family. If he lowered the deck it would raise issues of ADA compliance. The addition was carefully designed to put everything to the back of the house so it would not be visible from the lake. Dampier stated he has a planter, or terrace, already along the deck that consists of a brick face retaining wall. If the wall were moved out 6 inches, it would create a safe fall zone and allow for the removal of the handrail. Flint asked how the terrace would work. Gaffron explained it must be at least 36 inches wide and 30 inches or less below the deck. Mayor Jabbour stated they need a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Dampier stated he is willing to waive the 60 day deadline. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to require a 60 day extension and for the application to return to the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. #2565 Peter Scherer, 15 Orono Orchard Road South—^Variance —Resolution No. 4438 Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4438 granting a variance to municipal zoning code section 10.28, subdivision 5 (B). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #2566 James Langhans, 1366 Rest Point Road—Variance Resolution No. 4439 Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4439 granting variances to municipal zoning code section 10.22, subdivision 2 and section 10.56, subdivision 16 (L) (2). Application Date: 2/15/00 Completion Date: 2/15/00 60 Day Deadline: 4/17/00 tjcT- .00 nC' . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4/10/00 ITEM NO.: A (?D Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2564 William Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variance Zoning District: LR-IC Lot Area: One Family L^eshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) 13,030 s.f. (.29 acre) List of Exhibits: A Notice of Planning Commission Action B Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting (3/20/2000) C Applicants response letter at Planning Commission Meeting (3/20/2000) D Staff Report and Exhibits of 3/20/2000 Application: The applicant has applied for variances to permit a 364.5 s.f. addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence. The scope of the project involves removing the roof, the street side deck and steps, and the second story. The first story walls and foundation will remain. The addition will replace the outside stairway and provide for an entrance thru the house. The roof line will change, however the height will stay the same. The addition will also aid in diverting runoff further downhill rather than into the house. The requested variances are for: 1 . Section 10.03, SubJ. 14 (C): Lot Coverage: In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1 .99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Variance Request: To permit 2,433.2 s.f. (18.7%) lot coverage, where 2,188.7 s.f. (16.8%) exists and 1,954.4 s.f. (15%) is allowed. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75- 250* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4,468.7 o.f (48.9%), where 5,061.7 s.f (55.4%) exists and 2,282.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. #2564 Page 2 3. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Side Setback: The minimum requirement for side yard setback in the LR-IC zone is 10 feet. Variance Request: To permit a side yard setback of 2.9'-3.4' where 10' is required; replacement of the second story and roof continues the existing substandard side setback of 2.9'-3.4' on the west side of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: Deny the application as presented. DISCUSSION The remodeling and addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,433.2 s.f. (18.7%), where 2,188.7 s.f. (16.8%) exists and 1,954.5 s.f. (15%) is allowed. The lakeside deck is considered structure because it is more th'Jn 6' above grade. Prior to and after the Planning Commission meeting. City Staff di .vr, ■ o u t.‘;e applicant options to reduce the structural lot coverage. These options include redesign*or lowering the lakeside deck by leaving a portion of the deck for direct access and ramping to a ground level deck, removing the deck and have a ramp to access a ground level deck, and ways to add fill to raise grade level. Any of these options would result in reduction of structural lot coverage and eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not submitted any additional information, choosing to continue with the plan presented to the Planning Commission. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding the increase in structural lot coverage. Staff recommends denial of this application as presented, but Council may wish to table if applicant expresses any interest in revising the deck to make it low enough to not be considered as structure for lot coverage purposes. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution for the April 24,2000 City Council meeting. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NUNUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 conditions outlined in the March 20, 2000 City Planner's Report, subject to the sifbrfnttat of more detailed landscaping, lighting, parking, grading and drainage plaps'W review and approval by the City Engineer, construction of a sidewalk coijndctlon from Olive Avenue to Shadywood and Navarre Lane, and further subjecHO'f^iew and approval by the Park Commission, approval by Hennepin CotwtfUnd the City Engineer as it relates to access, with the added condition that if traffioifitensiries, the southern access will be limited. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2<t(^n and Nygard opposed. Nygard and^lawn indicated they would like to see the items resolved prior to the application Ming forward to the City Council. (#5) #2564 WILLIAM SCOTT DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE, VARIANCES, 8:20 p.m. - 8:58 p.m. William Dampier, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit a 364.5 square foot addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence. The project involves removing the roof, the street side deck and steps, and the second story. The first story walls and foundation will remain. Th3 addition will replace the outside stairway and provide for an entrance through the house. The height of the structure will remain the same. This addition will also aid in diverting water nmoff further downhill rather than into the house. Bottenberg stated variances to lot coverage and lakeshore hardcover within the 75-250* of the shoreline are required. A variance to hardcover is required to permit 48.9 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed. Currently 55.4 percent hardcover exists in this area. The Applicant is also proposing 18.7 percent structural coverage where 16.8 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. Bottenberg noted the lakeside deck is considered structure because it is more than six feet above grade. If the lakeside deck were not considered structural coverage, the proposed house and addition would meet the 15 percent limit. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING C0.\L\USSlON MEETING MINUTES FOR mRCH 20, 2000 City Staff Is recommending this application be tabled. □ampler stated he has attempted to comply with all of the City's regulations regarding this property, which has been a frustrating and difficult process. Dampier indicated he was told these plans would be approved by Chris and Lyle on City Staff. Dampier stated Casco Point is zoned LR-1C, half acre lots, with zones B and C being allowed as much as a 15,000 square foot structure on a two aae lot. Dampier stated according to City Codes, he is limited to 1,954 square feet, which in his view is placing an unfair burden on himself as well as the other residents on Casco Point. Dampier stated when the exception is more common than the rule, the rule should be changed, particularly in this case. It is doubtful that any single lot on tw Casco Point concurs with the current City rules, with a number of homes in the neighborhood exceeding the allowable structure coverage limit. Dampier stated his neighbors have slightly larger homes than himself with detached garages. The plan before the Planning Commission tonight takes into account the environmental and the community as a whole, with the proposed reduction in hardcover being a win/win situation for all. Dampier stated he has met with City Staff on a number of occasions for the past few years, with the exact same model being presented to Lyle and Chris for their review and approval. Dampier stated he informed City Staff approximately one year ago that he wished to purchase the large oak timbers needed to complete this project, which was a long and costly process. City Staff was asked at that time whether the proposed project would be approved. Dampier stated he was told the project would more than likely be approved. Dampier stated he then proceeded forward with the purchase of the large oak timbers, which are very rare and expensive, and at this time is not agreeable to removing them. Dampier stated the addition to the existing residence will not block his neighbors' view of the lake. will improve his existing structure as well as increase the City's tax base, reduce the current hardcover and existing structural coverage, as well as improve the existing drainage problems being experienced on this property, which will benefit the community. Page 13 ► 1- l. . ♦ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NUNTJTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 Dampier expressed some frustration regarding his discussions with Bottenberg, noting that he was told he had to remove his existing deck in order to bring the stmctural coverage on this lot into compliance. Dampier stated there currently Is no second story on the north side of the house, which In essence means that the existing second story will not be removed. Dampier stated his front deck currently Is In compliance with the American Disablities Act. Dampier stated he has a different view on what should be viewed structure and non-structural. indicating in his view Bottenberg's view of what should be determined as structural coverage Is incorrect. Dampier stated the stairs in his view should be considered as part of the house. Dampier stated the existing decks on the house are in a deteriorating condition and need to be replaced** Dampier stated the hardcover numbers for his driveway should be reduced by a substantial amount since the driveway consists of bricks laid In dirt which has a fair amount of grass growing inbetween the bricks Dampier reiterated the majority of the homes in the Casco Point neighborhood are non-conforming to the existing City Codes, and urged the Planning Commission to approve his application tonight based on the reduction in existing hardcover and structural coverage, the improvements to the existing drainage, and the increase in tax base, which is a benefit to the City as a whole There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated a large portion of the Applicant ’s comments were directed towards zoning of Casco Point, which the Planning Commission is not in a position to address tonight. Dampier indicated he understands that position. Hawn stated what is defined as structural coverage and non-stmctural coverage is not open to debate with City Staff. Hawn stated City Ordinance stipulates certain hardcover and structural coverage numbers which must be adhered to by the Planning Commission. City Council, and residents. Hawn stated normally stairs are not considered structural coverage, but If a deck Is located higher than six feet off the ground. It Is considered structural coverage. Hawn stated if the Applicant were to replace the deck and reduce the height of the deck, it would not be considered Page 14 m ¥■ fc';.: *1^»^»»w » • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 Structural coverage. Hawn stated the major obstacle with this application is the increase in structural coverage, and an option offered by City Staff was to reduce the height of the deck. Dampier stated the deck as it currently exists today serves a handicapped member of his family. The American Disabilities Act precludes making that deck inaccessible by a handicapped person. Kiuth stated City Staff or the Planning Commission is not requiring the Appiicant to remove the deck, but merely has offered that as an option to reduce the amount of structural coverage on the property. Dampier stated that he was assured by previous City Staff that this deck would not pose a problem. Hawn remarked that City Staff Is not In a position to say what will and what will not be approve^y the Planning Commission and City Council. Hawn stated City Staff attempts to provide guidance to the Applicants on the rules and regulations the Applicants need to comply with. Hawn stated she would like to help the Applicant on this plan as much as possible, and one option for reducing structural coverage on the property is being reducing the height of the deck. Hawn stated she historically does not approve applications where there is an increase in structural coverage when the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Dampier stated he is not in agreement with the structural and hardcover figures listed in City Staffs report. Lindquist concurred that typically the Planning Commission will not approve structural coverage over the allowable 15 percent, especially if the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Lindquist stated the maximum structural coverage that will be allowed by the Planning Commission is what currently exists on the property. Dampier stated he is willing to accept Bottenberg's numbers on the hardcover. Dampier stated he is somewhat confused because the front deck is considered stiuctural but the rear deck is not. Nygard stated as he understands the American Disabilities Act, the handicap access itself does not count towards your hardcover. Weinberger stated the American Disabilities Act does provide for one handicap access to the home. Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ^^NUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 I r • FLie with certain portions of the access not being inciuded in the hardcover figures. Weinberger inquired whether the home presently is handicapped accessible. Dampier stated currently the home is not handicapped accessible, with the proposed plan providing for a handicap access. Berg inquired whether there is a survey on this property. Bottenberg stated the survey in the file is dated March. 1990. Berg stated an updated survey is always required at the time of the application. Hawn stated there still appear to be some issues that need to be resolved prior to approval, with the •m biggest issue being the amount of structural coverage being proposed. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to reduce structural coverage somewhere on the property. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is looking for a reduction in the amount of proposed structural coverage to reduce it to the amount that currently exists on the property. Dampier expressed frustration with the fact that the deck that appears to be in question now was just recently replaced, noting he is not in a financial position to remove the deck at this time. Kluth reiterated that the Planning Commission is not requiring the removal of the deck, but is asking the Applicant to reduce the overall structural coverage on his property. Kluth stated removal of the deck is one option available to the Applicant to reduce the structural coverage. 0 0 Dampier stated leaving the deck aside, if he chooses to change anything on the foundation, that would be considered a rebuild rather than a remodel and then the setbacks would apply. Lindquist stated City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant on this application in order to reduce the structural coverage to what currently exists. Dampier commented that a majority of the houses in his neighborhood currently exceed the structural coverage limits. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is not in a position tonight to discuss those. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would be willing to approve variances to setback and hardcover but not inclined to grant a structural coverage variance in excess of what Page 16 m I i • 'j. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 currently exists on the property. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight or to table the matter. □ampler requested the Planning Commission vote on his application tonight. Motion by Hawn, second by Kluth, to recommend denial of Application #2564, William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, granting of variances to permit a 365.4 square foot addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence due to the excessive amount of structural coverage being proposed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Dampier inquired whether the Planning Commission had read his statement of hardship on this" application. The Planning Commission indicated they have read his hardship statement. 16) #2565 PETER SCHERER, 15 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCE RENEWAL, 8:59 p^> 9:03 p.m. Peter Schere^>^plicant, was present. The Certificate of MaHiQg and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance renewal, with a variance being granted for lot width on September 28,1994. The previous owner were proposing to remove the existing house and construct a new residence on the property. The existing house was removed; however, the new residence was not constructed on the lot. The present owner is proposing to construct a new % residence on the lot that meets all setbacks in the RR-1B zori^g district. The Applicant would like to renew the lot width variance on this property. ' Scherer indicated he was not aware the variance had expired. \ There were no public comments regarding this application. s ’ V. Motion by Hawn, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #2565, Peter Scherer, 15 Orono Orochard Road South, granting of a variance renewal to Page 17 l&KIX Wt:-'- ^;vM: mm Kfisafes*^ sswsKiiwiiimmKm . :*• ; *:■.. 'v'-^ ';.* ■ .1 . ■:>' .' ; V-.T- '\ ■)■■ ■■ *■», ' .* min •.. w.v ;■• .:..*1 i" L:;’ i^y ■IWP>^'<S/' ■'■'• ?' ViViV v55 /!m - rM t:: / — I ......... i: s V..S '•..‘^ t^J. <^«ef V/i«iC) '-........— >. '-•IV?-.'!*Jf!£7 DAIL Ml««t *•• 1 o» (H i • r ^ ■ !->■- K. : r * y!';. . ■..' ^ ^1 "«• •••.■-■• Ctefi SiOiow «'* Clfwt Mr.lL V«« lAmttjL m I i. .n li lt,%i«S^ ^Of <I«1 .s Wirt Rrt# (.' <J«i SiD£. Vlt»« SVMte ,v rv. >* ^ > *.v^- r. ■ : / , /'■ w'r--.. I ‘' r %. Application Date: 4/19/00 Completion Date: 4/19/00 60 Day Deadline: 6/19/00 Extended: 8/18/00 COIIWCIL MEETING JUN 2 6 2000 Cl IY ur UhUNU REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Administrator Reviewed: DATE: 6/21/00 ITEM NO.: J Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: #2584 Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance and Conditional Use Permit LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) 30,063 s.f. (.69 acre) A Resolution B Notice of Planning Commission Action C Staff Report and Exhibits of 6/19/2000 Application: The applicants are proposing to replace two existing retaining walls and extending the wall that is currently located behind the tree. The new retaining walls will be in the same location and approximately the same size as the existing walls. A slight design change locating the steps in the middle of the walls instead of at the west end reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. The existing steps and walkway will be removed and replaced with sod. 1. Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2;10.55,Subd. 8, 10.56, Subd. 16 (J). 2. Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline (10.22,Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, Subd. 16(L). 3. Conditional use permit for land alteration (10.03, Subd. 21,10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(5). PLANNING COM^^SSION; The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: Approve the application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. I r- & h'. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO SECTION 10J2, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) (5), SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (J) AND (L) AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 21 FILE NO. 2584 WHEREAS, Andrew H. Rascher and Tracy K. Rascher, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 4705 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, TRISTANA COVE, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City to permit the construction of retaining walls by the lakeshore requiring variances to Municipal Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) and (L) to allow hardcover in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone and a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C'/(5) to allow retaining walls which are prohibited in the shore setback zone, and a conditional use permit for lakeshore alterations per Section 10.03,Subdivision 21. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minneso*! Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19,2000, at which time ail persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2584 Page 1 of 6 2. 3. 5. This property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of approximately .69 acres or 30,063 s.f. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19, 2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A.The property currently contains an existing deteriorating retaining wall system at the lakeshore. Replacement of the retaining wall system is necessary to prevent erosion of the steep lakeshore yard. B.The existing retaining walls are located within 70’ of the shoreline but do not extend the full width of the property. C.The existing retaining wall system hardcover is approximately 5 45%. The proposed retaining wall will comprise approximately 5.12% hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Approximately 40% of the 0-75' hardcover is the retaining wall system. D. The applicants have agreed to provide a suitable planting and vegetation plan which will provide adequate screening to the new retaining wall. No additional hardcover should be allowed in the 0-75' setback area. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not 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. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow construction Page 2 of 6 * of a retaining wall system will 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. 7.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plaiming Commission, reports by City Staff, commenis by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER, ,\ND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) and (L) to allow hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone of 5.12% where no hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(5) to allow retaining walls where they are normally prohibited in the shore setback zone, and a conditional use permit for lakeshore alterations per Section 10.03, Subdivision 21. 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.Shrubs or some other form of natural vegetation, not less than two feet in height, are required to be planted and maintained permanently between the retaining wall and the shoreline. A landscaping plan shall be submitted by the property owner and approved by City Staff prior to such plantings. 3.The property owner shall obtain the appropriate building and land alteration permits for the retaining wall prior to construction. Page 3 of 6 1 r 4.Applicants are advised that the City will not look favorably on future additions to hardcover in the 0-75' zone. 5.Authorities granted by these variances and conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (June 26, 2001). 6.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of these variances and conditioned use permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7.The undersigned 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 of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 4 of 6 % i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June, 2000 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 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) 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 i .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. Notar>' Public Page 5 of 6 .A> ►.i,' ■ Mir :r. ‘ ^ wm r 1 ftir •».f !>. r i ■'■•'"■.:%- /■' 'v; f I ov S. o\ i.,_ A ^ ^ * ■ '•/tst' I W»V. Vi:i/L!=iLlli U LiU UK:::^bu U Vr=^ U W li:3 U for JEREMY BANKEN 'O / *»O. >, « / /v9 •V > ' r<xci»»*^ >; •• • VVV‘^‘\v -« -■ "-----. /i'''vy»‘ V vv\v*^»—,~ —‘-i--'/'/i -.. ,)A ' \X\V'>\V' ' -- \'\''\'V\ ' ■------ •-T ^v\''^' ------------------ tiyr piif^ * l^.DP ^.r I f»p »»*®a.l * ;*5 l*at>IC«My - '• ■ l.%l| tc ftiiiMi*w»us» VtfM ^ iviiic l?&\h^e±> feoPoi/'i- mS- cr 4 705 North Shore Drivr OCSCMPiON lul I. glMk I. IMSIAMA COH m«mi«^ C«yAl|; U«Mi«ft»l4l Hl«| tMTlMM • a OiwistM van i htfafcf cariVy lliai iai« aarwaik ilai^ raM*« Ma prapara4 »y «m at aaaat a^r it« aM IM« I am a Ally fla^it Smyar an4ar IM la»« at Mm Si« Na ft*^>i('Ar.Vt'¥ brcoit; 1 • 20 '-fc. '/ *BRANOT ENamEERMQ A 8URV X /X »f 1'' >\'7 •1600 West 143rd Street. Suit' Burnsville, MN 55306 (612) 435-1966 r>iA "I f. r CITY OF ORONO P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-24M600 ZONING FILE # 2584 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 19,2000 TO: Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: June 19,2000 VOTE: 4 FOR AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on June 26,2000 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. 5 f ? s TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner June 19,2000 SUBJECT:#2584 Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB 30,063 s.f. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) (.69 acre) Lbt of Exhibits A Revised Analysis Worksheet Revised Site Plan/ Survey Revised Hardcover Calculations City Engineer’s Letter of May 23,2000 Draft Minutes Planning Commission May 15,2000 Notice of PC Action - May 16,2000 Photo of Property Location Map May Planning Commission Report B C D E F G H 1 Application Summary: This application was tabled at the May 15,2000 Planning Commission meeting so the applicants could revise their proposed plan regarding lakeside retaining walls. The applicants were seeking a conditional use permit to replace two existing retaining walls and construct two additional retaining walls within the 0-75' setback. Retaining walls are considered hardcover, therefore a variance is also needed for hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. On May 19,2000, the applicants, applicants contractor. City Engineer and City staff met on site to discuss how to stabilize die existing walls and steps with minimal impact to the property. At this meeting, the City Engineer reiterated his initial observations concerning the proposed new retaining walls. The walls would require substantial grading and he recommendeJ no n w retaining walls be constructed. An addition^ solution discussed was to replace the existing walls in their current location and current dimensions. (See City Engineer Letter- Exhibit D). Brief Summary of Proposed Changes: • Replace the two existing retaining walls and extending the wall that is currently located behind the tree. Eliminating the two proposed retaining walls by the lakeshore. • The new retaining walls will be in the same location and approximately the same size as the existing walls. (The new walls will be constructed of Keystone, different from what currently exists). Also a slight design change locating the steps in the middle of the walls instead of at the west end reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0-75* setback area. The existing steps and walkway will be removed and replaced with sod. #255-/ AndrewHl'racy Rascher 4705 Worth Shore Drive Variance/CUf 6/19/2000 Page I i... r . I. i. :.A•■^ c t> i The project as proposed requires the following City approvals: 1. Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, 10.56, Subd. 16[J]). 2. Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, Subd. 16[L]). 3. Conditional use permit for land aUeration (10.03, Subd. 21,10.56, Subd. 16 [5]). Engineering Review ; The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint and recommends thai replacing the existing walls is an acceptable solution provided they are the same dimension and in the same location as what currently exists. (City Engineer Letter - Exhibit D). Statement of Hardshin: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B of the May 15 staff memo. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration; 1. Will granting of the variances and condition?\l use permit alter the essential character of the land? 2. Is lengthening the retaining wall behind the tree necessary to halt erosion or prevent tree damage? Applicant ’s designer should be asked to define why these new wall sections arc needed. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Discussion; There are two retaining walls currently on the property. The higher (closer to residence) wall is approximately 61 V2 in length and 2' in height. The lower wall is approximately 61 Yi in length and 4' in height. The new retaining walls should meet the existing dimensions. Vegetation should be planted to limit the visible impact from the lakeshore and control possible erosion. The lengthening of the retaining wall behind the tree is inconsistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps the wall can be shortened on both ends and still be able to accomplish its purpose. U2584 Andrew/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP 6/19/2000 Page 2 i-1m . V W Staff Recommendation; The applicants worked with City staff to design a plan that meets City code. The current plan is acceptable to staff and staff recommends approval of variances and conditional use permit for replacement of the two existing retaining walls in the 0-75' setback area and replacement of the wall behind the tree. Staff recommends denial of lengthening the retaining wall behind the tree. The walls shall be of the same dimension and location as what presently exists. Staff also recommends vegetation be planted for screening. Options for Action : 1. Recommend approval of variances and conditional use permit for replacement of existing walls and denial of extending the retaining wall behind the tree. 2. Recommend denial of variances and conditional use permit for replacement of existing walls and extending the retaining wall behind the tree. 3. Table for further review or further specific information. 4. Other. 4 i #2584 <"acy' Rancher 4705 North Shore Drive Variancc'CUP 6/19/2000 Page 3 L. ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: Hardcover Calculations: LR-IA Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 30,063 s.f. (.69 acre) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75’15,750 s.f 0 s.f (0%) 859 s.f (5.45%) 806 s.f (5.12%) 75-250’15,517 s.f 3,879.25 (25%) 4,0° 1 s.f (26%) 4,081 s.f (26%) NO CHANGE N, Nk % V > ^ V , W) V \V \'\\v\'\' ' \V> 0v\VVv^1C ^\ V>'vv' <sNs'-'.^:\^'i^':j-'v'^'v<'5 ^ » NV V f fcole; 1" = 20' N ! < .V \ •% f 1 ^N •1 f. N /<N O \in o 1fo lo\ Sfo r-K /o V / if iWALL ^r&^s.fo^^ ^M.eST70AJ«rC^ -1 iiM^i I ■ i^^iifc' 111! I iWnn II ir>Tir^~~ ^rit nr r 1‘r* i«--^iitfi iii^Alt*i t"tTrnii^^-ri*rfht ■ r y-M ii 1 n^ir 11^ mirtiTri ■« ................... ... . . I, .^■ f i %V‘ ;<>ec>d £/j^3/w hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONI: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARI COVER m ynisip ® A. House Length 75-250' ^5 7. 10-^ 250-500'500-1000' Width jS£l S.F. X X X B. Garage _ C. Driveway _ SF. S.F. SF. S.F. X X D. Sidewalk __X X £. Paiioitteck X X F. Landscape __ Underlain By Plastic __ X X 0. Ortier TO 'AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TCy^^OPERTY AREA IN ZONE B -iSlSl\ X 100 - PROPOSED HARn-OVER IN 7/^My A. House______________ Length IC^ -H iL Width B. Garttgc C. Drivewav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck K X _■ Is: F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X AS e G. u» ^ TOT..L HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTi.L PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ - B jS75o X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. m S.F. S.F. A JS 7 SO S.F. B A«4CS~ % LTO SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SE. S.F. S.F. S.F. SE. 32&L S.F. ^jO{^ S.F. S.F. A B •/. t nTlAilgiapni--Ti rif^^ ■ ^ —r.. .'/u.r.Ari. m 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects May 23.2000 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderfik Jind Associefet. Inc. Is an Affiffr».tiive A'llon/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G Bonestroo PE • M.irvm L Sorval.i PE • Gic*'n R Cook PE • Robcr: G •'c lunicht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon, PE Senior Consultants: Robert W Rosene. PE • Joseph C Andcriik. P£ • Rich.ird £ Turner. PE • Susan M Eberim. C PA D Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford, PE • Keith A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota PE • Robert C Russek AlA • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michaei T Rautmann. PE • Ted K.Firid PE • Kenneth P Anderson. P£ • Mark R Rolfs. PF • David A Bonestroo. MB A • Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • Agnes M Ring MB A • Allan Rick Schmidt PE Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Wiilmar VN • Milwaukee. Wl >MebSite; wwwbonesiroo com Wendy Bottenberg Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Rascher Retaining Wall File No. 139-98-000 (^1 /.p. ^ Dear Wendy: We visited the site at 4705 North Shore Drive on Friday, May 19 to review the existing site conditions and meet with the property owners and their contractor. Based on our observations, our comments dated May 9. 2000 still apply. One additional solution we discussed is to replace the existing walls. We feel that replacing the existing walls is acceptable provided the new walls are of the same dimensions and in the same locations as the existing walls. This will serve to minimize grading activity and disturbance to the existing steep slope. Silt fence should be installed prior to any construction/restoration activity to minimize sediments from w;ishing into the lake. Any disturbed areas should be revegetated immediately following construction to stabilize the slope and minimize erosion. It may be necessary to use fiber blankets on any steeper disturbed slopes to protect the newly seeded areas until the vegetation has been established. wr Please contact me.at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC, Tom Kellogg i Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax; 651-636-1311 r" ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 SrnK(^ated the City needs to maintain proper distances between structures In order to allow for emerg^y vehicle access. Belsch IndiMl^ her back door Is In the middle of the deck, and if the deck Is reduced to the size requested, It wouk^nly leave her 19 Inches to step out and go down the steps. Weinberger stated ItVMlculated to be approximately 4.5 feet wide from the edge of the deck to the house. Beisch stated she would be ol^ with that. There were no public comments re^qrting this application. Beisch noted the adjoining property ow^will be constructing a new driveway, which will drain the water towards her property. Undquist suggested the City Engineer review theWainage in this area. Beisch inquired whether the five foot side yard setbacItsMuld be reduced. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to requl^SThe five feet side yard setback. Smith comiTiented that the Planning Commission appears to b^n favor of the five feet rather than the three feet side yard setback. Beisch indicated she was fine with the five feet. Weinberger commented the adjoining property owner was attempting to utill^the existing footprint and had some other setback issues In the back yard. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #25^ 3436 Livingston Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit construction of a one*stalt detached garage to be located five feet from the property line based on Applicant s statement of hardship, and subject to the size of the rear deck being reduced to the size indicated on the site plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2584 ANDREW AND TRACY RASCHER, 4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 9:05 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. Page 25 I T1 l**\,*.* ' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 r Andrew and Tracy Rascher, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to replace an existing retaining wall and install two additional retaining walls within the 0-75 foot setback. Since retaining walls are considered hardcover, a variance is needed for hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback area. Bottenberg indicated the proposal would be Inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, with the City Engineer recommending that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is the City Engineer's opinion that the retaining walls can be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances and conditional use permit for repair of the existing retaining walls in the 0-75 foot setback area, but denial of the proposed new retaining walls based on the goals and policies cited In the City of Orono's Community Management Plan. Jeremy Bakken, Builder, stated due to the slope of the back yard all the way down to the lake and the old deteriorating condition of the existing walls, in his ooinior. it would be more cost effective to build new walls rather than repair the existing walls. Bakken stated the amount of grading involved in the repair is equal to that which would occur with construction of the new walls. Bakken stated the existing walls are not controlling the drainage and are unsafe. Rascher commented they would like to replace the existing walls due to the fact they are very unstable and do not do the job they were initially constructed to do. Rascher stated they would like to build some retaining walls which are more stable. Smith inquired whether they have had a chance to look at the letter from the City Engineer. Bakken stated they are not proposing to change the existing grade until they get closer to the lake. Bakken stated he would not recommend limestone walls since they need to be replaced periodically and tend to be unstable over time. Mrs. Rascher stated they are attempting to reduce the amount of erosion into the lake, noting that currently nothing Is being filtered at this point. Rascher commented the current condition of the steps are unsafe due to the nails which are exposed in the timbers and the unstableness of the Page 26 f ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 flagstone waits. Rascher stated they would like to have a safe access to the lake and remove the safety hazard that currently exists due to the fac> they have a young child who will be In this area. Smith stated she can appreciate the safety concerns and the fact that flagstone steps tend to become tippy over time. Smith stated the City of Orono does want people to have safe access to the lake, but that there are some limits that must be imposed on what people can construct. Smith stated since she is not an engineer, she cannot comment on the structural issues, but that the Planning Commission tends to take Into account the recommendations of the City Engineer when deciding what is acceptable. Rascher stated they are proposing to decrease the steepness of the slope. Smith stated there are other lots In Orono with steep slopes, and that the Planning Commission must look at the recommendations of the City Engineer. Smith commented she has visited the sit 2 and Is not totally convinced new retaining walls are needed. Smith stated the City likes to encourage residents to keep the area as natural as possible and to limit construction down by the lake. Smith commented the Planning Commission must look at what It will take to maintain what Is existing and howto provide safe access down to the lake with a minimal amount of construction. Smith stated It is the policy of the City to stay away from a lot of terraced walls and to leave the area as natural as possible. Lindquist stated he is not capable of determining whether what currently exists Is right or whether the retaining walls should be replaced. Lindquist stated he does have a problem with retaining walls being located In the 0-75 foot setback as a general rule, and suggested the Applicants speak with the City Engineer to see if something can be worked out which will be acceptable to all parties. Lindquist stated he would be hard pressed to go against the recommendations of the City Engineer. Lindquist suggested the matter be tabled to allow the Applicants time to discuss this matter further with the City Engineer. Page 27 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 Smith commented that the engineering issues should perhaps be explored further, and agreed that the Applicants should perhaps speak with the City Engineer to discuss his recommendations, Weinberger stated the City Engineer will speak with the Applicant if so desired. Weinberger suggested the Applicants contact Wendy to arrange a meeting with the City Engineer. Mrs. Rascher inquired what would happen if the application is tabled. Smith stated the Applicants would probably reappear before the Planning Commission at their June meeting if they are able to resolve the Issues. Smith stated the Applicants could request additional time if so needed by submitting a letter asking for an extension of the time limit. Bottenberg Indicated the 60 day time limit expires on June 19th, which is the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Rascher requested the application be tabled at this time. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2584, Andrew and Tracy Rascher, 4705 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. INING COMMiSSiON COMMENTS (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 24|s2000 AND MAY 8, 2000 Nygard indicated he was unable^ attend the April 24, 2000 City Council meeting Smith commented she is not aware of whciattended the May 8th meeting. (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Lindquist reported that Hawn and himself attended a breakfast mcellha on Planned Unit Developments, which tended to be geared around California rather than Minnfesqta. Lindquist stated he was disappointed with the meeting since most of the material covered did no^feJate to Page 28 1 1 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 TO: Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ZONING FILE # 2584 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: Mav 16, 2000 COPIES: DATE OF MEETING: May 15,2000 VOTE: 5 FOR AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. I Set up appointment with City staff and City engineer to meet on site to discuss how to stabilize wall and walkway. Applicant’s next meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information: Deadline for the June 19,2000 Planning Commission meeting is June 9,2000. You will be notified by mail of the meeting date and time. 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. r & n - I I If Iif 4 l«!v ® / • A. W:\ -1 ■• v*\ - - - ( I I.: ■/.' • J I » ' 1^1 . u’C^» yr* V / ^ ^■Sfwfmm Vf^\. PS»' 'I )^? - - \. ;i'r \*.A r..>.•I l.J’ L i. • *T jT^ ’ •— L’s»^' . \" V V,^,,. •• / : . ^-••*' %• r- ' '<iv^ • • > /i ^ '> -A.v. »- •.■1-* *. *:■ • ;■• .'^* ‘ • 6 ■i' /L K( ■ 'J'- C- u' 0/', la tc Stdi I .( LU :,. ■•' ,,.yC :V',.; s>‘vxivf> • ^V'i ‘ "5, ‘ ‘ •■ > \**» cv •* * •• *v ’“^ •: ‘*v ^^.^.-'HV -:•» ^ „''\‘^v»-’ • »«J.i . -^' ’hV.* V . 4' r'^'.wV. ;. A'-v-‘ii‘-'■\^'V A’'_' .1; • ' 5 -■■•• ^•. /'r^., .■; •■ . V« • ••''•v i» - '• . ■KAr ■A'f - A-^- ., 1^' I. V "^mAniinir- a'. •• . $C-' ^ /•;'^A^V’>- i '>v‘- If •- r6*. .------------ r- ... . ■*■ A A -* C- -A. ■-’* • _ > " - • ^_- >• • ^ ^ '"■ .AV' *_ • » ^ ^ “^ • _____* • • ^ * •- - • - "*■• r - _N*rr'i?^r TRAILS ENO CtA -akcview WEST BRANCH RO RED OAX SEE MAP 61 :Red . Oat V • Colt Ccxir'se ave : ":py r - " Jennings' Bay atiw Aotfor game f ARW RO * "Joe 0 WoodUndl fof»t : /a r*'. X ^v.-:aA .Golf ’ 1 -.“•-Av::•/ ' .:e\ .A;* . Course: : •'Jt N ,*0^ Lake.w L SuastT7^^2000 Mamboi u ^ ■^j^r^Barrison \ Skogsberg Feint /^\ Forest \ It1?^* BRANOVIEWUUVE '}L'ake ‘j^C 4 «Ka/«ooo :usT M S UM 10 \ West g “ ORONC Arm Shad ood Feint DEERING V ^ifw LYNWOOD ------------Hi irni '6V I ISLAND ...(^ Fagerness Fd l-BHMnJIf K SPRIMS ^B& OTERO A>f il22*iAHr ii TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:May 15,2000 SUBJECT: #2584 Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP — Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:30,063 s.f. (.69 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F 0 H 1 J K Analysis Worksheet Application and Letter of Request Site Plan/ Survey lAcerpts from Comprehensive Plan City Engineer ’s Letter Hardcover Calculations and Map Plat Map Location Map Photo of Property Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Application Summary: The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to replace an existing retaining wall and install two additional retaining walls within the 0-75' setback. Retaining walls are considered hardcover, therefore a variance is also needed for hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area. The project as proposed requires the following City approvals: 1. Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, 10.56, Subd. 16(J]). 2. Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, Subd. 16[L]). 3. Conditional use permit for land alteration (10.03, Subd. 21,10.56, Subd. 16 [5]). U2584 Andrew/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP 5/15/2000 Page / ’I K f' :r^ 'J ■ Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan; The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan (“Comprehensive Plan ”) contains a number of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land alteration would be inconsistent. See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and views on altering shoreline areas. (Exhibit D). En^ncering Review; The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint and recommends that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is his opinion that the existing retaining walls could be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. (See Exhibit E). 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. Issues for Consideration; 1. Will granting of the variances alter the essential character of the land? 2. Is lakeshore erosion at this site so substantial as to warrant the extensive retaining wall system proposed? 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation; Based on the goals and policies cited in City of Orono Community Management Plan and opinion of the City Engineer, staff recommends approval of variances and conditional use permit for repair of existing retaining walls in the 0-75' setback area, but denial of the proposed new walls. Options for Action : 1. Recommend approval of variances and conditional use permit for wall repairs per staff recommendation. U2584 Andrew/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Varlance/CUP 5/15/2000 Page 2 1 J SW' r-'V ’H-. !• ■ 2. Recommend approval of variances and CUP for repairs and construction of new walls per iq)plicant's proposal. 3. Table for further review or further specific information. 4. Recommend denial of variances and CUP for both repair and new walls. 5. Other. -I !-r U2584 Andrew/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Varicnce/CUP 5/15/2000 Page 3 > -r—■i-na i I, \h' Mi I- I ■? rv.-> i. i- r' *’ t ». • s ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: Hardcover Calculations : Pi LR-IA Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 30,063 s.f. (.69 acre) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'15,750 s.f 0 s.f (0%) 859 s.f (5.45%) l,032s.f (6.55%) 75-250’15,517 s.f 3,879.25 (25%) 4,081 s.f (26%) 4,081 s.f (26%) NO CHANGE ............ ► B.-I Application it ^ ^ Date Received V- ° Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 5yv&re _______ Type of Application to be Filed Lu\^c^__O-l Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) applicant Phone (home)— 4'*>) Name O y Address P o>6o/ 1-11 Phone (\\or\C\COfi _ City LJccy 7c\Jr\________Zip 553‘iJ______ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)C(,.i>)V?^-.7 , ,/ Name ^ rrcxc^ Phone (work) osja^L Address W>oS- ____City ^ ^ ^ ^ Date Property Acquired R-Vytx.g<-<ry I ~h-----------------(month/year) J I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - u'- $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ______$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or tloodplam ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore s:v 'X ; I . .•*. PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee h b' •s OTHER APPLICATIONS _______$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant tees) _____$300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$ 100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule X.;. : *» i;, Description of Permit Request Requesting Land Alteration Permit to replace existing retaining walls that are in a state of failure, add two additional walls to ease grade in back yard to give a more maintainable yard, and help with directing water runoff to ease erosion. Current walls and stairs are in a state of failure and are dangerous. A. The nails in timbers are exposed. We arc concerned over the safety of ourselves, our young baby whom will be crawling and walking soon, and the potential for quests harming themselves; leading to lawsuits. B. Flagstone in stairs has become very unstable. Walking on them poses a constant threat of loosing balance or tripping over them due to their poor condition. C. Our home is on a very steep slope and it is essential to maintain the integrity of the wails to ensure minimal erosion into the lake. We are responsible homeowners who would like to keep our property in good condition with the necessary improvements. By replacing the . :isting retaining walls before they collapse we will be able to prevent ^her sedimer.i from contaminating the lake. Wil^ the addition of walls lower down the slope we will be able to lessen the steep grade and control water runoff speed and direction, ensuring that runoff is free of sediment before reaching the lake. We sympathize with the cities Land Alteration guidelines. However, we believe these modifications are in everyone’s best interest, especially in preserving the lakes integrity. We are prepared to add any additional planting materials to hide the retaining walls as to keep our property looking as natural as possible. Sincerely, Andrew & Tracey Rascher fc’ ‘c ■ ’■ ./ .« 7 SIOGW^^ ' . H-lb uliS lU) C^k^MSri^- r.r <.rrx. cr % 4705 North Shore Drive DESCRIPTION Lot 1. Block 1, TKISTANA COVE Honoipln County. Minotooto o Dtnotos ’TLT monumoni 1 hortby certify ihot this iurvoy, plan, of report vot prepared by mo or under my dboet euperdtion ond thot I om o duly Re^terod Lond Surveyor under the Levt of the State OoU/l TO ,R«9. No. ai40 BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYMQ 1600 West 143rd Street, Suite 206 Burnsville, MN 55306 (612) 435-1966 o / ••• T ftu ^9l£ o UtAl>^ • 4 . I i 4 * "pVop 4705 North Shore Drive OCSCRtPTION Lot 1. Blodi 1, TRISTANA COVE Htnntpin County, Minnttota Plot boorinof tbotMn o Otnotts Iron monumont 1 htftby c«rtify that this iurvoy, plon, or rtporl wot pTiporod by mo or undor my diroct oupon4slon ond thot I cm o duly Ro^torod Lond Survoyor undor tho Lows of tho Stoto of Mioatoo] Rtp. Ha. 8140 BRANDT ENQINEERINQ & SURVEYINQ 1600 West 143rd Street. Suite 206 Burnsville, MN 55306 (612) 435-1966 RRR_1_nn ENVIRONMENT JUNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. 10. marshlands of the city will be protected and PPiSERVED unique open spaces, and as the only ECONOMICAL! PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono’s Surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen­ dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management plan. CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. resources will allow reasonable access, use and ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the city will prohibit overly dense within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations y e promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitivf ays. and use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachrnem SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation **'°^*^J"*^ areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. in areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM ^D ^NG-TE^ effects ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases Otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new V nor,***^ ? j will not be approved to provide riparian access «xi*ted naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited absolutely necessary to maintain existing I# access permanently lost by something beyond the i * landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's di!ruB«-fn ^•®P«^raft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. CMP 3-20 gNVIRQNMENTAL JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways. Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. URBAN AREA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcuttlng or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DNR recommended shoreline practices. ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients, therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation include on-site retention on all new developments and storm water recycling through the existing marshes. CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized. Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they will not overload the natural drainage system or where foreign matter, especially salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring ®l*A**wp will promptly remove road sands and salts before environmental damage occurs. CMP 3-22 LANDJISE JUNE, 1980 3 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL ralCH NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanixation increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. A THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, ^D THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, thfi City will acquire open space and flowage ease­ ments for conservation of these lands. 5 protection of LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE J^D ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas vill be preserved insofar as practical and reason­ able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 I AND USE JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OP NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environoent requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro­ hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USP POLTCIPS acivr' } , 1. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not permitted in the rural area. CMP 4-19 Ouncftroo. Rosene. AnderliN and Astociates. Inc. *f an Affirmat ve Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principati; Otto G Bonestroo PE • M.«rv«n L SorvaM. PE • Glc’^n .7 Cooii, PE • Robert G ScHun.cht, PE • Jerry A Bourdon. P£ Senior Coniultants: Robert W Rosene PE • Joseph C Anderiiic. • Richard E Turner PE • Susan M Eberlm. C PA Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford, PE • Keith A Gordon P£ • Robert R Pfefferic, PE • Richard W Foster, PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A IA • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field PE • Kenneth P Andersor .'»* • Mark R Rolfs. PE • David A Bonestroo. MB A • Sidney P Williamson PE , L S • Agres M R.ng. .MB A • Allan Rick Schmidt, PE Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Wiiimar, V\ • Milwaukee Wl U^bslte: WWW bonestroo com 1/ J Bonestroo Rosene V 5 Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects May 9. 2000 Wendy Bottenberg Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Rascher Retaining Wall File No. 139-9? 000 Dear Wendy: We visited the site at 4705 North Shore Drive today to review the existing site conditions. The area located between the home and the lake is landscaped with various short retaining walls constructed of stone and timber. Several large boulders have been placed along the shoreline. A series of stone steps provides access from the home to the lake. All existing landscaping in this area appears to have been in place for some time. The entire area between the home and the lake is mostly vegetated with visual no evidence of slope instability. It is our understanding that the property owner wants to install a series of retaining walls between the home and the lake as shown on the plan you provided. The construction of these walls as shown on the plans would require substantial regrading on the existing steep shoreline. It has been City policy to discourage the construction of retaining walls along the lakeshore and to encourage a natural looking frontage. We recommend that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is our opinion that the existing retaining walls could be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. Silt fence should be installed prior to any construction/restoration activity to minimize sediments from washing into the lake. Any disturbed areas should be revegetated immediately following construction to stabilize the slope and minimize erosion. It may be necessary to use fiber blankets on any steeper disturbed slopes to protect the newly seeded areas until the vegetation has been established. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II r ^ S **+- : ^ r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 75-250’ ^57, 250-500’ 30% 500-1000' m f ^ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk SO X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Pli^c X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B IgtSO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ X lOV^ Length Width X X X B. Garage C Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck 31a.X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A * B IS1SO flog m \S ISO X 100 ISO S3 ss ss ss _.WL IS7SU X 100 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.l % S.F. Bp-....*k-: V J •V. S.F. S.F. ✓ S.F. > . 3 S.F.e.) S.F. S.F.r )V d ' "L S.F. S.F. S.F® S.F. d S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.€ S.F. A S.F. B % m V'-sT-. a r • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 7.0NF A. House ______ 0-75’ 0 7* 75-250'250-500’ 30% 500-1000’ Length :i3.av X X X Width B. Garage £ia$c C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk IMP X X gtiO E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X ^TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE MOKI TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B _l^S^X 100 isgn PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House &U______ X Length Width X X X B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X 5»|srvse ft ^ E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE __________ ^ B isgn is^n X 100 S.F © SF.® 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 % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. V- S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. XJ\ I « t ' S.F. ' N S.F. : 1 t •.F. V > S.F. S.F. S.F. t « •p. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % itkwfc Lot iajAii c ? 33 *• >.i GJTio wou.£* ;•;. omyin/Av ~ Ills'* »•U*ll • Oft'Vin/AY - SiOSVM««f " p«tti«r»'w'‘U5» TBI<*C C3V:M<* r.r 74<l C‘' 4(7 •; r K-ti £ 54CO f.r n.‘?T% 4705 North Shore Drive DESCRIPTION Lot 1. Bloch 1. TRISTANA cove Hennepin County. Mtnne^oto Plot beorinos sbo«m 0 Denotes iron monument I hereby certiiy Ihol this survey, plan, or report »os prepored by me or under my direct supervision ond thot 1 om o duly Registered Lond Surveyor under the Lows of the Stote of Minnesoto. .Reg. No. 0140 BRANDT ENGINEERING A SURVEYI -.'llOf-l. Bul.isville. MN 55306 "5.-? z Z) 1^ ^O/v. I .(T^-- s I”** f I ** *‘^' i' j ^J — -J n m Kf ^ *,vn:^ ■• ,\ .jf'• -’••\r- J-lh- v r*. N V*^ §y^ v;/ % • !\' * '.'t« /h * ***''« T •• 4. - •*• » *4.1 • ’. • ( I ■'■ { i .V. ' ■ J '• /■I,'/' / M. /')• . o'C' 1 iw fl'>- - .♦ iVi* . V ^ r -i . . ••■ '*• V .. Y:. ^V’v>‘-vV.:-Y.. . '^.. .. , •■... , • " •• •' ‘ ■-■ • *''■ • > ■ ■■• Y '-•• V. « • V- •% • • *;. ,. -l*-" ■ Z : -- - ■ • :' ; '•'-.,fc •-i--y. *>-r.r^^-«-. -V-V.; . ,' /• i /.- ->^-^-. A*-- V S,^ RUN DATE tV17/»«HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST •ATCM Stl PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR M RT-llT-ES 32 *002 •lS4t REST POINT LA J H HOUTHAN K K J HOUTNAN J N HOUTHAN A K J HOUTHAN ISAO REST POINT LA NOUNO HN SS3M 38 07-117-23 32 0003 0A725 TONKAVIEW LA EAT CHRISTIANSON EARL A TERRY CHRISTIANSON 4AA1 TONKA VIEW LANE HOUND HN 55364 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 32 0009 04738 NORTH SHORE DR CHRISTINE J SCHANZENBACH CHRISTINE J SCHANZENBACH 4738 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0014 04739 TONKAVIEW LA LARRY A 6REENHA6EN ET AL L 6REENHACEN A V CREENHACEN 4739 TONKAVIEW LANE HOUND HN 55384 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 07-117-23 32 0017 8472S NORTH SHORE DR J P HENRY ETAL I m imiilY 472B NORTH SHORE DR NOUND HN S5384 38 07-117-23 32 0018 04731 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A HEYER DENNIS A HEYER 4880 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 32 0020 047B3 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN FRIDAY JOHN FRIDAY 47SS NORTH SHORE DR ORONO HN 55384 38 07-117-23 32 0025 04625 TONKAVIEW LA R H SHELTON A N L R H SHELTON A H L 4625 TONKAVIEW LA hound HN 55364 SHELTON SHELTON PROP Al i.' k- OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SB 07-117-23 32 0028 048B5 TONKAVIEW LA DENNIS A HEYER DENNIS A HEYER 4880 NORTH SHORE DR mound HN 55384 SO 07-117-23 32 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED DENNIS A HEYER DENNIS A HEYER 4680 NORTH SHORE DR HDUm HN 55384 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 32 0039 OISBO REST POINT RD L 8 S BRADILL LARRY A SHARON ORABILL 1350 REST POINT RO hound HN 55384 38 07-117-23 32 0050 04680 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A HEYER DENNIS A HEYER 4880 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 07-117-23 32 0004 04735 TONKAVIEW LA STUART V WHITHAN STUART V WHITHAN 4735 TONKAVIEW LA HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0016 04731 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A HEYER DENNIS A HEYER 4680 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0019 04745 NORTH SHORE OR HERMAN CRAWFORD ETAL HERMAN CRAWFORD 4745 NO SHORE DRIVE HOUND HN 55364 S'i (in) 38 07-117-23 32 0028 04629 TOtOCAVIEW LA J R ABRAHAHSON/0 ABRAHAHSON JANES R A DAWN ABRAHAHSON 4629 TONKAVIEW LA HOUND HN 55364-9631 \\ ■■ ' * * 1 /j. . » 38 07-117-23 32 0038 01373 REST POINT RD K E ANDERSON A A K KRAHER KIRK ANDERSON 1373 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55364 tsu) r, ft 38 07-117-23 32 0052 01315 REST POINT LA K J GROVER ASK GROVER KEVIN J GROVER AND SUSAN K GROVER 1315 REST POINT LA HINNETRISTA HN 65364 ]h * ; RIM DATE RS/ir/RR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST MTCH Ml PROP Aom OMMER NANC TAXPAVfR NANE/AMM 58 87-117-25 52 8855 8A87S NORTH SHORE OR TYLER C COROXN TYLER C CORBIN 48BS NORTH SHORE DR HOUND NN 5S5M PROP AOOR OMNER NANC TARPAYCR NANC/AOOR 58 87-117-25 52 8058 84785 NORTH SHORE DR A H 8 T K RASCHER ANDREW H A TRACY K RASCHER 4785 NORTH SHORE DR NOUNO NN 55584 PROP AOOR ’OMNER NANR TAXPAYER NANC/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 581 00024 SI ^iff <1 ■ ^ V e « 4 > •» ■. J : . REPORT NO. P1455401 PAGE 2 58 87-117-25 52 0054 01545 REST POINT LA JOSHUA D URAN JOSHUA URAN 1545 RESTPOINT LA HOUND HN 55564 58 87-117-25 52 0856 04685 NORTH SHORE DR TYLER C CORBIN TYLER C CORBIN 4685 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55564 58 07-117-25 52 0059 04695 NORTH SHORE DR STEPHEN C 8 JOANNE A WARD STEPHEN C HARO 4695 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55564 58 07-117-25 52 0061 01571 REST POINT LA KENNETH W 8 RENEE 6 E6GERT KENNETH H 8 RENEE 0 EGCERT 1571 REST POINT LA HOUND HN 55564 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN 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 NY KNOWLEDGE AMO BELIEF. m. ;| I li\ -v \( \ I' i (I • » /I •A • 6! •. V i ZJ- ■ 1 J * PERMIT RECORD rs^ } r:r 4^ rV t ' Permit No. '^O^n _______ Date _______7-3^-6/f Type of Permit /'itcu ^ Jtin, • /fpV ‘f-s-v~(*8 tiilB 1\3>48i -P7-7a^ •?8(po 5 -1-7-'^2 SJta}^ V7 II >5i y ^-Jl^ -r? =-->r ti> 'eO_h ' ^0 AbSO i)'Q.(c -9c 303(J 7-/6-9« 3oo/1t 7-/9'% 3n f>-!lr-<^(c'^)i Pj~Bo^ _ 7'7'7/J' / * '.^/x.>wC //VX'. j'^i- /^ <J3 ilMli im mm iini n<roi 111! I •1 MIU lOMiItM iTiACt^ rtr^m LtllMlT'*Tiril Ltmnr^ri]rt»« niin OTTiTiliriW r«fiiTi»:iiTt rotfiii •itiTir.iiTti •14 lit rtr^<vio •TtW^niTtl •Villi •14 lit RTYtrtTt] ^IRW«tl t- r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(l); 16(L)(2) FILE NO. 2590 WHEREAS, Dennis M. Stanton and Becky L. Stanton, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the o\vners of the property located at 3325 Crystal Bay Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 5, Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WMREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal 7. (,ode Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 to permit the patio to be located at the lot line where a 2 iclbdck is required; Section 10.22, Subdivision 16 (L)( 1) to allow 1,512 s.f. (55.0%) of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area where 0 s.f. (0%) is allowed and 1,592 s.f. (57.9%) exists for removal of a concrete sidewalk; Section 10.22, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to allow 643 s.f. (64.95%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback area where 247.5 (25%) is allowed and 707 s.f. (71.4%) exists to permit the replacement of a deck. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Plaruiing Commission held a public hearing on June 19,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. feV %■ Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 6 i FINDINGS nd and wife, tal Bay Road jws: I County, :es to Municipal lot line where a •%) of hardcover s for removal of %) hardcover in sts to pemiit the iccordance with Orono Planning iring to be beard incil of Oiono, h 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2590. 2. This property is located in the LR-1C Zoning District, where .5 acre or 21,780 s.f. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of approximately .114 acres or 4,956 s.f. 3. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19,2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The structural coverage on the lot is not increasing. B. The 0-75' hardcover on the lot is decreasing to 1,512 s.f. (55.0%) from 1,592 s.f. (57.9%). C. The 75-250' hardcover on the lot is decreasing to 643 s.f. (64.95%) from 707 s.f.(71.4%). D. The existing deck is located partially within the right-of-way of Dakota Rail property. E. The Planning Commission finds that it is beyond the scope of the City’s authority to grant a variance to replace the deck in its current location because part of it encroaches into the Dakota Rail right-of-way. D. The lot is extremely undersized for LR-IC. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazaru 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; Page 2 of 6 i 1,780 s.f. is es or 4,956 , 2000 and from 1,592 ») from 707 Dakota Rail ■ the City’s ion because peculiar to lat granting r pose a fire serve as a >le hardship applicants; L and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 to permit the patio to be located at the lot line where a 2' setback is required; Section 10.22, Subdivision 16 (L)( 1) to allow 1,512 s.f (55.0%) of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area where 0 s.f (0%) is allowed and 1,592 s.f (57.9%) exists for removal of a concrete sidewalk; Section 10.22, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to allow 643 s.f (64.95%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback area where 247.5 (25%) is allowed and 707 s.f (71.4%) exists to permit the replacement of a deck. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 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. Authorities granted by these variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (June 26,2001). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of these variances 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 ?- f- r’.'. U. ir- 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) 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) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 Exhibit A Page 6 of 6 i*’ b CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 ZONING FILE # 2590 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 19,2000 TO: Dennis and Becky Stanton 3325 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: June 19.2000 VOTE: 4 FOR AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on June 26,2000 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 M ■ ^'i a rWi rK I' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner June 19,2000 #2590 Dennis and Becky Stanton 3325 Crystal Bay Road Variance •> Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 4,956 s.f. (.114 acre) C/ 'r V r h f >■ List of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet B Application/Applicant Letter C Site Plan/ Survey D Plat Map E Hardcover Calculations F Photo of Property G Location Map H Property Owner’s List 1 Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 15: Non-Encroachments: Uncovered porches or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. Variance Request: To permit the patio to be located at the lot line where a 2' setback is required. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l): Hardcover in 0-75': Within 0-75' of the shoreline there shall be no hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 1,512 s.f. (55.0%) of hardcover where 1,592 s.f. (57.9%) exists and 0 s.f. (0%) is allowed. (These calculations reflect th epaved road excluded from the calculations). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250': Within 75- 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 643 s.f (64.95%) hardcover where 707 s.f (71.4%) exists and 247.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to remove the existing deck on the rear of the residence and concrete sidewalk on the southwest side of the residence. The existing deck is rotting and located within the Dakota Rail right-of-way. The applicants wish to replace it with a brick paver patio within their property lot lines. The portion of the existing deck located within the property line is 170 s.f. The proposed patio is 170 s.f H2590 Dennis/Becky Stanton 3325 Crystal Bay Road Variance 6/19/2000 Page! mr E!, g; m y a ' . t The concrete sidewalk is located on the southwest side of the residence and is 80 s.f. It is in poor condition and the applicants wish to replace it with grass to help with drainage. The sidewalk is located in both the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas. Th j removal of the sidewalk will result in a decrease of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area to 1,512 s.f. (55.0%), where 1,592 s.f. (57.9%) exists and 0 s.f. (0%) is allowed. The paver patio and removal of sidewalk will result in a decrease of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area to 643 s.f. (64.95%), where 707 s.f. (71.4%) exists and 247.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. 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. Issues for Consideration; 1 . The structural coverage on the lot is not increasing, and hardcover is decreasing, 2. In 1994, the property owner at 3345 Crystal Bay Road was granted a “0 setback” variance to allow a shed to be located at the rear property line and outside the Dakota Rail right-of-way. 3. The City does not have authority to grant approval to replace the deck in its current location because part of it encroaches into the Dakota Rail right of way. Applicant has no other location feasible for a patio, and the proposed 170 s.f. patio is not excessive in size. 4. The lot is extremely undersized for LR-IC. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow the applicants to remove the concrete sidewalk and to remove and replace the existing deck with a paver patio. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other. #7590 Dennis/Becky Stanton 3325 Crystal Bay Road Variance 6/19/2000 Page 2 I r-^ t .r. 4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) Actual 4,956 s.f. (.114 acre) Structural Coverage; Hardcover Calculations; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 4,956 s.f.Allowed: 743.4 s.f. (15%) Existing: 785 s.f (15.8%) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75’ (road ^eluded) 2,750 s.f 0 s.f (0%)1,592 s.f (57.9%) l,512s.f (55.0%) 75-250’990 s.f 247.5 s.f (25%) 707 s.f (71.4%) 643 s.f (64.95%) 500-1000' V JJL S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJf. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 0*7 S.F.A 22___S.F. % B 1. H ^/o % S.F. S.F. S.F.•• V S.F. S.F. S.F........ . S.F. S.F. S.F. 2^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3 ___S.F. P S.F.A W S.F.B % 1 Nort^ I DAHL BO \ • g • V • \ « lA ^ f ■ ; r ' ^/^ \ Forest V 1 I'!S "Vv QmHDWEWUUvE 3AV . . . .,4 K** •*. . ./•.*•••• . r. • *U‘ • - • X;'C*f'Jeo.,5l . • « _ ^ • •Lake I ^ i4rm V' * • • ^ iOgsberg Point ■»«« /wOOO * 9 t*t "«r N> \H0«r/y ^>vJ: I JOHNS! West ORONO/s Arm \ J600 POINT 5 \IA 2 T J ; os V- ^: . Crystal Bohns Point Cw ^ hadfkood Point DEERING <1 Fagerness Point BUD^ LAg BHONfiui sesjMs 1-tMOiWJHPt ToSotSSS kkson TOlO AVE iO cuts'^ citTn*)i MINNET ISaCZiQUESS w 2 3 — N Spring A\SHORELINE o W OCO ly m"\1 /Btad^L^e 240r7' ■1-SHAMMIU ft ; ITOIAI MMia&r Park 0 / \.i^Carman \ ^7^i\ 0Pei iOMaTRO Jm Point /\ \I . I N ?] V. GOOSE *» /ISLAND Locif ft ^^PRAY risun Ctl/A rs SHADY JLCJL^ftAJOEV /ft /^Yl iUN MTi •S/t2/ti MTOI 5tl HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5^01 PACE 1 PMNP ADM OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADM SO 17-117-2S S4 RiS2 •MSi ADDRESS PENDING NCLEOD CNTY RE6 RR AUTHORITY DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NMTN HILL ST FERCUS FALLS NN 545S7 56 17-117-25 41 0004 •0050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED COL ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA NN 55591 58 17-117-25 41 0007 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED COL ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA NN 55591 PROP ADM OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADM 50 17-117-25 41 0014 •5509 CRYSTAL BAY RD V W NELIN I K P NELIN V WILLIAN 0 KATHLEEN P NELIN 5509 CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONO NN 55591 50 17-117-25 41 0017 05515 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAR6ARET C KEENAN NARGARET C KEENAN 5515 CRYSTAL DAY RD WAYZATA NN 55391 50 17-117-25 41 0010 05525 CRYSTAL BAY RD D N STANTON 0 B L STANTON DENNIS N • BECKY L STANTON 3325 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA NN 55591 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADM 50 17-117-25 41 0019 •5529 CRYSTAL BAY RD NICNAEL J FINLEY NICNAEL J/PATRICX N FINLEY 5529 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA m 55591 50 17-117-25 41 0021 03559 CRYSTAL BAY RD J D I T J HOFER OONATHAN I THERESA HOFER 5559 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA NN 55591 50 17-117-25 41 0054 05555 CRYSTAL DAY RD LIANE PEPEK LIANE PEPEK 5555 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA NN 55591 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADM 50 17-117-25 44 0104 •5240 NAVARRE LA CLAIR T 0 LYNN D ROOD CLAIR 0 LYNN ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA NN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 501 00010 i .f tJIt 1 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEHTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROffRTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF NY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. DAT J/*•) ;.} :♦ • -a ^ 9 • V* IJ rr—V 'V r.l/7 1 PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date Type of Permit i/So ^■r.7./ J2J£-/o - y<? H^6 3 7 - '-5 f ^ <?5?IO -X .) I •^■7 4- UfiiU. tMU<l lZf-A-<-cL F REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION rni iMr.u. MEETING JUN 2 6 2000 I If ur OHONO DATE: June 26, 2000 ITEM NO : ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Report Item Description: Seasonal Employees for Golf Course The Council has previously approved Golf Course seasonal employees for the 2000 season. There were several open positions. One of the new employees has resigned because of health reasons Three positions have been filled and Council approval is required to hire the proposed candidates. 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 rule which allows unlimited earnings for a 6-month maximum time period. The original plan was to hire three six month employees who would work more hours. We have been unable to find candidates willing to work a lot of hours, so more employees working fewer hours will be hired. The employees who 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 Emnlovee 2000 Hourlv Waee R Bill McIntyre (6 month employee)$7.45 Jack Peterson (6 month employee)$7.45 Dan Oas $7.65 John Ross $7.45 Jan Blair $7.45 Vicki Raiche $6.87 Fred Abrahamson $6.87 Adam Noble $6.80 Gary Peickerct $6.80 Harvey Bix $6.80 Jenni*'er Moser $6.80 Heather Moser $6.80 Returning Employee COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the revised employee list at the proposed wage rates and under the applicable provisions of the PERA rules. AS COI INCH MEETING JUN 2 6 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ohunu DATE: June 26, 21 III! ITEM NO.:10 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Report Item Description: Highway 12 Lift Station Easement We have obtained an easement for the Highway 12 bypass lift station from Washington Scientific Industries. This lift station is located, on the northeast comer of the property, at the intersection of the Orono/Long Lake Sewer and the MCES Maple Plain Force Main. This lift station will provide additional sewer capacity to serve this area by diverting 200 gallons per minute of flow from the Orono/Long Lake sewer into the Maple Plain Force Main. The easement area required is 12,800 square feet at the standard easement cost of $1.00 per square foot. This large area is required to provide access to the lift station from the existing Washington Scientific driveway on Highway 12. The installation of a separate driveway off Highway 12 is not feasible because off the steep highway embankment. i COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the Washington Scientific Industries easement for the Highway 12 Bypass Lift Station at a cost of $1.00 per square foot for a total cost of $12,800. ■ • ■ A:' > ru fJOl jNCIL M6EHNQ JUN 2 6 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl l Y Ul- OHONO DATE: June 22, 2000 ITEM NO: / / Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Resignation of Carole Haseman from Hp*- Position as Secretary/Deputy City Clerk Carole Haseman has submitted her resignation from the position of Secretary/Deputy City Clerk effective June 30, 2000 to pursue other opportunities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the resignation of Carole Haseman from her position as Secretary/Deputy City Clerk effective June 30,2000, and to authorize staff to initiate the process of hiring a replacement. c 2/,ir4 H-H7-AS w’m yr iU\ \ / /c A-(13) N •M m /I (17) 8 .<34)16.67 ’\ v\^* \ A-k^:-\ ^\ X' 3 ' (31 3 ;v^:^ yS f (109)^ - wi/ / yip. ^ (*>08) ^yyh 62 \^. A ft-a A?'' r# 40 / ^‘^(83) 39/N« -O' oe 0\5? - . ^„52 V- 4 V4 ?- Ci.i''uf'-^ y ^ • 04 r i58)A / /C5S' • ••• 0 I ■ .<■- •• . H ^ , % * .• • - k •. s.• • hakdcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ e: ]ry^gnNG HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House ____________^ ^ Leofth B. Garage - • C. Driveway D. Sldewrik uxtrisAepS E. F. Landsc^ Underiain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X O. Other TOTAL HAKDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •_ _ _ __ ® . )>RnPOSED HARDCOVCT IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lcofih B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other Width Width TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ __ ® . 250-500’500-1000 ’ • S.F. S.F. • e S.F. B S.F. S.F. » • • * t • • •• • S.F. r=S.F. •S.F. S.F. « 9o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^rnm ■ 'S.F. tmmm • S.F. ■S.F. ^-750 S.F. X100 “UQ.^% ww •• w w ^ ^ 4j2>6 S.F. S.F. S.F. B — S.F. S.F. S.F. O S.F. • • S.F. __S.F. • S3 S.F. S.F. S.F. B S.F. XS S.F. • S.F. 1^1 S.F. 2n^L> S.F. xlOO -=ato/c) % A B HARDCOVER CALCULATlOnWORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HAWnrOVFR IN ZONE A. House _______________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X io^ec^E. Pari F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X Q. Other a s A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______________ - B ____ ^ B X too X 100 s s PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. ^^a^/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other U>ooc/ (JOfkju X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B _ _ X 100 'IjolX 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. SF. S.F. % 7 I. W % A B 1 /VO 11 S.F. S.F. ' * •‘Tv. S.F. S.F.J S.F. S.F.... / :. V S.F. S.F.\ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.A S.F.B % 1 •f- . K * . > >-j ': ( In \n tVl ?-•) m r •>- \ / iL ^'4 *'^- f^ V • -— ‘x- '* .'' , V V - ‘ >v- ■>•••?:■. '* /^.i’ rv^r/ ' . v/7 / -H [lU -. L L I-. B " • .iC^ ^ 1 D '■’ ' : L - Nort i X OAHLRO ?h200 i? : BIUIIDVIEwL\m A Lake " J@ •. \ <► yM^nrw •■ V• V 7?/,v "v ?'• •: ^•vv'-v.->•' Bay • \-. ) Arm ^ * * T * - ‘ • v'^*- V - * • — f / iogsberg Point West >S»*/«000 g“ ORONO Arm \R0Rr/y cnum o ». »BOHNS'x FOIHT‘5 \U • •• T -I D- V. ^t . ••• Crystal BoAnj Poi/i/ V Cryst • • Hlfl ihadnood Point DEERINO ISLAND •• • • OV *>4» 7 S5Si«§ Fagerness Point 1- woiiun fi ^Da OTEMAVi WD^ lAll ^VlCKSOif -T^25£i^^-!i2«»A»iu ■ »ATTKS wfliA /j Tolo AVE / BtacxLake MNfiimryj' ■nilUCMDI Spring Park SHORELIME o o CDcn cnWc*^MINNET ['«•) f » (tf m aijDwan "* \ iroiAi fjf Carman T'A IMBIVItt UL Point 45^80C o'. I i \-f 11 \> ^UOROWO c^GOOSE ISLAND x5w cost® y^SPRAY Locke Point •i ISLAh SHADY JLCJL^lLiJOO^V ♦I /%Vl t • ^ ^4 i IMN DATS tS/«2/«i BATCH Sn ONNEH NAME TAXPAYER NAIC/AOOR M I7-117-2S 34 ItSZ •••SB ADDRESS PENDING NCLEOD CNTY REG RR AUTHORITY DAKOTA RAIL INC Zn NORTH HILL ST FERGUS FALLS HN 54537 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SS 17-117-23 41 •••• •••38 ADDRESS UNASS16NED CAL ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA NN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435491 PACE 1 38 17-117-23 41 0«07 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CAL ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 17-117-23 41 ••!• •3389 CRYSTAL BAY RO V N NELIN t K P NELIN V WILLIAM S KATHLEEN P NELIN 3399 CRYSTAL BAY RD NN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 •019 •3329 CRYSTAL BAY RO raCNAEL J FINLEY NICNAEL J/PATRICX N FINLEY 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA NN 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 •!•• •324B NAVARRE LA CLAIR T S LYNN 0 ROOD CLAIR B LYNN ROOD 221S KENWOOD HAY WAYZATA NN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0017 •3315 CRYSTAL BAY RD MARGARET C KEENAN MARGARET C KEENAN 3315 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA HN 55391 SB 17-117-23 41 0021 •3339 CRYSTAL BAY RD J 0 A T J HOFER JONATHAN I THERESA HOFER 3339 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA NN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 tOlB •3325 CRYSTAL BAY RD 0 H STANTON t B L STANTON DENNIS N I BECKY L STANTON 3325 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA HN 55391 SB 17-117-23 41 •034 •3335 CRYSTAL BAY RO LIANE PEPEK LIANE PEPEK 3335 CRYSTAL BAY RO WAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 581 •••10 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AMI TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PRf^RTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OP NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DAT a I •V. ■I • • r"- r M i Permit No i/So •■w H^6 <?Sio % f'-nA I 1 PERMIT RECORD Date /g f (0 - M a 1 ■ '-5 •a..n ‘^1 Type of Permit l/naM.--iil-s&i. T/L^d OcfiJiiu. 't^u< j iZf-A^i J »' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION rni iMr.JL JUN 2 6 2000 It urOHONO DATE: June 26, 2 ITEM NO.: Ill 1 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Report Item Description: Seasonal Employees for Golf Course The Council has previously approved Golf Course seasonal employees for the 2000 season. There were several open positions. One of the new employees has resigned because of health reasons Three positions have been filled and Council approval is required to hire the proposed candidates. 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 rule which allows unlimited earnings for a 6-month maximum time period. The original plan was to hire three six month employees who would work more hours. We have been unable to fmd candidates willing to work a lot of hours, so more employees working fewer hours will be hired. The employees who 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 R Bill McIntyre (6 month employee)$7.45 Jack Peterson (6 month employee)$7.45 Dan Oas $7.65 John Ross $7.45 Jan Blair $7.45 Vicki Raiche $6.87 Fred Abrahamson $6.87 Adam Noble $6.80 Gary Peickerct $6.80 Harvey Bix $6.80 Jennifer Moser $6.80 Heather Moser $6.80 Returning Employee COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the revised employee list at the proposed wage rates and under the applicable provisions of the PERA rules. r. .REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COI INCH MEETING JUN 2 6 2000 Cl I Y ur Omunu DATE: June 26, 2000 ITEM NO.:/o Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Report Item Description: Highway 12 Lift Station Easement We have obtained an easement for the Highway 12 bypass lift station from Washington Scientific Industries. This lift station is located, on the northeast comer of the property, at the intersection of the Orono/Long Lake Sewer and the MCES Maple Plain Force Main. This lift station will provide additional sewer capacity to serve this area by diverting 200 gallons per minute of flow from the Orono/Long Lake sewer into the Maple Plain Force Main. The easement area required is 12,800 square feet at the standard easement cost of $1.00 per .square foot. This large area is required to provide access to the lift station from the existing Washington Scientific driveway on Highway 12. The installation of a separate driveway off Highway 12 is not feasible because off the steep highway embankment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the Washington Scientific Industries easement for the Highway 12 Bypass Lift Station at a cost of Si.00 per square foot for a total cost of $12,800. k r.* t 11 p V . ; I' COUNCIL MEETING JUN 2 6 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION l Y Of OHONO DATE: June 22,2000 ITEM NO: / / Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Resignation of Carole Haseman from He*- Position as Secretary/Deputy City Cleric Carole Haseman has submitted her resignation from the position of Secretary/Deputy City Clerk effective June 30,2000 to pursue other opportunities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the resignation of Carole Haseman from her position as Secretary/Deputy City Clerk effective June 30,2000, and to authorize staff to initiate the process of hiring a replacement. cm iMrii. meeting JUN 2 6 2000 UilY Uf UHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 22, 2000 ITEM NO:II Department Approval: Name Lin Vce j • Title City Clerk 1 Administrator Reviewed:m Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses forCouncil Approval 1^' it, SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1. 2. Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Rick Recker Com Days 4 Mile Run Willow Drive @ Hackberry Park (S) to Brown Road (N) to Orchard Lane (W) to Holbrook Park August 13,2000 11:15 a.m. - Noon Mark Longworth, Archetype Builders, Inc. Fall Parade of Homes 1280 Lyman Avenue September 9 - October 1,2000, Thursday - Sunday only Noon - 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. r I Date: h June 20,2000 f ^ To:Lin Vee, City Clerk U'-From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police 1 -M1 Re:Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application submitted by Mr. Rick Recker regarding the annual Com Days 4 Mile Run to be held on August 13, 2000. I have no objection to the permit being issued providing Mr. Recker is advised he will be expected to pay an additional fee of $50 as a result of needing Reserve Officers to assist with traffic, etc. % ^ > -V, * 3.V ^ f •. » t ) ■'% V -^'4 m. Date: To: From: Re: June 20,2000 Lin Vee, City Clerk Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Special Event Permit - Parade of Homes I have reviewed the application submitted by Mark W. Longworth on behalf of Archetype Builders to be involved with the Parade of Homes for September 9,2000 through October 1, 2000. I have no objection to the issuance of this permit, providing the following conditions are met: - Smith and Lyman Avenues be posted with No Parking signs, and will be kept open at all times. - Visitors park cars at St. George’s Church (with their permission) and a van/bus shuttle service be utilized to prevent parking problems at 1280 Lyman Avenue. 1 .1 23 Jun 2000 Fri a:02 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 1 Check Itunber Date Name Check Rusiber 61625 61625 APACHE GROUP 22-Jun-OO APACHE GROUP Totals Check Number 61625 APACHE GROUP Check Muster 61626 AT a T - 6’»626 22-Jun-OO AT 4 T - Totals Check Number 61626 AT 4 T - Check Number 61627 AT 4 T HIRELESS SERVICES Check NUlfiber 61626 AUQIBS mobile chef 61628 22-Jun-OO AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Totals Check Number 61628 AUQIES »»BILB CHEF Check Number 61629 BIFFS INC. ^ Check number 61632 61632 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC. 22-Jun-OO BONESTROO ROSENS 4 ASSOC. 1 Transaction Amount Cofsments 569.51 569.51 TOILET TISSUE 'MOII. meeting JUN 2 6 2000 UllY Ur UhONO 15.70 15.70 LONG DISTANCE SERVICE 61627 22-Jun-OO AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES 25.58 CELL PHONE SERVICE 61627 22-Jun-OO AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES 77.58 CELL PHONE SERVICE 6162*»22-Jun-OO AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES 6.06 CELL PHONE SERVICE 61627 22-Jun-OO AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES 6.07 CELL PHONE SERVICE Totals Check Number 61627 AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES 115.29 92.07 92.07 HOT DOGS* CHSBRGRS 61629 22-Jun-OO BIFFS INC.140.52 PORTABLE -BIDERWOOD 61629 22-Jun-OO BIFFS INC.140.52 PORTABLE -SUMMIT BEACH 61629 22-Jun-OO BIFFS INC.140.52 PORTABLE -HACXBERRY 61629 22-Jun-OO BIFFS INC.80.91 PORTABLE -OC Totals Check Number 61629 BIFFS INC.502.47 Check Number 61630 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 61630 22-Jun-OO BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 218.02 SOLID HAST SER-CH 61630 22-Jun-OO BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 67.86 SOLID HAST SEK E LL RD 61630 22-Jun-OO BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 72.33 SOLID MAST se:<-gc 61630 22-Jun-OO BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 157.80 SOLID HAST .SSR-LAKE 61630 22-Jun-OO BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 78.90 SOLID HAST 5BR-BEOERWOOD Totals Check Number 61630 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 594.91 100.00 COUNCIL MTGS - APR 2000 '4 r 23 Jun 2000 Pri 8:02 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Check Number Date Name Transaction Amount Comments Check NUiAber €1632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 61632 BONESTROO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun^OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO ROSBNE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. Totals Check Number 61632 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. 532.00 309.50 304 00 7 00 672.50 3,878.79 1,022.40 258.25 1,416.69 361.03 992.59 38.00 38.00 3o0.56 45.23 1,590.42 1,038.50 13,056.46 WELL 83 PUMP REPAIRS UPDATE SEWER MAPS 4/2000 LS17 - WAADE PROP REALIGN NAV WATER PLANT MISC SAN SWR COMP PLAN 4/2000 APPLIC APR 2000 ORONO ORCHARD SWR 4/2000 ORONO ORCH SWR RFP 4 & 5 WEBBER HILLS SWR 4/2000 I k I CASCO FERNDALE AREA HEAD SWR 4/2000 REVIEW ELECTRONIC MAPPING REVIEW ELECTRONIC MAPPING TH12/STUBBS BY RD CLOSURE TH12/STUBBS BY RD RFP82 HWY 12/FERNDALE LS 4/20C0 I/I YR 2000 PROJ 4/2000 Check Number 61633 BUDGET PRINTING 61633 61633 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO Totals Check Number BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING 61633 BUDGET PRINTING 192.02 27.48 219.50 REPORT COVERS, TABS COLOR COPIES Check Number 61634 CARGILL SALT 61634 22-Jun-OO Totals Check Number CARGILL SALT 61634 CARGILL SALT 2,053.43 2,053.43 SOLAR SALT Check Number 61635 CITY OP HOUND 61635 22-Jun-OO Totals Check Number CITY OF MOUi© 61635 CITY OF MOUND 24,014.75 24,014.75 FIRE PROTECTION 3RD QTR Check Number 61636 COFFEE MILL 61636 61636 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO Totals Check Number COFFEE MILL COFFEE MILL 61636 COFFEE MILL 139.00 147.00 286.00 COFFEE COFFEE, CREAM, SUGAR Check Number 61637 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN 61637 22-Jun-OO DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN 399.00 APPL 2492-LU2AICH 23 JVin 2000 Pri 8:02 AM Check Register City of Orono Check IfUBiber Oieck Number Hate Name 61837 DAHLGREN SKARDLON k OBAN Totals Check Number 61637 DAHLGREN SKARDLON & OBAN Check Number 61638 61636 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 22-Jun-OO DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. Totals Check Number 61638 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. Check Number €1639 DCA - HIRE ONLY 61639 22-Jun-OO DCA - HIRE ONLY Totals Check Number 61639 DCA - WIRE ONLY Check Number 61640 DELTA DENTAL €1640 €1640 22-JUn-OO 22-Jun-OO DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL Totals Check msSbkv 6164C DELTA DENTMi Check Number 61641 KI. JAY €1641 22-Jun-OO SKI, JAY Totals Check Number 61641 SKI, JAY Check Number €1642 DOYLE INC. 61642 61642 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO DOYLE INC. DOYLE INC. Totals Check Number 61642 DOYLE INC. Check Number 61643 DRAVIES. ALBERT 61643 22-Jun-OO DRAVIES. ALBERT Totals Check Number 61643 DRAVIBS, ALBERT Check NUR^r 61644 EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC. 61644 61644 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC. EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC Totals Check NUfBber 61644 EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC. Transaction Amount 399.00 90.70 90.70 167.88 167.88 -234.40 1,061.70 827.30 4.55 4.55 63.71 92.54 156.25 10.00 10.00 523.98 577.46 1,101.44 Page 3 Comments SNACKS POR RESALE SPENDING ACCTS-END 6/11/0 7/00 DENTAL PREM-COBRA 7/00 DENTAL PREM-COBRA MEAL-RADAR CERT TRNG LIPT CABLE LIFT CABLE, BUSHING REFUND - LATE PEE CHANNEL POSTS SIGNS - PARK PROPERTY Hi i I -J 23 Jun 2000 Fri 8:02 AM Check Resister City of Orono Check Nunber Date Name Check Number 61645 61645 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 22-Jun-OO BAST SIDE BEVERAGE Totals Check Number 61645 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Check Number 61646 embedded systems 61646 22-«7un-00 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 61646 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS Check Number 61647 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 61647 61647 61647 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS QI0INEERI!«3 REPRO SYSTEMS i • Totals Check Number 61647 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Check Number 61648 PORTIS BENEFITS 61648 Jun-00 FORTIS BENEFITS Totals Check Number 61648 FORTIS BENEFITS m Check Number 61649 FRANKLIN PRESS INC 61G49 61649 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO FRANKLIN PRESS INC FRANKLIN PRESS INC Totala Check NVmaber 61649 FRANKLIN PRESS INC fr L Check HOmber 61651 6I6S1 0 a 22-Jun-OO K SERVICES Q a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO u a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO 0 a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO 0 a K SERVICES 61651 22-Jun-OO G a K SERVICES 61651 * 22-Jun-OO Q a K SERVICES Totals Check Number 61651 G a K SERVICES Transaction Amount Page 4 Comments 100.00 BEER FOR RESALE 100.00 300.00 ANNUAL SIREN MAINT 300.00 77.96 AS BUILT COPIES 2.56 AS BUILT COPIES 17.31 AS BUILT COPIES 97.83 799.48 LTD PR^IOMS • 7/00 799.48 123.75 CITY NEWSLETTER 606.06 CONSOLIDATION NEWSLETTEF 729.81 58.21 MATS - PD 16.29 UNIFORM - RATHBUN 10.68 UNIFORM - STEFFENHAQBN 110.36 UNIFORMS 16.29 UNIFORM - RATISUN 10.68 UNIFORM - STEFFENKAGEN 73.13 UNIFORMS 45.03 MAT SERVICE - CH 45.03 MAT SERVICE - CC 90.10 MAT SERVICE - PW 10.68 UNIFORMS - STEFFENKAGQI 16.29 UNIFORM - RATHBUN 73.13 UNIFORMS 575.90 I • • 23 Jun 2000 Frl 0:02 AM Check Number Date Check Number 61553 GENUINE 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-JUn-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-JUn-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO 61653 23-Jun-OO Check Register City of Orono Transaction Totals Check Number Check Number 61654 61654 61654 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 32-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO Totals Qieck Number GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 61654 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Check Numbeir 61655 61655 61655 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN 22-JUn-OO 22-Juu-OO ISNNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN Totals Check Number 61655 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN Check Number 61656 J R LARSON COMPANY 61656 22-Jun-OO J H LARSON COMPANY Totals Check Number 61656 J H LARSON COMPANY Check Number 61657 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 82.40 82.40 164.80 Page 5 66.98 50.259.80 50.326.78 Name Amount Comments •8toHGENUINE PARTS CO.18.87 HALOGEN LIGHT GENUINE PARTS CO.5.38 FUEL FILTER GENUINE PARTS CO.6.38 CAR WASH GENUINE PARTS CO.12.76 CAR WASH GENUINE PARTS CO.31.56 OIL FILTER, AIR FILTER GENUINE PARTS CO.14.89 CLAMP GENUINE PARTS CO.4.24 OIL TREATMENT GENUINE PARTS CO.8.50 SIGN PAINT GENUINE PARTS CO.5.40 AIR FILTER GENUINE PARTS CO.13.27 SPARK PLUG, OIL FILTER GENUINE PARTS CO.18.08 SPLASH GUARD GENUINE PARTS CO.9.23 WIPER BLADE GENUINE PARTS CO.13.08 LENS, PLUG GENUINE PARTS CO.11.66 LAMP, FUSES GENUINE PARTS CO.4.24 PRIMER GENUINE PARTS CO.114.02 BRAKE CONTROLLER GENUINE PARTS CO.51.65 SWITCHES, HATtffiR FILTER GENUINE PARTS CO.86.54 HEADLIGHTS GENUINE PARTS CO.15.89 SOCKET, PLUG GENUINE PARTS CO.8.50 MISC SUPPLY GENUINE PARTS CO.50.88 FUSE BLOCK, WORK LAMP GENUINE PARTS CO.8.51 CABLE TIES GENUINE PARTS CO.37.06 BRAKE PADS GENUINE PARTS CO.550.59 162.79 162.79 LOCATES - MAY 2000 LOCATES - MAY 2000 TRAFFIC TICKETS-JAN-JUN 2ND HALF ASSESSOR CNTRCT FLOUREC^IT LIGHT BULBS 61657 22-Jun-OO KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 267.20 RADAR REPAIR 23 Jun 2000 Pri ai02 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 61657 ICUSTOM SIGNALS INC Totals Check Number 61657 ICUSTOM SIGNALS INC Check Number 61658 LEACRJB OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST 61658 22-Jun-OO LEA(3UE OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST Totals Check Number 61658 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST Check Number 61659 IA1CIT>BERKLEY ADMIN 61659 22-Jun-OO LMCIT-BERKLEY ADMIN Totals Check Number 61659 LMCIT-BERKLEY ADMIN Check Number 61660 LOGIS 61660 61660 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO LOGIS LOGIS Totals Check Number 61660 LOGIS Check Number 61661 LONG LAKE POMER EQUIPN^ 61661 61661 61661 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 61661 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Check Number 61662 M-R SIGN CO. INC 61662 22-Jun-OO M-R SIGN CO, INC Totals Check Number 61662 M-R SIGN CO, INC IS" Check Number 61664 61664 HCCOLLISTER k CO 22-Jun-OO MCCOLLISTER 4 CO Transaction Amount 267.20 17,296.00 17,296.00 21,546.25 21,546.25 792.00 792.00 1,584.00 34.60 1.91 70.16 106.87 609.04 609.04 220.78 Page 6 Comments 2ND HALF WORK COMP INS COMP MUNIC COV PAY #3 POLICE CRDIT CORR POLICE CRDIT CORR V-BELT GUARD TRIGGER LOCK, SPRING POLESAW CHAINS CHANNEL POSTS Check Number 61663 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI & CO ^ 61663 22-JUn-OO MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI 4 CO 3,810.00 AUDIT PAYMENT 62 * 61663 22-Jun-OO MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI 4 CO 1,934.00 AUDIT PAYMENT 62 61663 22-Jun-OO MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI 4 CO 2,470.00 AUDIT PAYMENT 62 61663 22-Jun-OO MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI 4 CO 3,200.00 AUDIT PAYMENT 62 61663 22-Jun-OO MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI 4 CO 2,050.00 AUDIT PAYMENT 62 Totals Check Number 61663 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI 4 CO 13,464.00 OIL 1SW40 1 I 23 JUn 2000 frl 8:02 AH Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number €1664 MCCOLLISTBR k CO Totals Check Number 61664 MCCOLLISTER k CO Check Number 61665 MCFOA 61665 61665 22-JUn-OO 22-Jun-OO MCFOA MCFOA Totals Check Number 61665 MCFOA Check Number 61666 MCLEOD USA FUBLISHINQ 61666 22-JUn-OO MCLEOD USA PUBLISHING Tbtale Check Number 61666 MCLEOD USA PUBLISHING Check Number 61668 KEDICA CHOICE Check Nbed^r 61669 1ST COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 61669 22-Jun-OO MET COUNCIL ENVIR TAL SVCS Totals Check Number 61669 MET COUNCIL ENVIR TAL SVCS Check Number 61670 MXDflBST ASPHALT 61670 22-Jun*00 MIDWEST ASPHALT ki Transaction Amount 220.78 35.00 35.00 70.00 270.72 270.72 18,788.00 18,788.00 312.33 Page 7 Comments ANNUAL MCFOA MBR-PETTIT ANNUAL MCFOA MBRSHP-VEE DIRECTORY ADV 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA OIOICB 202.22 MEDICA LOH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 404.44 MEDICA LOH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 558.62 MEDICA LOM PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 202.23 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 202.22 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 1,443.79 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 606.69 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 606.66 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 202.23 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 1.797.53 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 3,154.34 MEDICA HIGH PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 580.13 MEDICA ELECT PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 2,022.30 MEDICA ELECT PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 202.23 MEDICA ELECT PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 404.46 MEDICA ELECT PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 202.23 MEDICA ELECT PREM 7/00 61668 22-Jun-OO MEDICA CHOICE 3,123.70 MEDICA ELECT PREM 7/00 Totals Qieck Number 61668 MEDICA CHOICE 15,916.02 mSTNATBR SERVICE 7/3000 HAND PATCH i 23 Jun 2000 Fri 8:02 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 61670 61670 MIDNEST ASPHALT 22-Jun-OO MIDNEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 61670 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 61671 MILOW ELECTRIC INC. 61671 22-Jun-OO MILOW ELECTRIC INC. Totals CSieck Number 61671 MILOW ELECTRIC INC. Check NOmber 61672 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 61672 22-Jun-OO MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 61672 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 61673 MINNESOTA DARE IKC 61673 22-Jun-OO MINNESOTA DARE INC I Totals Check Number 61673 MINNESOTA DARE INC Check Number 61674 MN DEPT OP HEALTH 61674 22-Jun-00 MN DEPT OP HEALTH Totals Check Number 61674 MN DEPT OP HEALTH Qieck Number 61675 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 61675 61675 61675 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO Ml POLUmON CONTROL AGENCY Ml POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Ml POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY totals Check NVlsOMr 61675 Ml POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Check Nuadt>er 61676 MORONCZYNSKI, JIM 61676 22-JUn-OO M0R0WC2YNSKI, JIM Totals Check Number 61676 MORONCZYNSKI* JIM ^eck Number 61677 MR AUQIES COPPEE SERVICE 61677 22-Jun-OO MR AUGIES COPPEE SERVICE Totals Check Number 61677 MR AUQIES COFFEE SERVICE II. Transaction Amount 104.12 416.45 1«450.00 1.450.00 13.50 13.50 81.00 81.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 69.00 8.17 8.17 49.50 49.50 Page 8 Cooments HAND PATO! - I a I GAS LINE. WTR LINE - GC MEDICAL OXYGEN GRADUATION CAKE WTR SUP SYS OP-OBERANGER NST PAC OPER LICENSE WST FAC OPER LICENSE NST FAC OPER LICENSE MEALS-BMRG MGKT SCHOOL COFFEE FOR RESALE 23 Jun 2000 Pri 8:02 AM Check Number Check Number 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 61681 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO -Jun-00 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-JUn-OO 22-JUn-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO Totals Check Number Check Number 61682 61682 61682 MSP 23-Jun-OO 23-Jun-OO Transaction Amount Page 9 Comments NAVARRE KARDNARB 68.11 DOCK PLATE NAVARRE KARDHARE 15.43 100* TAPE NAVARRE KARDNARB 1.27 GALV CAP NAVARRE KARDHARE 9.55 CHUCK KEY, PUNCH NAVARRE KARDNARB 1.20 INSULATION NAVARRE KARDNARB 20.61 KEY, FLAG, TRSH BGS NAVARRE KARDHARE 7.26 HOSE CLAMPS NAVARRE KARDHARE 8.50 ROUNDUP - BALL FIELDS NAVARRE KARDHARE 47.67 TANK SRPYR, BRSH B GON NAVARRE KARDHARE 27 4?HAND CLEANER NAVARRE KARDHARE 2.8e VELCRO NAVARRE KARDHARE 6.37 BASKETBALL NET NAVARRE KARDHARE 11.15 DEODERIZER, BATTERIES NAVARRE KARDHARE 3.18 1 1/2" TRAP NAVARRE KARDHARE 6.38 FLAN TAILPIECE NAVARRE HARDWARE 12.76 HOP HANDLE 6 HEAD NAVARRE HARDWARE 28.72 300* CAUTION TAPE NAVARRE HARDWARE 2.12 ADHESIVE NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.35 BULK NAILS NAVARRE HARDWARE 19.79 BULK BOLTS NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.64 25* TAPE NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.60 SEALANT NA*/ARRE HARDWARE 11.15 PRIMER NAVARRE HARDWARE 2.08 PINS NAVARRE HARDWARE 4.25 CABLE TIE NAVARRE HARDWARE 13.09 BULK NUTS, HASHERS NAVARRE HARDWARE 9.56 BULK HASHERS NAVARRE HARDWARE 11.48 BITS NAVARRE HARDWARE -11.48 BITS - RETURN NAVARRE HARDWARE 1.91 SUPER GLUE NAVARRE HARDWARE 5.31 WHISK BROOM NAVARRE KARDHARE 1.27 SINGLE CUT KEY NAVARRE HARDWARE 18.40 HASP, TAGS NAVARRE HARDWARE -13.09 HASP - RETURN NAVARRE HARDWARE 2.53 SINGLE cur KEY NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.83 MOTAR MIX - I 6 I NAVARRE HARDWARE 23.81 PRUNER, ROPE, THINE NAVARRE HARDWARE 113.75 MASTERLOCKS NAVARRE HARDWARE 23.19 TRIM STAIN, DISH SOUP 61681 NAVARRE HARDWARE 549.23 NSP 1.423.53 ELECTRICAL SERVICE NSP 622.58 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 23 Jun 2000 Check Register Page Fri 8i02 AM City of Orono Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 61682 NSP 61682 23-Jun-OO NSP 159.39 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 61682 23-Jun-OO hSP 23.45 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 61682 23-Jun-OO NSP 90.40 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 61682 23-Jun-OO NSP 152.21 BLECTRICITY-HWY 12/WIL Totals Check Number 61682 NSP 2.471.56 Check Number 61683 OFFICE DEPOT 61683 22-Jun-OO OFFICE DEPOT 149.69 CALCULATOR 61683 22-Jun-OO OFFICE DEPOT 114.96 OFFICE SUPPLIES 61683 22-Jun-OO OFFICE DEPOT 94.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES Totals Check Number 61683 OFFICE DEPOT 358.72 Check Number 61684 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC.• 61684 22-Jun-OO OLD DUTCH FOODS INC.21.00 CHIPS FOR RESALE 4K Ttotale ChAClc Nunber 61684 OLD DUTCH foods INC. Ch«ck nUfSbor 61685 pence* chris 61685 22-Jun-OO PENCE. CHRIS Totals Cheek Number 61685 PENCE* CHRIS Check Number 61686 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 61686 22-Jun-OO PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Totals Check Nunvber 61686 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Check Number 61687 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. 61687 61687 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO PONERCLEAN COMPANY INC. PONBRCLEAN COMPANY INC Totals Check Number 61687 PONBRCLEAN COMPANY INC Check Number 61688 61688 PRAIRIE OFFSET 22-Jun-OO PRAIRIE OFFSET Totals Check Number 61688 PRAIRIE OFFSET Check Nus8>er 61689 REED VENDING 22-Jun-OO REED VENDING61689 21.00 42.90 42 90 MILEAGE-NETLAND CLASS 31.50 31.50 ALUM BRACKETS 1*762.28 1.442.00 CARPBT/TILE CLEANING CARPBT/TILE CLEANING 3*204.28 202.72 202.72 BUSINESS CARDS 118.40 SNACKS FOR RESALE 23 Jun 2000 Fri 8x02 AM Qieck Register City of Orono Check Number Date Heme Check Number 61689 JUSSD VENDING Totals Check Number 61689 REED VENDING Check Number 61690 RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 61690 23-Jun-OO RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 61690 RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO Check Number 61691 SCHARBER k SONS 61691 61691 22-Jun-OO 22-JUn-OO SCHARBER k SONS SCHARBER k SONS Totals Qieck Number 61691 SCHARBER k SONS Cheek NU^r 61692 sicms OP THE SEASON ( N*;i ■J-r- 61692 61692 22-Jun-OO 22-JVin-OO SIGNS OF THE SEASON SIGNS OF THE SEASON Totals Check Number 61692 SIGNS OF THE SEASON Check Number 61693 STRSICHERS 61693 61693 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO STRSICHERS STREICHERS Totals Check Number il693 STREICHERS Check Number 61694 SUPERIOR FORD 61694 22-Jun-OO SUPERIOR FORD Totals Check Number 61694 SUPERIOR FORD Check Nunl^er 6169S THORPE DIST CO. 61699 22-Jun-oo THORPE DTST CO, Tbtals Check Huatkx 61695 THORPE DIST CO. Check Number 61696 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 61696 61696 22-Jun-oo 22-Jun-oo TRACY TRIPP FUELS TRACY TRIPP FUELS Transaction Amount 118.40 53.54 53.54 89.20 22.30 66.90 19.17 19.17 38.34 59.90 31.79 91.69 87.63 87.63 50.00 50.00 275.00 1.782.00 Page 11 Commenta REF OVRPMNT-1406 REST PNT GLOW PLUGS GLOW PLUG - RETURN NO FISHING SIGN FIRE EXTINGUISHER SIGN TROUSERS - ANDERSON IRRITANT HUB COVERS - SQD 183 BEER FOR RESALE 249.6 GALS DIESEL 1200 GALS UNLEADED ' ^ ^ •;^- *r*.w 23 Jun 2000 rrl tt02 AM Check Register City of Orono » S ' Check IhfiQber Dete Name Check Nunber 61€9€ 61696 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 22-Jun-00 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Totals Check Number 61696 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Oieck Number 61697 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 61697 61697 22-Jun-OO 22-Jun-OO UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Totals Check Number 61697 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Check Number 61698 US WEST CO^•1UNICATIONS Check Number 61699 I Totals Check Number 61699 US NEST INTERPRISE 23-JUn-OO US WEST INTERPRISE 61699 US WEST INTERPRISE Check Number 61700 NAYZATA BAY CAR WASH 61700 22-JUn-OO WAYZATA BAY CAR HASH Totals Check Number 61700 WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH Check Number 61701 WINTSRNHEIMER. ALISSA 61701 22-Jun-OO WINTERNHEIHER« ALISSA Totals Check Number 61701 HINTERNHEIMER, ALISSA Grand Total Transaction Amount 144.00 2,201.00 280.20 61.08 341.28 361.05 361.05 319.50 319.50 150.00 150.00 209.432.47 Page 12 Comments 100 GALS - UNLEADED HAT. HAT PATCHES SHIRT. LETTERING-HENDRCKS 61698 23-Jun-OO US WEST CCeWUNICATIONS 302.88 PHONE SERVICE 61698 23-Jun-OO US WEST COrtWNICATIONS 10.10 PHONE SERVICE 61698 23-Jun-OO US WEST COreiUNICATIONS 23.56 PHONE SERVICE Totals Check Number 61698 US WEST COeaJNICATIONS 336.54 T1 LINE 75 CAR WASH TICKETS MINUTES - CC 6/12/00 'ITY OF ORONO Check Register 06/14/00 11:30 AM Page 1 Pay Period 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Check i Employee Name Check Date Check Amount 047695 VOID 047696 JOHNSON, MARY ANN 047697 BERRY. HEIDI N. 047698 HASEMAN, CAROLE A. 047699 MOORSE, RONALD J. 047700 VEE, LINDAS. 047701 KUEHN, THOMAS M. 047702 OLSON, RONALD J. 047703 PETTIT. SANDRA K. 047704 ANDERSON, BRUCE L 047709 BOBZIEN. SUE A. 047708 BORIS. SCOTT W. 047707 BUDIG, STACIE M. 047706 CARLSON, MICHAEL B. 047709 CHESWICK, GARY B. 047710 CORNICK, JAMES L 047711 OEMBOUSKI, JAY C. 047712 ERICKSON. KURT R 047713 FARNIOK, CORREY U 047714 FISCHENICH, DAN T. 047715 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. 047716 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P, 047717 JOHNSON, JEFFREY 047718 MADSON, ADRIENNE M. 047719 MCNALLY. STEVEN A. 047720 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L 047721 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES 047722 PERSELL, WILLIAM R. 047723 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B. 047724 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. 047725 TOMCZYK, MARK W. 047726 WITTKE, ANTHONY A. 047727 HENDRICKS, RONALD J. 047728 JENSEN. CHRISTOPHER E. 047729 BOTTENBERG, WENDY C. 047730 DAVIS. MARK L. 047731 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P. 047732 GAPPA, GREGORY A. 047733 MEYER. WILLIAM C. 047734 OMAN, LYLE E. 047735 PENCE. CHRISTOPHER M. 047736 WEINBERGER. PAUL E. C47737 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F. 047738 OEBAERE, DONALD L 047739 GREGORY, JAMES D. 047740 HANSEN. STEVEN 047741 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G. 047742 OBRIEN. RANDY L 6/14AX) 6/14/00 6/14AM) 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14AK) 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14AX} 6/14/00 6/14AX} 6/14AX) 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14A)0 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14AX) 6/14/00 6/14AX} 6/14AX) 6/14/00 6/14AM 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/CO 6/14/00 6/14A)0 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14A)0 6/14AX) 6/14AX) 6/14/00 6/14riX) 6/14AH) 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14/00 6/14AK) 6/14AX) 6/14/00 SO.OO $648.45 $706.38 $751.21 $1,657.48 $1,159.02 $1,376.57 $4.70 $368.02 $812.81 $660.02 $521.95 $655.40 $469.51 $1,549.73 $1,206.67 $1,502.35 $1,277.27 $1,568.42 $1,301.95 $1,261.76 $1,601.60 $820.60 $586.61 $1,272.43 $557.57 $1,699.32 $278.22 $1,543.65 $289.29 $1,285.23 $1,010.22 $577.32 $165.24 $1,001.44 $1,083.33 $1,173.36 $1,638.88 $457.61 $78.97 $873.37 $1,248.24 $1,065.66 $827.12 $609.50 $1,067.29 $540.82 $393.22 L. 'ITY OF ORONO Check Register 06/14/00 11:30 AM Page 2 Pay Period Check i Employee Name Check Data Check Amount 12 047743 PALMER. GREGORY A,6/14AX)$908.49 12 047744 RATHBUN, BARRY J.6/14/00 $944.82 12 047745 SKREEN, DALE S.6/14AK)$740.65 12 047746 ABRAHAMSON, FRED W.6/14/00 $266.72 12 047747 BLAIR, JANIS A.6/14/00 $118.71 12 047748 MCINTYRE, WILLIAM E.6/14AK)$237.41 12 047749 NOBLE, ADAM 6/14/00 $49.53 12 047750 OAS, DANIEL 0.6/14/00 $53.46 12 047751 PEICKERT, GARY J.6/14AK)$245.36 12 047752 PETERSON. JACK W.6/14/00 $362.83 12 047753 ROSS. JOHN A 6/14/00 $68.69 12 047754 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD E 6/14/00 $1,180.05 12 047755 SWENSON, LOWELL C.6/14/00 $114.54 Report Total $48,497.04 i 14 JUn 2000 INd 12:SI PM Chack Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Heme Check Humber 41612 61612 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 14-Jun-OO CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totela Check Number 61612 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 61612 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES 61613 61613 61613 14-Jun-OO 14-Jun-OO 14-Jun-OO FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES TotelB Check Huirbcr 61613 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES Check Humber 61614 ZCMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 61614 14-JUA-OO ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totele Check Humber 61614 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Humber 6161S LAN BNFORGMENT LABOR SERVICE 61615 14-Jun-OO LAN ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totela Check Humber 61615 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE deck Humber 61616 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT i 61C1C 14-Jun-OO MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT Totals Check lAimber 61616 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT Oieck number 61617 KN DEPT OF REVENUE 61617 14-Jun-OO DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 61617 KN DEPT OP REVENUE Check Nurber 61618 CRSiARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 61618 14-Jun-OO ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST Totals Check Humber 61618 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST Cheek Humber 61619 pebsco/obra 61619 14-Jun-OO PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Qieck Nurber 61619 PEBSCO/OBRA Transaction Amount 7.429.00 7.429.00 3.987.22 3.987.22 9.208.38 17.182.82 300.00 300.00 528.00 528.00 190.12 190.12 3.588.46 3«588.46 2,187.68 2,187.68 152.26 152.26 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS N/H a TRANSFERRED PICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUBS HR SJOIEEN 80010755723 STATE TAX W/H DBF COMP OBRA DEFERRED COMP H/K V. 14 JUn 2000 lf€d 12tSI PM Check Register City of Orono Check VUsiber Date Meme Cheek NUsiber ilC20 €1620 PBBSCO/OS CONF OP MAYORS 14-Jun-OO PBBSCO/US COUP OF MAYORS Thtels Check Rludber 61620 PEBSCO/U5 CONF OF MAYORS Check Nusibcr 61621 PSUi 61621 61621 14-Jun-OO 14-JUn-OO PERA PBRA Totals Check Kuoiber 61621 PERA Check Huaber 61622 tSNITEO HAY . 61622 14-JUn-OO UHITEO WAY Totals Check Number 61622 UNITED WAY Check IRiaiber 61623 WISCONSIN SCTF 61623 14-Jun-OO WISCONSIN SCTF Totalf Check Number 61623 WISCONSIN SCTF Grand Total Transaction Amount 2.698.00 2.698.00 4.463.82 S.796.96 10.260.80 28.00 28.00 184.62 184.62 44.729.76 Page 2 Comments OSCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS H/H J.JOHNSON r -• ■ i mm i' COIIMCIL MEEHNQ JUN 2 6 2000 [l-cn Y Oh OHONO EST’ORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING il.' COliMnii meetino JUN 2 6 2000 OF CU Y or OttONO jIMlfcAOtiil ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 draft ROLL: meeting M 2 6 2000 L»l I Y Ut~ UHO(VQ The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Sandra Smith. Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Jay Nygard. and William Stoddard. Commissioners Elizabeth Hawn and Daniel Klulh were absent. The following represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger. Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Barb Peterson was present. Acting Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS s. 'r!,4'r I/. . (#1) #2569 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN AND WILLIAM WALDRON, 1860 FOX STREET, AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 p.m. - 6:43 p.m. Mark Buetow, Caretaker for the MacMillans of 1860 Fox Street, appeared. Weinberger stated the City became aware in February or March that there had been excavation of a pond located on 1700 Fox Street. The pond was actually constructed by the property owner to the south in a cooperative effort between the two property owners. The survey indicates the pond is actually locc'iied across the east properly line, with Craigbank Associates being the owner of the second property this pond has impacted. W'einberger .staled an after-the-fact conditional use permit is required, with no variance being necessary lor the pond since it is not located within a City protected wetland. Weinberger noted some portions of the wetland are possibly located within an area considered to be Type I wetlands, which does require a wetland permit. Typically the Watershed District v/ilt review these applications following preliminary approval by the City. Weinberger stated since the land alteration is greater than 500 cubic yards and the dredging occurred over a property line, a conditional use permit is required. Weinbeiger indicated since the area has been dredged and not filled, the pond will not impact drainage in the area. Should the City approve the conditional use permit, the wetland shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property to serve as an advisory to the current and future property owners that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. City Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant applies for a land alteration permit. 2. A protective covenant is filed in the chain of title of the affected properties as an advisory to properly owners that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. 3. A final as built survey indicating finished elevations of the pond is submitted to the City and accepted by the City Engineer. 4. Verification that a MCWD permit has been approved for the pond construction. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moiulay, May 15, 2000 (#2569 Duncan MacMillan, continued) Mark Buetow, 177 Meadow Lane, Long Lake, indicated he has been employed by the MacMillans for the past 11 years as their caretaker. Smith inquired whether he wished to add anything to Staffs report. Buetow indicated this project was basically a beautification project to clean up the area. Smith inquired what future plans the applicant has for this area in terms of how it will be maintained and what type of vegetation witi be planted in this area. Buetow stated the Applicant woutd like to keep this area fairly natural, with some steps bcinn taken to prevent the banks from eroding. Buetow indicated they are willing to work with City Staff prior to commencing any future work in the area. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to enter into an agreement regarding the vegetation in this area. Weinberger slated typically the City allows the natural vegetation to restore itself in the area, which a majority of it has. Weinberger indicated the granting of easements in the area would also protect it from future vegetation removal and land alteration. Smith commented the City of Orono likes its residents to have a respect for the natural environment and to avoid the placement of rocks along the banks. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would have any problems with the conditions listed in the report. Buetow indicated he was fine with the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Stoddard inquired what the City’s policy was concerning Item 5 under the Wetland Alteration Guidelines. Weinberger indicated the pond has been constructed in a low area located within the wetlands and probably does not meet all the criteria. Stoddard commented he does not understand how they can excavate a small portion of a larger wetland. Weinberger stated the wetland is a non-prolected wetland as defined by the City of Orono. City Staff witI need to check with the Watershed District whether they have any issues with this pond. Gaffron rtated the City generally will not approve a conditional use permit for a decorative pond in a City-protected wetland unless such pond is designed to meet minimum wildlife habitat specifications. Gaffron stated since this is a non-protected wetland, the guidelines would generally not apply to this pond. Stoddard requested that Item 5 be reviewed in the future. Smith encouraged the Applicant to keep this pond as a nalural vegetative area Buetow indicated he does not have a problem with that. Page 2 i 5'ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mondiiy, May 15, 2000 (#2569 Duncan MacMillan, Continued) Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2569, W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron, 1860 Fox Street, for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit to allow for after-the-fact dredging of a pond in excess of 500 cubic yards, subject to the four conditions outlined in the April 17, 2000 Planner’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1, NEW BUSINESS (#4) #2578 DAVID AND LORRAINE LUNDBERG, 900 DAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE, 6:44 p.m. • 6:52 p.m. David and Lorraine Lundberg, Applicants, appeared. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 26 by 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 will tie 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. Bottenberg noted the property is serviced with sewer and a private well, which dictated the locations of the garage addition. The well is located on the north side ol me house and the sewer line runs parallel to the driveway. The adjacent resident to the south is approximately 60 feet from the adjoining property line. The property is located within 1000 feet of Long Lake. Bottenberg stated the addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 6.6 percent, where 4.5 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. The addition will also result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 500-1000 fool setback area to 12.5 percent, where 12.6 percent exists and 35 percent is allowed. A variance to the side yard setback is required to permit a side yard setback of 11 feet where 30 feet is required. City Staff is recommending approval of the variance for side yard setback. Lundberg indicated they currently have a one car luck under garage and one bathroom. Lundberg stated they would like to construct the addition to accommodate a growing family. Smith inquired what will happen to the shed that exists on the property. Lundberg stated the one shed in the back will be removed. Lindquist inquired whether a letter from the neighbor has been submitted on this application. Lundberg stated Tim and Julie Harrison did sign and submit a letter to the City. Bottenberg concurred that Tim and Julie Harrison did submit an acknowledgement letter. Smith indicated the letter from Tim and Julie Harrison acknowledges that they have had an Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (02578 David Lundberg, Continued) opportunity to review the plans for the proposed improvement and understand this letter is not requesting them to approve or disapprove this project but merely to confirm to the Planning Commission and City Council that we are aware of the plans for this project. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented that the Planning Commission cannot conclude that the neighbors are in support of this project but are merely acknowledging that they are aware of the proposed project. Lundberg stated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project. Lindquist stated he would like a letter in support of this project before the application appears before the City Council. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application 02578, 900 Dakota Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit the construction of a 26 by 26 foot two story garage addition to the existing residence, subject to the submittal of a letter in support of the project by Tim and Julie Harrison. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (05) 02579 JAMES AND CANDANCE KEMNA, 1110 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH • VARIANCES, 6:53 p.m. -7:10 p.m. James Kemna, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit an addition to the front of the house and outdoor porch that would encroach further into the 50 foot front yard setback and into the 30 foot side yard setback and variances to permit an addition to the detached garage that encroaches into the 15 foot side yard sef^ack required for accessory structures of 750 to 1000 square feet. Weinberger indicated the lot t insists of approximately one-half acre in the RR-1B zoning district, which has a minimum two a^re lot size. Weinberger staled the addition to the front of the residence would bring the front of the residence approximately 22 feet from the roadway. The entire addition and existing house is within the 50 foot front yard setback and the 35 foot side yard setback. The additional 240 square feel that is proposed would change the footprint of the building to over 750 square feet, which requires that the building must meet the minimum setback to the property line of 15 feet. The variances being requested would permit a front yard setback of 23 feet where 41.1 feet exists and 50 feet is required, and also to permit the addition within the 30 foot side yard setback. The existing house is 8.2 feet from the west lot line. No encroachment closer than 8 feet is proposed. The second variance is to the side yard setback to permit a building over 750 feel. Code requires a 15 foot setback for buildings over 750 square feet. The 24 by 10 foot addition would expand the building to 816 square feet, thus requiring a 15 foot setback. The third variance required would be to permit the building to be located closer to Willow Drive than the average distance of the properties located around it. The intent of the ordinance is to keep the buildings in a conforming look within the neighborhood and not block the view of the adjoining residences by having a residence located closer to the street. Weinberger noted the lots in this area are smaller in size and generally do not meet the front yard setback. This encroachment into the front yard setback would result in a Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) residence significanlly closer to the street than the residences surrounding it. Weinberger stated the proposed addition would not exceed what is allowed for structural coverage and meets the hardcover requirements since the property is located within the shoreland setback area. The Applicant has indicated a hardship due to the growing demands of his family and the need for additional living space as well as the proposed location of the addition being the most logical place for the addition. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances to permit additional structure ahead of the existing setback due to the encroachment into the front yard setback and enhancement of a non-conforming building. Kemna stated he is proposing to construct the addition onto the existing residence iri order to allow room for a dining area, which his present residence does not have. Kemna stated his daughter is visually impaired and is in need of a lab setup ct home, and due to the small size of the bedrooms, they need to add additional living space to the residence. Kemna indicated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project, who are not opposed to the addition. Kemna stated they are proposing the addition in this location to avoid the necessity of rearranging their entire floor plan by going out the back of the house. Kemna stated he would like to expand his garage in an effort to avoid the need for a storage shed. Smith commented the Planning Commission would like the Applicant to be able to address his needs, but noted the Applicant will need to address City Staffs concerns. Kemna stated he could reduce the size of the addition to 18 feet in an effort to reduce the encroachment. Kemna indicated he has no! had any plans prepared due to the costs involved. Kemna stated his residence is located at the end of the road with a number of trees. Kemna noted his property was originally constructed in 1932. Smith recommended the Applicant consider constructing an addition from the rear of the home. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated he is in agreement with Staffs recommendations, particularly in regards to the house. Kemna inquired whether the Planning Commission would be willing to compromise on the size of the structure. Lindquist stated in his view any addition to the house would need to be constructed at the rear of the house in order to preserve the uniformity of the neighborhood and to avoid having a residence located significantly closer to the road than the surrounding residences. Lindquist suggested the Applicant discuss Staffs recommendations with his builder. Kemna indicated if is he required to construct the addition to the rear of his house, he would be forced to change his entire floor plan. Smith suggested the Applicant bring the garage into conformance. Smith indif'^ted »vGuld hac Page 5 * 4 m ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) to see a plan that brings the project closer into compliance with the front and side yard setbacks. Stoddard stated he is in agreement with Lindquist and that the addition needs to comply with City Code as much as possible. Weinberger stated the Applicant would need to meet the 15 foot side yard setback for the garage since the proposed garage is over 750 feet. If the garage is under 750 feet, the Applicant would need to meet a 10 foot setback. Nygard commented he does have a problem with granting the variance since the hardship is supposed to be created by the land. Kemna commented he has a limited amount of land available to work with between the house and the garage. Berg commented she understands the Applicant's dilemma and the difficulty of trying to construct the addition at the rear of the house. Smith pointed out the Applicant will need to consider the possibility that Willow may eventually be widened or have shoulders added, which would lessen the setback from the road to the residence even further. Smith stated the Applicant has the option of having the Planning Commission table this application to allow the Applicant to revise his plans, or vote on the application. Smith noted due to the comments by the Planning Commission members, it appears the application will be denied. Weinberger noted the time limit on this application will not expire prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Weinberger stated the Applicant will need to submit a letter requesting the 60 day time limit be waived in the event he needs more time to develop new plans. Kemna indicated he would like his application to be tabled. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2579, James and Candace Kemna, 1110 Willow Drive South, to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Smith recommended the Applicant work wiih City Staff on these issues. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#2) #2585 THOMAS AND KATHLEEN McCAFFREY, 4265/4355 CHIPPEWA LANE, SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, 7:10 p.m. - 7:28 p.m. Thomas and Kathleen McCaffrey. Applicants, were present. Joyce Shemanek, Neighbor, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to rearrange a common lot line to transfer 1.80 Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May IS, 2000 n Joyce Shemanek, Neighbor, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to rearrange a common lot line to transfer 1.00 (#2585 Thomas McCaffrey, Continued) acres from the property located at 4355 Chippewa Lane to 4265 Chippewa Lane. The existing 4355 parcel is a legal conforming lot consisting of 6.92 acres and having a lot width of 370 feet. The transfer of 1.8 acres will result in a 5.12 acre parcel meeting the minimum lot size for the zoning district. The proposed lot division would transfer approximately 125 feet of frontage to the adjacent parcel, leaving only 245 feet of frontage where 300 feet is required. The second lot is almost one acre in size, with the transfer increasing the lot size to 2.80 acres. The lot would have 327 feet of frontage on Chippewa Lane Weinberger stated with the lot line rearrangement, the buildings would now meet the setback requirements for the zoning district but would continue to be below the minimum lot size for this zoning district. Weinberger stated the lot line rearrangement is being proposed in this location due to the location of some septic sites on the 4265 parcel west of the house. The sites are located within the area to be transferred to the adjacent property. Additional testing was not completed on the property to identify additional sites on the lots. It is possible the septic sites could be relocated to another site on the property. The second parcel also has two septic sites available near the east property line for the 4355 lot. Weinberger noted the proposed lot line rearrangement does not increase the density between the two lots. Under the existing zoning, no future subdivision is possible. The lot would require a variance for lot width since the lot would become substandard. The lot lino rearrangement would result in tho 4355 lot being reduced in lot width to less than 300 feet and make it nonconforming. Weinberger noted some of the other lots in this area do not meet the 300 foot frontage requirement. The Applicants are also proposing to create a ten foot wide walking access to the Luce Line Trail for the 4265 lot. City Code does not address creating lots with walkways to access public land. Weinberger noted they have not heard any opposition to this walkway from the DNR. McCaffrey stated they are attempting with this lot line rearrangement to bring the lots more into compliance with the five acre zoning concept. McCaffrey stated they were only informed of the 300 foot frontage last week, which came as a surprise. McCaffrey stated out of the seven lots on Chippewa Lane, only one complies with the required frontage and one with the required acreage for this zoning district. McCaffrey stated he is unsure what the intent of the frontage requirement is. McCaffrey noted they have spent a considerable amount of money on surveys, title searches, and septic testing on this lot line rearrangement. Smith inquired why the Applicants are proposing to do this lot line rearrangement. McCaffrey stated they wnnt to preserve their natural aesthetics. McCaffrey stated the Shemaneks are planning to retire ^ .o sell their property in the nee future, which would allow for expansion of their lot as well as legal access down to the Luce Line McCaffrey slated they also need to acquire some additional land to the west in order to accommodate a mound septic system in the future. Page? ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 I (#2585 Thomas McCaffrey, Continued) Joyce Shemanek encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this lot line rearrangement, noting they are doing something which will help their neighbor. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist commented that the City will still end up with two non-conforming lots regardless of how the lot is rearranged. Smith inquired whether this would become a flag lot in the future. Weinberger stated based on the existing five aae minimum lot size requirement for subdividing in the RR-1A District, the updated Comprehensive Plan is not proposing any changes to the density in this area. Stoddard noted the Planning Commission has approved a walkway path down to the Luce Line in the past. Weinberger stated the DNR usually has concerns when people propose to remove trees down by the Luce Line in order to construct a walking path and gain access to the trail. Weinberger stated that should not be an issue in this case. Smith commented that the City should be advising Applicants that are proposing to construct a walkway to the Luce Line that they are not entitled to remove any trees or vegetation within the ONR's easement. Weinberger stated the Applicant has been informed of the DNR owned property in this area. Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2585, Thomas and Kathleen McCaffrey and Fred and Joyce Shemanek, 4265 and 4355 Chippewa Lane, for a subdivision lot line rearrangement VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2587 RICHARD R. RUDD, 4575 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUBDIVISION FOR PLATTING A PUBLIC ROAD ADJACENT TO A PROPOSED SIX LOT PLAT LOCATED IN CITY OF MEDINA, 7:29 p.m. - 7:48 p.m. Kris Rudd, Applicant, was present. Weinb(!rger stated the Applicant is proposing to plat a segment of a road that is intended to be a public road over a lot located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard West. The total length of the road located in Orono would be approximately 450 feet, ending in a cul-de-sac at the east end of the property. Weinberger noted this lot is adjacent to the City of Medina. Weinberger stated the entire concept for this development involves having access off of Town Line Road, • /hich is located in the western most part of Orono. with a double road entering the development, going through the Rudd property, and ending in a cul-de-sac Issues relating to access have been raised in the past relating to properties located to the east of the proposed road. Page 8 I .H- >Brr ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May IS, 2000 (#2587 Richard Rudd, Continued) Currentiy the four lots located in Orono are all served by a shared driveway that has existed for some time over the Burlington Railroad. Weinberger stated the road has operated in the past with a license agreement between the railroad and the properties. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether there has ever been legal access given to the property owners, which in essence means the railroad could shut the access down if they so choose. Weinberger indicated the railroad is not proposing to shut the access down at this time, with an objective of Mn/DOT to eliminate direct driveway access to Highway 12. Weinberger stated the proposed road would provide driveway easements to the cu-de-sac, with two lots to the north having access to the road via easements. This option would eliminate the access over the railroad to Highway 12. Mn/OOT is also proposing to close the intersection between Town Line Road and Highway 12 due to safety concerns, which has not been approved at this time. Weinberger stated the proposed road would provide access to a proposed six lot plat in Medina and to the four existing lots in Orono. The Medina property is zoned for single family residential use. which will be served by City sewer and water. No utilities will be extended to properties in Orono. Weinberger stated the City still needs the following information: 1. Final grading and erosion control plan set 2. Stormwater calculations for the drainage area that will drain towards the pond in Orono. 3. List of all easements that are recorded on the Rudd property. 4. Easement documentation indicating legal access to the Slaughter and Hickey properties over the Fraizer property. 5. Final construction plans for the road. 6. Final plat drawing for recording the right-of-way. 7. Applicant shall dedicate to the City an easement for the NURP pond. City Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plans. Rudd stated Weinberger has given a good summary of the issues involved in this application. Jane Slaughter, 4545 Wayzata Boulevard, stated she is in favor of the road but would like to see the road extended somewhat. Slaughter stated she will need to maintain a longer driveway with her neighbor, but is still in favor of the road Slaughter stated the railroad is required to give a 30 day notice if they intend to close that access, which causes some concern because her property would then become legally landlocked if that access is denied. Slaughter commented she has been turned down by 13 title companies because the lease agreement is not legally recognized. Weinberger stated these lots do not have direct access to v^at would be considered a public road, and without the access across the railroad, there is no way to guarantee long-term access to the properties Representatives on behalf of the railroad have indicated they are not in favor of provid ng a permanent easement to open this up as a public entrance due to safety and maintenance issues. Weinberger acknowledged this access does potentially create a hardship for the neighbors in that their properties could eventually become landlocked unless some other access is provided. Weinberger stated the railroad has indicated tiiey aio willing to leave this access open until another access is provided. Weinberger stated it is not the objective of the Planning Commission to discuss long-term access Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2587 Richard Rudd, Continued) to these properties, which is being addressed by the platting of this road. Weinberger stated the issue before the Planning Commission is whether the platting of this road within the development is appropriate. Smith commented that what is being proposed makes sense, noting she is sympathetic to the landowners that could potentially be landlocked unless easements are provided up to this new road. Weinberger stated the property owners would need to obtain private easements from the other property owners to gain driveway access. Smith noted that Lot 4545 would need to obtain an easement from Lot 4555. Weinberger stated they currently do have easements over a portion of that lot, but would be required to obtain additional easements all the way across to Town Line Road prior to the road construction. Smith commented that there appears to be a 20 foot easement already in place connecting to the new road. Slaughter stated there also is a 33 foot easement that exists. Weinberger stated there is documentation showing almost overlapping easements which would provide access back to the property as well. Weinberger stated there apparently is a cartway which exists in this area, which has never been legally recorded and was never used. Weinberger stated there Is a 33 foot easement from 1910 which could provide driveway access as well. Berg inquired what easement Slaughter intends to use, the cartway or the 33 foot easement. Slaughter stated she would use the easement along Town Line. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is simply approving that section of road that is being proposed tonight and does not really have any jurisdiction to hear any other issues relating to easements or the railroad access. Smith commented that there appears to be some options for the property owners relating to access, but noted the Planning Commission is not in a position to hear those matters at this time. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2587, 4575 Wayzata Boulevard. Subdivision for Platting a Public Road Adjacent to a Proposed Six Lot Plat Located in the City of Medina, subject to the seven conditions contained in the May 16, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS. CONTINUED (#6) #2580 TIMOTHY PATTRIN, 1360 RAILROAD AVENUE - VARIANCE, 7:49 p.m. - 7:55 p.m. Timothy Pattrin, Applicant, was present. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2580 Timothy Pattrin, Continued) Bottenberg slated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 624 square foot attached garage addition to the north side of the existing residence. The property is located on the comer of Railroad Avenue and Spates Avenue, with the existing driveway being utilized to provide access to the proposed garage. A variance to the street side yard setback is required to permit a side yard setback of 23 feet where 50 feet is required. The proposed garage will be located 23 feel from Spates Avenue, which is not a heavily traveled street. Bottenberg stated the existing garage will be remodeled into a master bedroom/balh, laundry room and a quarter bath. The property is serviced with a well, which is located on the east side of the residence. The garage will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 9.76 percent where 6.94 exists and 15 percent is allowed, which is well below what is allowed. The garage will also result in an increase of overall hardcover coverage to 29.9 percent where 23.7 percent exists and 35 percent is allowed, which is also below what is allowed. City Staff is recommending approval of the street side yard setback. Pattrin indicated he has no comments regarding his application. There were no public comments relating to this application. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approvai of Appiication #2580, 1360 Raiiroad Avenue, granting of a variance to street side yard setback for property iocated at 1360 Railroad Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2581 JOHN AND KRISTIN GEHRING, 1687 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES, 7:55 p.m. • 8:40 p.m. (Berg is not present In Council Chambers) John and Kristin Gehring, Applicants, were present. Neil Trainor, neighbor, was present, and Tom Palm, neighbor, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to tear down an existing residence and build a new residence in approximately the same location on the lot. The proposal involves moving the new residence back a few feet to be more in alignment with the adjacent properties and bring the residence more into compliance with side yard setbacks and structural lot coverage. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has indicated a desire to work with C*ty Staff on this matter and has submitted a number of plans in order to bring the proposal more in compliance with City Code. A variance to lakeshore setback is required to permit the principal structure to be located 42 feet from the lakeshore where 75 feet is required. A second variance to hardcover in the 0-75 feel setback is also required to permit 26.7 percent hardcover where zero percent is allowed and where 26 3 percent exists. Another variance to hnrrjcovr*r in the 75-250 fool setback is ulso required to permit 26.2 percent of hardcover where 25 percent is allowed and 24 7 percent exists. The new residence will also result in an Increase in structural coverage to 15 percent where 13.4 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 ( (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Staff has indicated to the Applicant that an average lakeshore setback variance is not required; however the location of the proposed residence does not meet DNR minimum recommended standards for General Development Lakes of 50 feet. Gehring stated there are five other properties with approximately the same setback from the lake, and that their request is basically to make their residence stay at the same basic setback. Gehring indicated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project, who have not expressed any concerns. Smith noted a letter has not been received from the DNR regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the DNR has been informed of this application. Bottenberg stated the DNR has been informed of this project and has not expressed any concerns. Gehring stated at the time they constructed their garage in 1995, they did work with City Staff and attempted to put together a comprehensive plan on this property. Gehring commented they were told that their plans for what they were proposing in the future were somewhat irrelevant because they were not in a position to approve everything at that time. Gehring noted they have taken steps in the past to keep hardcover to a minimum, such as reducing the width of the driveway and a smaller width sidewalk, both of which are below standards. Smith inquired at what setback the Applicant is proposing to build his residence. Gehring stated they are proposing to build 42 feet from the lake, which is the average of the two adjoining properties. Gehring stated the property to the south has a ten foot deck plus three foot stairs at the rear of the residence, which reduces the setback to the lake. Tom Palm, 1685 Concordia Street, stated the corner of the house as it exists now is located 1.6 feet from the property line, noting he would be very much in favor of squaring up the house and widening the access to the lake. Palm commented his property was constructed 39 feet from the lake, with a ten foot deck. Palm stated by allowing the Applicant to construct at 42 feet from the lake, it would bring the residence into alignment with the other adjoining properties and improve the drainage in the area. Palm indicated he is in support of this project. Neil Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, indicated he recently purchased this property from his parents who lived in the residence for quite some time. Trainor stated a majority of the problem with the setback has resulted from the lakeshore eroding over the years, noting that approximately ten feet of lakeshore has eroded away over the years. Trainor stated the location for the proposed residence is good due to the alignment with the other adjoining properties. Smith inquired why the Planning Commission did not require Palm to meet the 50 foot setback at the time he constructed his residence in 1995. Palm stated no one was in favor of a two story building, which would block the neighbors' view at the 75 foot setback, so the Planning Commission elected to allow the house to be built at 39 feet to make it more in alignment with the other homes in the area. Stoddard commented he has concerns with the amount of hardcover proposed in the 0-75 foot setback as well as the amount of hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback. Stoddard stated the Page 12 Jl ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2581 John Gehiing, Continued) Applicant may need to look at reducing the amount of hardcover. Gehring inquired whether he was being asked to relocate his garage to reduce hardcover. Smith stated the Planning Commission on new construction generally requires the Applicants to comply with the structural and hardcover requirements. Smith stated the Applicant should attempt to lower the hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback to 25 percent, which is what is typically allowed on new construction. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission should consider whether the hardcover should exceed what is existing in the 0-75 foot setback. Lindquist stated his preference would be to locate as little hardcover as possible in the 0-75 foot setback, but in this case due to the location of the other residences in the neighborhood, it would not be logical to move the house further back from the lake. Lindquist noted the cabins in this area have existed for approximately 100 years. Gehring commented that these lots are all 50 foot lots, which means you are limited in what you can do with the lot. Nygard indicated what creates a hardship is the topography of the land. Stoddard stated he would like to see the residence constructed closer to the lake than the required 75 foot setback due to the location of the other residences in the neighborhood. Stoddard indicated he would like to see the hardcover in the 0-250 foot setback reduced. Stoddard noted this is new construction, and suggested the Applicant consider his options. Gehring commented they have attempted to limit the size of the house while still being able to have four bedrooms. Gehring stated in his view the narrow lot width creates a hardship as well as the high water table, which does not allow for construction of a basement. Stoddard stated the Applicant would be allowed 2,200 square feet of living space under the structural coverage limits. Nygard inquired whether the sidewalk from the garage is necessary. Gehring stated the garage is located 100 yards from the residence. (Berg returns at 8:15 p.m.) Lindquist stated the Applicant is allowed 15 percent structural coverage. Stoddard stated he does not have a problem with the proposed structural coverage but would like to see the amount of proposed tmrdcover reduced in the 0-250 foot setback. Stoddard commented the intent of the hardcover limits is to help protect the shoreland. Stoddard stated the Applicant is allowed 2,212 square feet of hardcover in the first two zones. Nygard commented that people also tend to add additional structure in the future, which the Applicant should also consider. Page 13 f. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Lindquist slated in his view the Applicant should not exceed what is existing now on hardcover and Structural coverage. Gehring stated the residence originally was a cabin and was not constructed as a year-round residence. Gehring stated the residence does not adequately serve a family a four. Gehring stated at the time they built the garage, they were not given much direction from Citv Staff at that time. Mrs. Gehring stated their current house is 30 feet wide along the lakeshore and 44 7 feet deep The proposal IS to build the new residence at 30 feel wide and 45 feet deep, which in essence squares the house and centers it on the lot. ^ Lindquist commented he does not want to see any increase in hardcover or structural coverage over what currently exists, with the residence being lined up with the other residences in the neighborhood. Gehring stated they are requesting an increase of 13 square feet in the 0-75 foot setback and 138 square feet in the 75-250 foot setback, which basically is the size of a small bedroom. of^h^rdrov^r ^d^^rucfura^ Commission^does require other Applicants to reduce the amount Gehring stated they are basically requesting the same amount of hardcover as what exists on the Palm property. Palm noted the Applicants did make attempts to reduce the amount of driveway and sidewalk at the time the garage was constructed. Nygard stated the Applicant will need to address the hardcover and structural coverageissues. Snjth rommented the Planning Commission appears to be comfortable with the 42 foot lakeshore setback, with hardcover being limited to what currently exists. Gehring noted they have reduced the amount of hardcover that exists on the property from what it was when they first purchased the property. ^ Smith stated the Planning Commission can either act on the application tonight or table it to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. Smith commented it appears the application will be denied as proposed. Gehring requested the Planning Commission act on his application tonight. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2581, John and Kristin Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street, based on the plans presented, with the understanding that the application would be approved if the amount of hardcover proposed is reduced from 3,535 square feet to 3,484 square feet VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Berg Abstained. Stoddard recommended the Applicant continue to work with City Staff on this application Stoddard Page 14 u t ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Smith noted the Planning Commission has acted on what is before them tonight. Weinberger commented the City Council may elect to send it back to the Planning Commission if the Applicant submits revised plans. Gehring commented his understanding was that his application would be approved if the hardcover is reduced. Lindquist stated his motion is recommending approval contingent upon the Applicant reducing the amount of structural coverage and hardcover to what is presently existing on the property. Stoddard inquired whether the Planning Commission should reconsider the motion. Nygard moved. Stoddard seconded, to reopen the discussion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Berg Abstained. Gehring requested to amend his appiication to reflect the amount of hardcover currently existing. Smith stated in the past the Planning Commission has recommended approval of applications where there is only a slight reduction in hardcover .or structural coverage required with the understanding the Applicant will work with City Staff to revise his plans to bring it into conformance with the Planning Commission's directives. Smith indicated she would like to poll the Planning Commission members to see whether that would be appropriate in this case. The m^ority of the Planning Commission indicated they would be agreeable to making approval contingent upon a reduction in the amount of hardcover and structural coverage proposed to what currently exists on the property. Stoddard indicated he would not be in favor of making approval continge*' t and would prefer to see the Applicant continue to virark with City Staff prior to approval. Lindquist indicated he would be willing to make a motion to allow 3,404 square feet in hardcover and 2,150 square feet in structural coverage, which is what exists now. Nygard requested the Applica- i the amount of structural coverage on this lot to 2,150 square feet regardless of the locaticri new residence. Gaffron commented the Applicant is looking at reducing approximately 51 square feet of hardcover. Bottenberg stated an error was made in the calculation of hardcover and the amount existing is 3,384 square feet rather than 3,484 square feet. Lindquist noted the amount of hardcover to be reduced would be 151 square feet rather than 51 square feet. Lind(|uist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2581, John and Kristin Gehring, 1687 Concordi.i Street, with the understanding that the new hardcover will not exceed the existing 3,384 square feet and that the structural coverage Page 15 i • ORONO PLA^NING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) will not exceed 2,150 square feet, and to grant a variance to the lakeshore setback to permit the principal structure to be located 42 feet from the lakeshore. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Nygard moved, Stoddard seconded, to rescind the motion recommending denial of this application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Weinberger noted that typically the Planning Commission has required any hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback be applied to the other setbacks. Weinberger inquired whether the approval would be subject to the condition that there would be no further hardcover allowed on this property. Weinberger noted the Applicants are not at the 35 percent maximum amount in the 250-500 foot setback. Smith indicated that a restriction on further hardcover would be a condition of approval. Nygard stated the Applicant will not be allowed any additional hardcover on his property. (#8) #2582 FRANCIS AND SUSAN ANN KOUBSKY, 4784 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES 8:40 p.m. - 8:48 p.m. ' Francis and Susan Koubsky, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to remove the existing access at North Shore Drive and construct a garage/room addition and deck at the northeast corner of the existing residence The deck will replace an existing one that will be removed. Access to the property will now be via Park Avenue (addressed as Tonkaview Lane) along the north lot line due to the steep topography at North Shore Drive which makes access during the winter months a hazard for both the Applicants and the motorists who drive on North Shore Drive. City Staff is recommending the Applicants change their address to Tonkaview Lane with the relocation of the access to the property. Bottenberg noted the garage/room addition meets all required setbacks except for the street setback at the north lot line, which will require a variance to permit a front setback of ten feet where 35 feet is required. Bottenberg noted the structural coverage and hardcover on the lot is increasing but is still below the allowable limits City Staff is recommending approval of the variance for front yard setback and the relocation of access to "Park Avenue ”. Staff is further recommending that the neighborhood erect a nameplate sign on Tonkaview Lane. Smith indicated she did view the site. Mre. Koubsky stated they have real safety concerns in the winter due to their steep driveway and a blind spot that exists, which is tfie reason for the relocation of the access. Koubsky stated the survey shows that the road is located ten feet from the property line, which is incorrect. Page 16 i t. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2582 Francis Koubsky, Continued) Lindquist commented the Planning Commission understands that where the roads are platted are not necessarily where the roads are actually located. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission needs to look at where the platted roads are in determining the setbacks. There were no public comments regarding this application. Nygard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2582, Francis and Susan Ann Koubsky, 4784 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to a front yard setback and relocation of access to "Park Avenue". VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Gaffron stated the neighbors in this area need to look at the issue of addressing, with the residents located on Tonkaview and Park changing their address to a Tonkaview address rather than a North Shore address. Gaffron stated City Staff could send a letter out asking if the residents are interested in making that change. Smith noted that was a staff recommendation which was not included in the motion. Gaffron stated City Staff will pursue this issue further. (#9) #2583 ROXANN BEiSCH, 3436 LIVINGSTON AVENUE • VARIANCES, 8:48 p.m. - Roxann Beisch, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to lemove the existing detached garage and construct a new garage, with the existing garage being located over the rear property line and on the west property line. The Applicant has stated a hardship exists in that the current garage has a dirt floor and is located on the lowest point between the adjacent properties, which causes the garage to become unuseable following a rain storm. In the winter months the ground swells with frost and the doors cannot be opened. Weinberger stated the option of filling in the low portion of the property was discussed, but this option was not pursued since it is the only location between the two properties that collects water runoff and should probably remain in order. The Applicant is proposing to construct the new garage approximately 12 feet off the property line, which places the garage ahead of the low area and allows for a foundation or slab underneath the garage This location would allow the garage to remain dry and shorten the length of the driveway. The garage would be located five feet off the side property line. The logic behind requiring at least a five foot setback is a result of the Code requirement to maintain a minimum setback to all other structures of ten feet. The adjacent garage is currently located three feet off the property line, and if replaced in the future, it should be located five feet from the property line resulting in a ten foot separate between the two buildings. Weinberger stated the proposal would require some additional hardcover on the property for a total of 43.4 percent in the 500-1000 foot lakeshore setback. The Applici>i .t is proposing to remove 328 square feet of hardcover. City Staff is recommending reducing the size of the existing rear deck. Staff is also recommending approval of the application. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2583 Roxann Beisch, Continued) Smith inquired what the dimensions of the garage are. Weinberger stated the proposed garage is 20 by 14 feet or 280 square feet. Weinberger pointed out that this lot is not as deep as the other lots in the area. Smith inquired whether the new garage would be adjacent to th" oarage on the other property. Weinberger stated the new garage would be located further up from the other garage. Beisch stated the front of the garage is even with the overhang on the back side of her house. Beisch stated she does have a question relating to the side yard setback, noting the garage would still be 18 feet from the adjoining residence if it was located three feet from the property line. Smith stated the City needs to maintain proper distances between structures in order to allow for entergency vehicle access. Beisch indicated her back door is in the middle of the deck, and if the deck is reduced to the size requested, it would only leave her 19 inches to step out and go down the steps. Weinberger stated it is calculated to be approximately 4.5 feet wide from the edge of the deck to the house. Beisch stated she would be okay with that. There were no public comments regarding this application. Beisch noted the adjoining property owner will be constructing a new driveway, which will drain the water towards her property. Lindquist suggested the City Engineer review the drainage in this area Beisch inquired whether the five foot side yard setback could be reduced. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require the five feet side yard setback. Smith commented that the Planning Commission appears to be in favor of the five feet rather than the three feet side yard setback. Beisch indicated she was fine with the five feet. Weinberger commented the adjoining property owner was attempting to utilize the existing footprint and had some other setback issues in the ba<^ yard. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2583, 3436 Livingston Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit construction of a one-stall detached garage to be located five feet from the property line based on Applicant's statement of hardship, and subject to the size of the rear deck being reduced to the size indicated on the site plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 18 • I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#10) #2584 ANDREW AND TRACY RASCHER, 4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES. 9:05 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. Andrew and Tracy Rascher, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to replace an existing retaining wall and install two additional retaining walls within the 0-75 foot setback. Since retaining walls are considered hardcover, a variance is needed for hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback area. Bottenberg indicated the proposal would be inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, with the City Engineer recommending that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is the City Engineer's opinion that the retaining walls can be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances and conditional use permit for repair of the existing retaining walls in the 0-75 foot setback area, but denial of the proposed new retaining walls based on the goals and policies cited in the City of Orono’s Community Management Plan. Jeremy Bakken, Builder, stated due to the slope of the back yard all the way down to the lake and the old deteriorating condition of the existing walls, in his opinion it would be more cost effective to build new walls rather than repair the existing walls. Bakken stated the amount of grading involved in the repair is equal to that which would occur with construction of the new walls. Bakken stated the existing walls are not controlling the drainage and are unsafe. Rascher commented they would like to replace the existing walls due to the fact they are very unstable and do not do the job they were initially constructed to do. Rascher stated they would like to build some retaining walls which are more stable. Smith inquired whether they have had a chance to look at the letter from the City Engineer. Bakken stated they are not proposing to change the existing grade until they get closer to the lake. Bakken stated he would not recommend limestone walls since they need to be replaced periodically and tend to be unstable over time. Mrs. Rascher stated they are attempting to reduce the amount of erosion into the lake, noting that currently nothing is being filtered at this point. Rascher commented the current condition of the steps are unsafe due to the nails which are exposed in the timbers and the unstableness of the flagstone walls. Rascher stated they would like to have a safe access to the lake and remove the safety hazard that currently exists due to the fact they have a young child who will be in this area. Smith stated she can appreciate the safety concerns and the fact that flagstone steps tend to become tippy over time. Smith stated the City of Orono does want people to have safe access to the lake, but that there are some limits that must be imposed on what people can construct. Smith stated since she is not an engineer, she cannot comment on the structural issues but that the Planning Commission tends to take into account the recommendations of the City Engineer when deciding what is acceptable. Rascher stated they are proposing to decrease the steepness of the slope. Smith stated there are other lots in Orono with steep slopes, and that the Planning Commission must look at the recommendations of the City Engineer. Smith commented she has visited the site and is not totally convinced new retaining walls are needed. Smith stated the City likes to encourage residents to keep the area as natural as possible and to limit construction down by the Page 19 ■'1 IL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2584 Andrew Rascher, Continued) lake. Smith commented the Planning Commission must look at what it will take to maintain what is existing and how to provide safe access down to the lake with a minimal amount of construction. Smith stated it is the policy of the City to stay away from a lot of terraced walls and to leave the area as natural as possible. Lindquist stated he is not capable of determining whether what currently exists is right or whether the retaining walls should be replaced. Lindquist stated he does have a problem with retaining walls being located in the 0-75 foot setback as a general rule, and suggested the Applicants speak with the City Engineer to see if something can be worked out which will be acceptable to all parties. Lindquist stated he would be hard pressed to go against the recommendations of the City Engineer. Lindquist suggested the matter be tabled to allow the Applicants time to discuss this matter further with the City Engineer. Smith commented that the engineering issues should perhaps be explored further, and agreed that the Applicants should perhaps speak with the City Engineer to discuss his recommendations. Weinberger stated the City Engineer will speak with the Applicant if so desired. Weinberger suggested the Applicants contact Wendy to arrange a meeting with the City Engineer. Mrs. Rascher inquired what would happen if the application is tabled. Smith stated the Applicants would probably reappear before the Planning Commission at their June meeting if they are able to resolve the issues. Smith stated the Applicants could request additional time if so needed by submitting a letter asking for an extension of the time limit. Bottenberg indicated the 60 day time limit expires on June 19lh, which is the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Rascher requested the application be tabled at this time. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to tabie Appiication #2584, Andrew and Tracy Rascher, 4705 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 24, 2000 AND MAY 8, 2000 Nygard indicated he was unable to attend the April 24, 2000 City Council meeting. Smith commented she is not aware of who attended the May 8th meeting. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Lindquist reported that Hawn and himself attended a breakfast meeting on Planned Unit Developments, v^rhich tended to be geared around California rather than Minnesota. Lindquist stated he was disappointed with the meeting since most of the material covered did not relate to this area. Smith inquired whether the joint meeting with Long Lake was discussed as the previous Planning Commission meeting. Gaffron stated he has not heard back on a new meeting date, noting he has not assembled the requested information at this point in time. Gaffron stated a work session will need to be scheduled to discuss this item further. The Planning Commission directed Gaffron to schedule a work session for Friday, May 26th at 8:00 am. Stoddard commented he would still like City Staff to pursue the possibility of having a consent agenda at the Planning Commission level. Smith suggested this item be added to the work session agenda. Gaffron commented that perhaps the agenda could bo rearranged to have the less controversial items towards the beginning of the meeting. Gaffron stated City Staff could do a review of the items before the agenda is set. Smith requested this item be set on the work session agenda. (#“ ') PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 17. 2000 Lindquist moved. Nygard seconded, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 17,2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 22. 2000 AND JUNE 12. 2000 May 22 - Stoddard June 12 - Smith ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved. Berg seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m, Sandra Smith, Acting Chair Page 21 \ * -V GITYofORONO Municipal Offices \ '»v . O Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Fire Marshal Activity Report June 15.2000 Buildings or properties with pending fire code violations. Washington Scientific Incorporated - 2605 West Wayzata Blvd. Key box installation COiiMr'M xxpet INQ JUN ^ 6 2000 Cl IY ur unureu Orono Self- Serve - 2160 West Wayzata Blvd. Vehicle protection, propane tank Flamingo Wire - 2687 West Wayzata Blvd. code violations, re-inspection by 6/30/00 VCI Capital Building - 2765 West Wayzata Blvd. code violations, storage area, letter pending Day Care - good Shepherd Church - 3745 Shoreline Drive con^laint, inspection 6/7/00, letter pending New Horizon Day Care - 875 West Wayzata Blvd. new fire alarm panel installation Other fire code related projects - New Orono Middle School New Addition-Orono High School Jimmy's Lounge LaFayett Club - Mtka. Beach Telephone (6U) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 Metropolitan Council mA Working for the Region, Planning for the Future June 5,2000 Gabriel Jabbour Mayor City of Orono PO box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323-0066 CniiK«/^ii i»/icetING JUN 2 6 2000 Cl l Y ur UhOjvu Dear Mayor Jabbour: On May 24, the Metropolitan Council approved grants to local units of government to support affordable housing development, home improvement programs and new construction residential redevelopment efforts. These grants are fUnded through the Council ’s Livable Communities Local Housing Incentives and Inclusionary Housing Accounts. We are pleased to inform you that the city of Orono has been awarded a grant of $32,000 for the Navarre Affordable Homeownership Program. This grant's one of eleven the Council approved in the first LCA fimding cycle of 2000. Through the Livable Communities Local Housing Incentives and Inclusionary Housing accounts, the Council, in the first four years of the LCA, has approved 30 housing grants to 21 communities totaling about $4.64 million. These funds have helped to build 598 new rental units, 465 of which are affordable to lower income households, and to rehabilitate 412 rental units, build 259 new affordable houses and rehabilitate 100 more. The Metropolitan Council is excited about working with local communities through the Livable Communities programs. The Minnesota Legislature created the Livable Communities Act in 1995 to link jobs, housing and transit in the region. Woricing in partnership we know we can build better communities and a stronger region that will provide continued good quality of life for all our citizens Congratulations on the award of this grant. Do not hesitate to contact us whenever you wish to discuss regional issues. Metropolitan Council Member, District 3 '\METC.rsr OATAUSERSSHAR£&tlBIUR V'COMMUSDV#ETEASON'iOW«31 SooOrooo due 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Mtnnfsola 551011620 (651)602-1000 Fax602 l550 TOD/TTV291 0904 Metro Info Une 602-1888 An Equal OpporruniTy Etnploper Cniiwr'U JUN 26 2000 quY IM'« COME ONE COME ML! SATURDAY - JULY 0.2000 } ► DEEPHAVEN CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION TIME EVENT LOCATION 07:00 a.m. • 09:30 a.m.Family Fun Run Starting from City Hall, finishing No registration necessary at Deephaven Elementary School 07:00 a.m. -11:00 a.m.Community Pancake Breakfast City Hall 10:00 a.m. • 04:00 p.m.Historic House Tours Departs every half hour -Advance tickets available now at Americana State Bank. Any remaining tickets available day of event at city hall. from SL Th jrese. 10:00 a.m - 04:00 p.m.Minnehaha Steam Boat Rides Departs every hour from Advance tickets available now at Carson’s Bay Yacht Club Americana State Bank. Any remaining Landing •tickets available day of event at city hall. 05:00 p.m. • 6:00 p.m.Awards / Thank You*s/ Salute to Veterans City Hall ESPECIALLY FOR KIOSH ^ nooo Sports ChaHange ALL DAY AT CITY HAIl ART FESTIVAL FOOD STANDS ANTIQUE CAR SHOW SOUVENIRS SELF-GUIDED WALKING/GARDEN TOUR ON STAGE AT CITY HALLI 10:00-11:00 City Play 11:00-01:00 Los Alagras Mariachi 01:00-02:00 Matterhorn Brass Quintet 05:45 - 06:00 Mtka Sr. High Students/Deephaven School Song 06:00 - 06:30 Minnetonka Clippers > 06:30-10:00 Rockin’ Hollyv/oods ' office of the i\(ayor •V » r / : 1 ' * \ \ June 19, 2000 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Gabriel: Established July 9,1900, the City of Deephaven will be celebrating its 100**’ year anniversary on Saturday, July 8, 2000. I would like to personally invite you, your fellow council members, staff, and family and friends to join us for our Centennial Celebration. I enclose a schedule of events, which includes activities for all ages. It promises to be a wonderful day. I hope to see you there. Best personal regards, Howard F. Bennis Mayor, City of Deephaven HFB:wb Enclosu*’e City Offices: 20225 Cotta^ewoody^ffCiJ, ’Deephaven, ^(innesota 55J31 [952) 474-4755 ’/a^i(952)474-12i 4 i